Courtesy of Lewis & Clark
Lewis & Clark Professor of Anthropology and Asian Studies Jennifer Hubbert, a long-time scholar of state-society relations and critical voice in contemporary gun culture research, had her National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) grant abruptly terminated earlier this month. The termination follows the Trump administration’s dismantling of the NEH, with the agency claiming it will repurpose cancelled funding “in a new direction in furtherance of the president’s agenda.” The decision — delivered with no prior warning — has sparked outrage in academic circles and raised fresh concerns over the politicization of federal research funding under the current administration.
On April 2, the College received a sudden notice from Michael McDonald, acting chair of the NEH, terminating a $75,000 grant awarded for Professor Hubbert’s research. Citing “reasonable causes” under 2 CFR§200.340, the letter claimed the grant “no longer effectuates the agency’s needs and priorities,” attributing the decision to the new fiscal direction of the president’s agenda. However, according to Julia Unangst, assistant vice president of Sponsored Projects and Research Compliance (SPARC), the letter was sent from a non-NEH email address allegedly linked to the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), and identical notices were issued to NEH grant recipients nationwide.
Hubbert’s Hubbert’s research was initially rooted in decades of ethnographic work in China. Her work in this field was limited by political suppression from the Chinese government.
“China has gotten really difficult to do research for non-Chinese researchers,” Hubbert said in an interview with The Mossy Log. “The government has really cracked down on the production of knowledge … People I’d known for decades were getting quite fearful about contact.”
With ethical and logistical challenges mounting abroad, Hubbert began turning her analytical lens inward. Her research evolved during the COVID-19 pandemic into a domestic inquiry into gun ownership, particularly among liberal Americans.
“I started reading about this uptick in gun ownership in the United States,” she said, noting a historic spike in sales beginning in March of 2020. “One of the things that was quite interesting about this demographic was that it was atypical gun owners — women, people of color and political liberals.”
This shift in demographics spurred a proposal to the NEH’s “Dangers and Opportunities of Technology” grant initiative. Hubbert’s focus was liberal gun owners — a community historically overlooked in both academic literature and media narratives in the realm of gun ownership.
“There’s virtually no research done on anybody with any kind of political left-leaning bent who owns a gun,” Hubbert said. “Liberals have owned guns for a long time … The Black Panthers were big gun owners. Their protest on the Capitol in Sacramento is what prompted a lot of the contemporary gun control movement.”
After securing the NEH grant, Hubbert interviewed nearly 70 liberal gun owners, receiving both a summer research salary and two course releases to focus on her project.
“It was really fabulous,” she said. “I’ve been able to do all the research for this and write about a quarter of the book.”
SPARC — the office tasked with handling grants at LC — has stated, “The College will follow the process described in the Terms and Conditions of the original award to appeal the termination.”
In the wake of these sweeping funding cuts, the Oregon delegation has publicly denounced the administration’s actions, and the College is actively working with other Oregon institutions to coordinate a collective response to the threats facing humanities research.
According to Hubbert, the grant cancellation was not targeted.
“They didn’t go line-item, cancel all these grants and say, ‘We don’t like this topic.’ They just canceled all of them,” Hubbert said. “They just decided the entire institution — NEH — was going against whatever the President’s agenda is.”
The revocation is a blow, not only to Hubbert but to LC itself.
“What this means now is that LC isn’t getting any of this money,” she said. “For a small liberal institution that is tuition-driven, it’s really harmful.”
Fortunately, Hubbert is nearing the end of her research timeline, and most of her data has been collected.
“In that sense, I’m one of the lucky ones,” she said. “For people who were just starting projects, it’s devastating.”
But for Hubbert, the consequences go beyond individual hardship.
“My irritation and anger about it is less what it means on my own behalf, but what it means for the dumbing down of the production of knowledge,” she said. “An administration is basically saying: ‘We’re not producing knowledge anymore.’ You don’t get knowledge without research.”
Her project, which has aimed to broaden the conversation around gun violence, directly challenges conventional narratives.
“Most of the research on guns is about what happens after the gun gets used for violence. Almost all of the literature is dominated by criminology and public health studies,” Hubbert said.
Hubbert’s research flips the lens, examining why politically left-leaning Americans are increasingly choosing to arm themselves and how their experiences can reshape policy discourse.
“Liberals will back up and say, ‘We have a problem with gun violence, and we’re absolutely willing to admit this.’ But banning a single type of gun doesn’t solve 99% of the violence,” Hubbert said.
Instead, she says, liberal gun owners point to root causes of violence — systemic inequalities, failing public infrastructure and lack of mental health support — rather than mass reduction of gun ownership.
“It’s about looking at structural inequality and why violence happens,” she said. “People turn to violence because they don’t have good schools, jobs or places to live.”
Hubbert is adamant that her findings could lead to more inclusive and effective solutions.
“The more voices we have at the table, the better. Liberal gun owners are advocating for gun rights, but also for meaningful violence prevention policies. That kind of nuance is exactly what’s missing in our political discourse,” Hubbert said.
She is not alone in her concern that this grant termination is part of a broader pattern under the Trump administration.
“They basically came in and said the NEH was doing wasteful research, and they cut people’s credit cards down to a $1 limit so they couldn’t even buy lab supplies,” she said. “That’s just petty.”
“They’ve just decided that entire institutions are going against the President’s agenda,” she said. “Which clearly isn’t an agenda — except one that’s about power, and throwing that power around and seeing where it lands.”
Despite the grant’s revocation, Hubbert has found strong support within her academic community. While the financial damage is real, Hubbert is determined to complete her work.
“The research is done. I just need to finish writing the book,” she said.
Her message is clear: the suppression of humanities research is not just a budgetary issue — it is a democratic one.
“When you cut out all that research, the only thing that’s left is political ideology as a determinant for how policy gets structured,” she said. “This is about cutting out any ability to create knowledge about problems we have.”
Amid increasing polarization in public discourse, Hubbert’s study highlights the potential for dialogue and understanding across political divides, suggesting that opportunities for connection remain — even in a deeply divided climate.
About the Author
