Imagine canceling Albert Einstein right before he discovered E equals MC squared. That's exactly what happened to UCLA's Terrence Tao, the so called Mozart of mathematics when the Trump administration abruptly axed his research funding. The official story came from political fallout related to alleged anti Semitism at ucla. The real story, hundreds of millions of dollars have been lost for pure science. Today I'm walking and talking with Professor Terence Tao himself in part one of a special two part series with this famed and decorated mathematician. Today we'll unpack how the world's most famous mathematic went from solving equations to battling bureaucracy and why the future of American research depends on what happens next. Stay tuned and make sure you're subscribed so you don't miss part two of our special sit down conversation with Terrence Tao. Coming soon.
Something went wrong!
Hang in there while we get back on track
The INTO THE IMPOSSIBLE Podcast
Terry Tao “Trump CUT My Funding.” Here's how I am going to react. - Dr Brian Keating (1080p, h264, youtube).mp4
Speaker
Brian Keating
Speaker
Brian Keating
Speaker
Terence Tao
00:00 "Sudden Funding Suspension Disrupts Research" 05:37 "Federal Funding Fuels Science Ecosystem" 06:39 Unpredictable Research Funding Challenges 11:55 "PDEs, Problems, and Motivation" 14:13 "Terence Tao on Math & Politics"
✨ Magic Chat
Don't have time for the full episode?
Ask anything about this conversation — get answers in seconds, sourced from the transcript.
Try asking
Featured moments
Highlights
“the situation on campus funding that was cut not only for you, but for many members of the UCLA community.”
“Disrupted Research Funding "Now funding that was approved has been suspended or canceled. New grants are definitely being cut. There are more hurdles now to get foreign visitors to visit or immigrate to the US but here at UCLA there was a unirado cut to all NSF and NIH funding was suspended a few months ago, including my own personal grant, for instance, but also the math institute that I'm involved in, iPam, we use this grant to run our operations.”
“Sudden Grant Suspension Shocks Research Community Quote: "This round is very different. I mean, there's really no consultation and there's no effort to try to do the least harm possible.”
“in 2024 there was a large encampment here as there was at UCSD here. It lasted significantly longer. As I understand it. That was sort of the rationale for suspension of funding for miscompliance with Title 6.”
“Grant Proposals Rejected Over Word Choice: "For example, many math projects involve inequalities and we've had grant proposals cancelled because the word inequality is suddenly not a good word to use in a grant proposal.”
Timeline
How it unfolded
Read along
Full transcript
So Terry, you wrote this very interesting and powerful blog post recently about the situation on campus funding that was cut not only for you, but for many members of the UCLA community. Can you give us the story on that?
Yeah. So it's been a very chaotic six months. In general, I think we've been accustomed to a very stable and predictable environment here in the United States where we rely a lot on federal funding to do our research to support our next generation of researchers. But a lot of rules have changed. It almost seems like the making of the rules as they go along. Now funding that was approved has been suspended or canceled. New grants are definitely being cut. There are more hurdles now to get foreign visitors to visit or immigrate to the US but here at UCLA there was a unirado cut to all NSF and NIH funding was suspended a few months ago, including my own personal grant, for instance, but also the math institute that I'm involved in, iPam, we use this grant to run our operations.
And we are set to run several major programs where we have many researchers from different fields come and talk to each other and we had to scramble to find emergency funding because suddenly the grant that we were using and which had just been renewed was suspended without any notice and not for any scientific reason. I mean, so it was said that the entire university was not compliant with something else and they were just collectively basically imposing penalties on, on the entire, on all the activities here. So I mean, cuts are not unprecedented. In the past we've had budget cuts to the NSF and other funding agencies, but we get, usually there's like a year or so of notice and we work with the agencies to sort of structure the funding so that you can get the most science out of the least disruption. But this round is very different. I mean, there's really no consultation and there's no effort to try to do the least harm possible.
Do you feel like it was like intentionally targeting you specifically? I know your colleague Judea Pearl here. I don't know him personally, but I know he was also obviously quite involved in the Jewish community at ucla. And we should note for the listeners that might not be familiar, in 2024 there was a large encampment here as there was at UCSD here. It lasted significantly longer. As I understand it. That was sort of the rationale for suspension of funding for miscompliance with Title 6. And what do you make of that? Do you think it was an excuse? You've been critical of Trump, I think for a while. But what do you make of the.
