Optimism Bias and the Underestimation of Systemic Threats in Trump's Second Term
By Grok under the supervision of Dr. Christopher Williams
Optimism bias, a cognitive tendency where individuals underestimate the likelihood of negative outcomes affecting them personally, has profound implications for how institutions and communities perceive and respond to systemic threats. This bias was particularly evident in the transition from Donald Trump’s first presidency (2017-2021, referred to as Trump 1.0) to his second term beginning in 2025 (Trump 2.0). During Trump 1.0, proposed policy changes, such as cuts to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) budget, were often mitigated by congressional intervention, fostering a sense of security among affected sectors. However, Trump 2.0 introduced aggressive policy shifts that significantly impacted biomedical research, elite universities like Harvard, and broader scientific agendas, as outlined in the conservative policy blueprint Project 2025. This essay analyzes how optimism bias contributed to the underestimation of these systemic threats, focusing on three key areas: NIH funding, targeted policies against Harvard University, and the implementation of Project 2025’s agenda. By examining these cases, we highlight the dangers of optimism bias in policy anticipation and the need for proactive risk assessment.
NIH Funding: From Stability to Shock
Trump 1.0: A Pattern of Proposed Cuts and Congressional Overrides
During Trump’s first term (2017-2021), the administration consistently proposed reductions to the NIH budget, a critical lifeline for biomedical and public health research. For instance, in fiscal year 2021, the Trump administration requested $39.1 billion for the NIH, a 16% reduction from the previous year’s $41.7 billion budget (US election 2020: research and health institutions - PMC). However, Congress rejected these proposals each year, approving increases instead. By 2020, NIH funding reached $41.7 billion, reflecting a steady upward trend (NIH Funding during the first Trump Administration - FreeMind Group). This pattern of proposed cuts being overturned created a perception within the biomedical research community that NIH funding was resilient to political threats. As Matt Hourihan, director at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, noted, “There’s been a fairly unified message from Congress that these kinds of funding reductions are unacceptable” (US election 2020: research and health institutions - PMC).
Biden Administration (2021-2024): Continued Stability
Following Trump’s first term, the Biden administration (2021-2024) maintained or increased NIH funding, reinforcing this sense of stability. In fiscal year 2024, Congress allocated approximately $47.1 billion to the NIH, a figure described as essentially flat but still reflecting continued support (Final NIH budget for 2024 is essentially flat | Science | AAAS). Biden’s budget requests for 2025 proposed further increases, with estimates suggesting a rise to $48.7 billion (Biden’s lean science budget could mean tough choices for agencies | Science | AAAS). During this period, the biomedical and public health research industrial complex operated under the assumption that funding would remain robust, supported by bipartisan congressional backing and a focus on advancing research initiatives like ARPA-H (NIH Funding during the first Trump Administration - FreeMind Group).
Trump 2.0: A Dramatic Shift
The landscape changed dramatically with Trump’s reelection and the onset of his second term in 2025. Unlike the first term, where proposed cuts were consistently blocked, Trump 2.0 saw significant reductions in NIH funding. Reports indicate that within the first three months of 2025, NIH grants were cut by $2.3 billion to $2.7 billion, severely disrupting the federal-academia partnership that drives biomedical innovation (NIH grants plummeted $2.3 billion in Trump’s first months, Trump administration cut $2.7 billion in NIH research funding through March). Additionally, the NIH implemented a drastic reduction in indirect cost rates on grants from an average of 27% to 15%, further straining research institutions (NIH plans to slash support for indirect research costs). These cuts led to lab closures, layoffs, and a significant setback for scientific progress, as noted by Ted Mitchell of the American Council on Education, who reported that some labs began shutting down immediately after the cuts were announced (Trump administration to cut billions from biomedical research funding).
Optimism bias likely played a critical role in the biomedical research community’s underestimation of these threats during the 2021-2024 period. The consistent congressional overrides of proposed cuts during Trump 1.0, coupled with stable or increasing funding under Biden, fostered a belief that NIH funding was insulated from significant reductions. Researchers and institutions may have assumed that even if Trump were reelected, the same pattern would hold—Congress would intervene, or the cuts would be mitigated. This overconfidence, rooted in past experiences, led to a failure to anticipate the aggressive policy shifts of Trump 2.0. The research community’s optimism bias manifested as an underestimation of the political will and capacity to enact substantial cuts, leaving them unprepared when these reductions materialized. As NIH Director Monica Bertagnolli warned in 2024, referencing past cuts, “The funding level of grants goes down. Junior people see this. They decide: ‘Why would I go into biomedical research?’” (NIH braces for funding cut - POLITICO). This statement underscores the long-term consequences of such underestimation, which optimism bias exacerbated.
Harvard University: A Target Underestimated
Trump 1.0: Early Signs of Conflict
During Trump’s first term, Harvard University faced scrutiny from the administration, notably through a 2018 lawsuit backed by the Department of Justice alleging discrimination against Asian-American applicants in admissions. This action signaled a broader tension between the Trump administration and elite universities, often perceived as liberal strongholds. However, these conflicts were relatively contained, with no direct impact on Harvard’s federal funding or operational autonomy. The university’s ability to navigate these challenges likely reinforced a sense of resilience among its leadership and faculty.