Is it a pretext?
I don't pretend to understand their motive, thinking it doesn't seem targeted to any specific person. I think they're just making changing the rules as they see fit. And in many cases there isn't a semblance of a long term plan. So yeah, I mean, there are other cases where grants have been cancelled just because there was a keyword. For example, many math projects involve inequalities and we've had grant proposals cancelled because the word inequality is suddenly not a good word to use in a grant proposal. I mean, so there's often not any discernible reasoning behind this. There may be impossible decisions that have not really been thought out. I mean, again, this is another change with previous administrations.
Normally there's a process. If you want to adjust the budget of an agency, you may go through Congress and maybe you get the budget office to do some projections. And these are just decisions that are made very quickly with no public input, not even congressional input in many ways. And so you have all these collateral. So there's a lot of collateral damage, which maybe I don't know if it's intentional or maybe they just don't care, but they're not following sort of the standard due process that we've been accustomed to.
When we think about the models of funding we take for granted now that the federal government supports math and physics, but that wasn't always the case. In fact, Galileo was supported by patrons Simons foundation supports tremendous amount of math research, autism, physics, et cetera. Do you think that we need a new model? This model has been around since the 1940s with the Benavar, Bush's endless frontier. Do you think you know that there is an argument to be made by people that say, well, why should. Terence Tao is doing foundational work in mathematics, why should most of his grant money go not to him, but to the university? Fringe benefits idc, which then can maybe support things that aren't related to the mathematics that you're trying to break ground with.
Right. So mathematics, the way sciences in general, they're part of a broad ecosystem. So you do have these high profile researchers. And I personally I could possibly get my own funding from private sources. Where federal funding really makes an impact is in sort of providing the broader, long term stable environment where you can get students to get attracted to common work in science and have some guarantee of predictable ability to get funding and have some ability to do research before they've made a big name and before they can attract their own funding. We have in the past, we have this great ecosystem where we have the federal funding as the base. And then there is this industry and philanthropy which can provide more targeted and flexible funding for specific projects. I think it's only the federal government has the scale and the long term commitments.
If you rely on a patron or an individual philanthropy, maybe they'll fund you for a year or two. But there was no real predictability that it would last. You'd always have to keep renewing it. Now the same is true for the funding agencies. But there, at least there was a very well established process and we've had decades of. We had practices which have been honed over the years and we kind of know what they want, they know what we can offer and it's worked very well until the last year when a lot of the institutional practices and norms, much of what's going on now is not sort of consistent with any past policy of the NSF or. Yeah, so you need some ability to do long term planning because many research projects you need to hire postdocs, say for three years or graduate students for four years. And it's a big commitment to have to move to a different state, say and have people set up.
So you need funding that is predictable over that kind of timescale. And if every year you're fundraising for just this year's budget, you can't do that.
Right. It's very unstable. And long term, really sustainable is a big keyword. As you said, these projects take many years, decades sometimes to come to fruition. You know, look, you're studying prime, you know, twin pairs of primes, they come on, they don't have any relevance to the real world. Why should, you know, auto worker in Ohio, you Know, why should he or she pay taxes to support something that's, you know, literally pie in the sky? What do you say to people like that that don't appreciate and have that love and passion that we do for basic, you know, fundamental blue sky research? Yeah.
So, I mean, every technology pretty much that people use these days, if you look under the hood, there was some basic mathematical advance that powered it. The fact that cell phones just work, even when there's many cell phones in the same location, there's no interference. There's a lot of mathematics that goes into making that work. The fact that you can have a teleconference with somebody across the country and the signal is pretty good. There's a lot of image compression, there's a lot of mathematics that goes into that. As we talked about before, the fact that cryptography just works is because we know enough about prime numbers that cryptographers don't choose bad algorithms that are kind of easily defeated by certain features of prime numbers. It's not visible. Math is at the very beginning of the pipeline.
It's like the roots of a tree. Yeah, right. But if you take away the roots, eventually the whole tree will die.
That's a beautiful way to put it. Okay. So curious about the nature of prizes. Obviously, you couldn't have predicted you would win the Fields Medal. It's harder to win than the Nobel Prize. Right. It's only offered every five years. You have to be under 40.
Was it a motivating factor?
The thing about prizes, it doesn't help you prove the theorems any faster. Yes, the prizes are definitely this mixed bag. So on the one hand, I mean, personally, they helped the career of the Prism Winter Prizes. Amazingly, they also, you know, I mean, they're good PR because people just naturally, I mean, science and mathematics, mathematics in particular is so abstract that if you just present the math, it doesn't. People don't connect with it. If they see a person, then there's more of a connection. But it also presents a misleading picture of how math works. It gives a sense that there's only a few people who can do math and everybody else who don't think of the prizes, they can't do math at all.
And it doesn't like that at all. So it does. I think what does help is actually the mid tier of prizes where, especially for junior career, broader prizes rather than the big sort of singular, the best mathematician in the world type prizes. Those, I think are less useful. But there's a public sort of demand for something like this. Yeah.
The hero worship and the great men, the women of history. What about the Millennium Problems and prizes? What's the status of them? You're famously involved in Navier Stokes version of it, but maybe you could recap for my audience not familiar with it. What were the Millennium Problems? What are they? What's the foundations? And would you add to it?
So, yeah, so this is one example of philanthropic funding of mathematics. Right. So the Clay foundation in 2000, announced seven $1 million price problems selected to be sort of representative of.
We're being set upon by AI.
Oh, yes.
I'd love a latte. Yeah, it's gone off the ramp, I think. So you think that AI has no math, has no uses. That's what it's doing right there. Perfect. Get a picture of that. So, yeah, sorry, before we were interrupted by our mechanical overlord, Millennium Prize was established by the clay foundation in 2000.
Yeah. So they established. So they identified seven problems in seven different areas of mathematics which were kind of representative of. Of really big goals and all sit extremely difficult. And so, yeah, it received a big splash. All. Each of the seven is a really important problem. I wouldn't say that they're the seven most important problems, but they're very representative.
So they became somewhat well known. And so you could explain PDEs as the field which contained, for example, the Navier Soaps, Pokemon, then Eversource Regularity problem, which is the problem I'm most familiar with, which is basically, it's the question of whether water can spontaneously explode from smoothness conditions, which we never observe it to happen. Right. But in theory, the equations could actually have a solution that does that. So, yeah, they have been very motivating. There is this funny effect, though, that one of these problems is very far from being solved. Then having a big, famous prominent problem encourages people to work towards the goal and publish partial results. But if the problem is getting really close to being solved and you just need one or two more papers to get there, people start becoming secretive and they don't share their ideas.
Sometimes that's exactly what you don't want.
Yeah, prizes are generally productive until they become sort of two too much of the focus.
What would you add if you could add a Millennium Prize and not just one that you've already solved and you're keeping in your drawer upstairs?
That's a good question. I'm increasingly inclined to think about broad problems rather than singular problems. I've been sort of gravitating towards challenges where instead of trying to solve one problem, I make some list of a thousand or a million problems. And I just try to say, okay, what tools can solve the greatest percentage of this broad class of problems? So, first of all, this is the type of mathematics which I think modern technology, like AI, can really make an impact on. And I think it's less exclusive. You can be less competitive. I mean, you can still compete. I can solve 26%, you can solve 25%, but it's so cumulative, and everyone can contribute a piece.
Whereas one of the problems with these prizes is that it's all or nothing. At some point, you either get the prize or you don't. And I feel like that, that is. That can be unhealthy.
All right, well, Terence Tao, thank you so much for your time and your wisdom. And it's been such a pleasure getting to meet you and spend the day with you. Thank you so much for having us here.
Yeah, no, that was great.
So there you have it. Terence Tao's solution to the pressing problems of politics and mathematics. Make sure you subscribe so you don't miss part two where we sat down for over two with Terence in his office talking about his research, artificial intelligent math professors, and whether mathematics is created or discovered. Watch this video with UCLA PhD Sam Harris, who also is no fan of Donald Trump and believes that Donald Trump is killing scientific research in America. Click here and don't forget to subscribe.