Trump 2.0: Escalating Attacks
In Trump 2.0, the administration escalated its actions against Harvard, targeting its research funding and international student enrollment. In April 2025, Harvard rejected demands from the Trump administration that threatened $9 billion in research funding, with President Alan Garber asserting, “The University will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights” (Harvard won’t comply with Trump administration’s demands — Harvard Gazette). The administration also froze over $2 billion in research grants and contracts, citing Harvard’s alleged failure to address antisemitism on campus (As Trump targets elite schools, Harvard's president says they should 'stand firm' - NPR). Additionally, efforts were made to revoke Harvard’s ability to enroll international students, affecting approximately 6,800 students, or over a quarter of its student body (What Trump’s legal and political clash with Harvard means for higher education | PBS News). The administration further directed federal agencies to cancel or redirect about 30 contracts with Harvard, worth approximately $100 million (Trump administration targets Harvard again, aims to end all federal contracts - The Washington Post).
Optimism Bias and Harvard’s Response
Harvard’s leadership and the broader academic community likely underestimated the severity of these threats due to optimism bias. The university’s experience during Trump 1.0, where challenges were manageable, and the relative stability under Biden’s administration may have led to a belief that such extreme measures were unlikely to be fully implemented or could be countered through legal or political means. As Garber noted in 2025, “No government—regardless of which party is in power—should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue” (The Promise of American Higher Education - Harvard University President). This defiant stance, while principled, suggests a possible underestimation of the administration’s resolve. The failure to “shout from the rooftop” before 2025, as suggested, indicates that optimism bias may have delayed proactive advocacy or preparation, leaving Harvard vulnerable when the policies were enacted. The broader higher education community also expressed shock, with college leaders noting that the move against Harvard signaled a larger threat to academic autonomy (Universities See Trump’s Harvard Move as a Threat to Them, Too - The New York Times).
Project 2025: A Blueprint Ignored
The Public Nature of Project 2025
Project 2025, a comprehensive policy agenda developed by the Heritage Foundation and other conservative organizations, was publicly available before Trump’s reelection in 2024. It outlined specific plans to restructure federal agencies, including the NIH, by making it easier to fire employees, eliminating diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, and capping indirect cost rates for research grants (Project 2025 - Wikipedia). The project also suggested converting NIH’s grants budget into block grants to state governments, a significant shift in funding allocation (Project 2025 Outlines Possible Future for Science Agencies - AIP.ORG). These proposals were explicit, with the Heritage Foundation’s Mandate for Leadership advocating for reforms to address perceived political bias in agencies like the NIH (Mandate for Leadership | A Product of The Heritage Foundation).
Implementation in Trump 2.0
In Trump’s second term, many of Project 2025’s recommendations were implemented. The NIH’s indirect cost rate was slashed to 15%, aligning with the project’s suggestion to cap rates at the lowest accepted by private organizations (Trump administration to cut billions from biomedical research funding). Additionally, the administration’s actions against Harvard, such as targeting its international student enrollment, reflected Project 2025’s broader aim to curb the influence of elite institutions perceived as liberal. The public nature of these plans, combined with their eventual implementation, underscores the failure to adequately prepare for their impact.
Optimism Bias and Dismissal of Warnings
Despite the public availability of Project 2025, optimism bias likely led stakeholders in the biomedical and academic communities to underestimate the likelihood of its implementation. The research community may have viewed the proposals as extreme or improbable, assuming that political or legal barriers would prevent their enactment. Similarly, universities like Harvard might have believed that their prestige and influence would shield them from such policies. This overconfidence mirrors the psychological paralysis depicted in Get Out, where victims are lulled into a false sense of security, and aligns with Public Health Liberation theory’s concept of illiberation, where internalized complacency stifles resistance. The failure to act on these clear warnings, as suggested by the notion that “it was no secret,” highlights how optimism bias contributed to unpreparedness when Trump 2.0 policies took effect.
Comparative Analysis: Trump 1.0 vs. Trump 2.0
Aspect | Trump 1.0 (2017-2021) | Trump 2.0 (2025)
NIH Funding | Proposed annual cuts, but Congress increased funding (e.g., $41.7 billion in FY 2020). | Significant cuts implemented ($2.3-$2.7 billion in early 2025); indirect costs slashed to 15%.
Harvard Policies | Limited actions (e.g., DOJ-backed lawsuit on admissions). | Aggressive measures: $9 billion funding threat, international student enrollment targeted.
Project 2025 Influence | No equivalent public policy blueprint; policies less coordinated. | Publicly available agenda implemented, targeting NIH and elite universities.
Optimism Bias Impact
Fostered belief that threats were manageable due to congressional overrides.
Led to underestimation of policy implementation, resulting in unpreparedness.
This table illustrates the stark contrast between the two terms and the role of optimism bias in amplifying the impact of Trump 2.0’s policies.