Also generated
More from this recording
🔖 Titles
Terence Tao on Losing Research Funding and the Future of American Science
How Political Turmoil Threatens Math and Science Funding with Terence Tao
UCLA’s Terence Tao Fights Sudden Federal Grant Cuts and Bureaucracy
The Ripple Effect of Canceled Science Funding: Terence Tao Joins Brian Keating
Terence Tao Discusses Grant Suspensions and Why Pure Math Still Matters
Political Fallout in Academia: Math Funding at UCLA with Terence Tao
Navigating Research Challenges After Federal Grant Cuts with Terence Tao
Innovation at Risk: Terence Tao on Bureaucracy and the Collapse of Science Funding
Why Stable Funding Fuels Scientific Discovery: Terence Tao’s UCLA Experience
Terence Tao on Grant Cancellations, Math Prizes, and America’s Scientific Future
💬 Keywords
Certainly! Here are 30 topical keywords that were covered in the transcript:
UCLA, Terence Tao, Brian Keating, research funding, Trump administration, anti Semitism, NSF, NIH, bureaucracy, federal funding, pure science, grant suspension, academic freedom, Simons Foundation, private philanthropy, Benavar Bush, Endless Frontier, postdocs, graduate students, institutional practices, mathematics ecosystem, unpredictability, technology innovation, cryptography, prime numbers, Millennium Prize Problems, Clay Foundation, Navier-Stokes, AI in mathematics, mathematical prizes, Title 6 compliance
💡 Speaker bios
Brian Keating, Bio (in story format)
Brian Keating is an acclaimed physicist, storyteller, and science communicator with a knack for bringing the world’s greatest scientific minds and their dramatic journeys into the spotlight. Known for his engaging interviews and thought-provoking commentary, Brian takes listeners behind the scenes of groundbreaking research and uncovers the real stories often hidden by politics and bureaucracy. In one notable series, he walks and talks with legendary UCLA mathematician Terence Tao, exploring not only Tao’s mathematical genius but also the political challenges that can derail even the brightest scientific careers. Keating’s unique ability to humanize science while highlighting the stakes for the future of research has made him a vital voice in the scientific community and beyond.
💡 Speaker bios
Terence Tao is a renowned mathematician based at UCLA, widely known for his groundbreaking contributions to mathematics and his leadership at the Institute for Pure and Applied Mathematics (IPAM). In recent times, Tao has faced significant challenges due to abrupt changes in federal research funding policies in the United States. Grants that researchers like Tao depended on, including those supporting IPAM and his personal work, have been suspended or canceled, disrupting their ability to pursue innovative research and mentor future scholars. Despite new obstacles—including heightened restrictions on international collaboration and visiting scholars—Tao continues to advocate for the academic community and to navigate the rapidly shifting landscape to support mathematics research at UCLA.
💡 Speaker bios
Brian Keating is a distinguished professor and astrophysicist based at UCSD. In 2024, as university campuses like UCLA and UCSD became flashpoints for large protest encampments, Keating found himself reflecting on the events and their impact on academic life. He witnessed firsthand the scrutiny surrounding university funding, especially regarding compliance with Title 6, and questioned whether some actions taken against institutions were justified or excuses for deeper political motivations. Keating has openly critiqued various political figures, including Donald Trump, and is known for engaging in critical conversations about academic freedom and community relations. His story reveals a scientist balancing rigorous inquiry with the complexities of campus life and broader societal currents.
ℹ️ Introduction
Welcome to The INTO THE IMPOSSIBLE Podcast! In today's episode, we're joined by the legendary mathematician Terence Tao, often called the "Mozart of Mathematics." This is part one of a special two-part series where Brian Keating walks and talks with Terence Tao about the drastic impact of losing federal research funding at UCLA after an unprecedented decision by the Trump administration.
We'll hear firsthand about the chaos on campus and the ripple effect this funding cut has had—not just on Terence Tao himself, but on the entire scientific ecosystem, young researchers, and big research programs. Terence Tao opens up about the challenges of securing sustainable support for pure science, the limits of philanthropic and private funding, and why he believes basic research, even in seemingly esoteric math, is essential to the technology we all depend on.
We also dive into the world of scientific prizes and the famous Millennium Problems, exploring what motivates researchers to tackle these extraordinary challenges. Plus, Terence Tao shares his thoughts on new models for funding, the vital role of government support for long-term research, and his creative ideas for broadening how we recognize and solve mathematical problems.
Make sure to subscribe and stay tuned for part two, where we'll dig even deeper into the future of mathematics, artificial intelligence, and the eternal question of whether math is invented or discovered!
📚 Timestamped overview
00:00 Funding for major research programs was abruptly suspended without notice, unlike previous budget cuts, causing significant disruption.
05:37 Federal funding establishes stability and attracts new scientists, forming a foundation for research supported by industry and philanthropy.
06:39 Funding, whether from patrons or agencies, lacks long-term predictability, complicating sustained research and planning.
11:55 PDEs, including famous problems like Navier-Stokes, motivate research. Some big unsolved issues foster collaboration, but secrecy grows as solutions near completion.
14:13 Terence Tao discusses politics, math, AI, and more. Part two coming soon—subscribe!
📚 Timestamped overview
00:00 "Sudden Funding Suspension Disrupts Research"
05:37 "Federal Funding Fuels Science Ecosystem"
06:39 Unpredictable Research Funding Challenges
11:55 "PDEs, Problems, and Motivation"
14:13 "Terence Tao on Math & Politics"
❇️ Key topics and bullets
Absolutely! Here’s a comprehensive breakdown of the topics and sub-topics covered in the transcript from The INTO THE IMPOSSIBLE Podcast episode featuring Terence Tao and Brian Keating.
1. The Impact of Funding Cuts on Scientific Research
Introduction comparing Tao’s situation to “canceling Albert Einstein”
Description of Trump administration’s abrupt axing of Tao’s research funding
Official versus real reasons behind the funding cuts (political fallout, anti-Semitism claims, loss to pure science)
Scope of funding loss (hundreds of millions of dollars, broad impact at UCLA)
2. The Chaos and Unpredictability in Recent Research Funding
Tao’s recounting of the last six months as tumultuous and unpredictable
Sudden rule changes regarding research funding in the U.S.
Suspension and cancellation of approved grants (NSF, NIH)
Effects on international collaboration (foreign visitors/immigration hurdles)
Emergency actions to find alternative funding sources
Lack of consultation compared to previous administrations, absence of harm-reduction measures
3. Context and Reasons for UCLA Funding Suspension
Reference to events on UCLA campus (2024 encampment, Title 6 compliance issues)
Questioning whether the cuts were targeted or an excuse
Speculation on motives, lack of transparency or targeted intention
Examples of arbitrary decisions in research grant cancellation (e.g., proposals referencing “inequalities”)
4. Historical and Alternative Models of Research Funding
Reference to pre-federal funding era (Galileo and private patrons)
Modern philanthropic foundations (Simons Foundation)
Discussion of federal funding’s longevity and scale—comparison to Bush’s Endless Frontier model
Critique of current allocation where most grant money goes to university overheads, not direct research
5. The Importance of Stable and Predictable Funding Ecosystems
Federal funding’s role in fostering a “broad ecosystem” for sciences
Support for early-career researchers and students
Federal government’s unique ability to provide scale and long-term commitments
Shortcomings of relying on individual patrons or philanthropy
The necessity of predictability in science for multi-year research commitments
6. Justifying Basic Research to the Public
Connection between abstract mathematics and everyday technology
Real-world examples: cell phones, teleconferencing, image compression, cryptography
Argument that basic math underpins technology, despite not being immediately visible—metaphor of “math as the roots of a tree”
7. The Nature and Role of Prizes in Mathematics
Fields Medal and other prizes: prestige versus practical motivation
Prizes as PR tools for mathematics, helping to personify abstract work
Potential negative effects: hero worship, misleading impressions about mathematical exclusivity
Value of broader, mid-tier prizes for early-career researchers
8. The Millennium Problems and Prize Economics
Clay Foundation’s establishment of Millennium Prize Problems
Overview of the seven problems and their representative nature
Example: Navier-Stokes Regularity problem explained
Motivational effects and possible downsides (competitiveness, secrecy when close to solving a problem)
9. Rethinking Mathematical Challenges and Incentives
Tao’s inclination toward broader problems versus singular prizes
Proposal: focus on lists or classes of problems, seeking tools to solve larger percentages
Advantages of cumulative, collaborative approaches for future mathematical advances
10. Podcast Conclusion and Teaser for Part Two
Reminder to subscribe for upcoming in-depth conversations with Terence Tao
Preview of topics in part two: Tao’s research, AI in mathematics, philosophy of math (created vs. discovered)
Reference to related content featuring Sam Harris on science funding under Trump
Let me know if you’d like further detail on any specific topic or sub-topic!
👩💻 LinkedIn post
Here’s a LinkedIn post inspired by the latest episode of the INTO THE IMPOSSIBLE Podcast featuring Terence Tao and Brian Keating:
💡 How does cutting-edge mathematical research collide with politics, funding, and bureaucracy? In the newest INTO THE IMPOSSIBLE Podcast, Terence Tao (“the Mozart of mathematics”) joins Brian Keating to discuss the impact of abrupt federal funding cuts at UCLA—and what it means for American science.
Here are 3 key takeaways from their riveting conversation:
Unpredictable Funding Jeopardizes Innovation: Terence Tao shares firsthand how the sudden suspension of NSF and NIH grants, without scientific reasoning or due process, disrupted not only his research but the entire UCLA math ecosystem.
Foundational Research Fuels Everyday Technology: Tao explains that even seemingly “pie in the sky” mathematical investigations underpin real-world tech—from cryptography to telecommunications—making blue-sky research vital for progress.
We Need a Sustainable Model for Science: Long-term, stable funding (historically led by federal agencies) is essential to nurture the next generation of scientists and ensure breakthroughs for decades to come. Reliance solely on philanthropy or private funding creates instability and missed opportunities.
Listen for deeper insights into the intersection of science, policy, and human ingenuity—and stay tuned for part two, where they tackle AI, the nature of discovery, and why math matters more than ever.
#Math #Research #ScienceFunding #Podcast #TerenceTao #INTOtheIMPOSSIBLE
🧵 Tweet thread
🚨THREAD: What happens when bureaucracy cancels brilliance? UCLA's Terence Tao, the “Mozart of Mathematics,” sat down with Brian Keating to talk about how politics abruptly axed hundreds of millions in research funding—impacting the future of American science. 👇
1/ 🎓 Imagine canceling Einstein before E=mc². That’s exactly what happened to Prof. Terence Tao, with NSF and NIH grants suddenly suspended. Not for bad research—but for political reasons tied to campus unrest.
2/ 🏛️ “We’ve relied on stable, predictable federal funding for decades,” Terence Tao says. Now, rules are made up and changed on a whim, cutting off foundational support for researchers and students.
3/ 💥 Funding cuts weren’t just a “budget thing”—they were abrupt, without warning, and penalized entire institutes, not just individuals. “There’s no effort to do the least harm possible,” Terence Tao shares.
4/ 🧠 Why does this matter? The federal ecosystem allowed young researchers to thrive and projects to flourish over years, even decades. Private patrons alone aren’t enough—they’re unpredictable and short-term.
5/ 🌱 Terence Tao: “Math is the roots of the tree… Take away the roots, eventually the whole tree dies.” Think your phone, Zoom call, or encrypted data works by chance? There’s deep math under the hood.
6/ 🏆 On prizes: The Fields Medal helped Terence Tao’s career, yes, but “it doesn’t help you prove theorems any faster.” Hero worship hides the reality—math is cumulative, collaborative, not a lone genius game.
7/ 🔮 On inspiring future problem-solving, Terence Tao says we need broad challenges, not just all-or-nothing prizes. “What tools can solve the greatest percentage of problems?” Everyone can contribute.
8/ 🗣️ Want to hear more? Part II covers whether math is created or discovered, the rise of AI math professors, and more inside stories on how politics is shaping research.
9/ 👀 Science isn’t just someone else’s concern—political disruptions impact all our futures. Stay tuned, subscribe to Brian Keating, and let’s keep fighting for blue-sky research.
🔗 Full sit-down coming soon. RT if you believe science should be above politics! #Math #ScienceFunding #TerenceTao #UCLA #ResearchCrisis
🗞️ Newsletter
The INTO THE IMPOSSIBLE Podcast Newsletter
Episode Highlight: Terry Tao “Trump CUT My Funding.” Here's how I am going to react.
Hello Impossible Thinkers,
This week’s episode features a compelling and timely conversation with renowned mathematician Terence Tao, often called the “Mozart of mathematics.” Hosted by Brian Keating, this special two-part series dives into the chaos that unfolded when the Trump administration abruptly suspended research funding at UCLA, impacting not just Terence Tao, but countless researchers.
What’s Inside This Episode?
Funding Fallout:
Terence Tao details the sudden NSF and NIH funding cuts, explaining how these decisions—made without warning or scientific basis—threaten major programs and the future pipeline of American research.The Big Picture:
The episode challenges us to reconsider the current models for supporting scientific and mathematical inquiry. Can we really depend on federal funding, or is it time to rethink the ecosystem? Terence Tao weighs private philanthropy and patronage against the scale and stability only government grants can offer.Why Math Matters—For Everyone:
Ever wondered why discoveries in pure math should matter to the everyday taxpayer? Terence Tao makes an eloquent case, drawing connections from prime numbers to cell phone technology and cryptography, reminding us all that math is the “roots of the tree”—invisible, but essential.The Human Face of Math:
Brian Keating asks about the pressure and prestige of major prizes like the Fields Medal and Millennium Prize Problems. Terence Tao reflects on the value—and pitfalls—of hero worship in science, and shares a vision for broader, collaborative challenges that harness everyone’s talents.
Coming Soon:
Stay tuned for Part Two! Brian Keating and Terence Tao will sit down in his office to discuss artificial intelligence in math, whether mathematics is created or discovered, and much more.
Don’t miss thought-provoking insights that shed light on not just today’s political headlines, but the future direction of scientific research in America.
👉 Subscribe now so you never miss an episode and join the conversation about science, society, and discovery at its limits!
Further Listening:
Curious about related perspectives? Check out our previous conversation with UCLA PhD Sam Harris, who also critiques the current climate for scientific research.
Thank you for journeying INTO THE IMPOSSIBLE.
— The Podcast Team
❓ Questions
Absolutely! Here are 10 thought-provoking discussion questions based on this episode of The INTO THE IMPOSSIBLE Podcast with Terence Tao and Brian Keating:
How do abrupt changes in government funding, like those described by Terence Tao, impact the long-term stability of scientific research in the United States?
Terence Tao mentions that many funding decisions seem to lack logical reasoning or due process. What are the potential risks of making science funding decisions without transparency or consultation?
Why has federal funding become such a crucial backbone for the STEM research ecosystem, according to Terence Tao? What are the limitations of relying solely on private or philanthropic sources?
The episode covers the argument of “why should taxpayers support pure research”—how would you respond to skeptics who don’t see the immediate relevance of mathematics or fundamental science?
Terence Tao compares mathematical research to the roots of a tree, not always visible but vital to technology and daily life. Can you think of everyday technologies that depend on “invisible” mathematical advances?
How do university overheads and fringe benefits complicate the allocation of research grant money, and what alternative models might better support groundbreaking research?
What do Terence Tao and Brian Keating suggest about the potential drawbacks of highly competitive, singular prize problems like the Millennium Prizes? Are there better ways to incentivize collaboration in research?
The episode touches on how sudden funding cuts can leave researchers and institutes scrambling for emergency solutions. How might institutions better prepare for such unpredictability in the future?
Terence Tao discusses broad problems versus singular “big” problems in mathematics. How might setting broader challenges create a healthier and more inclusive research culture?
Given the political and bureaucratic pressures discussed in the episode, what are some strategies scientists might use to advocate for more stable and transparent research funding?
Feel free to use these in a classroom, study group, or as prompts to spark deeper conversation after listening to the episode!
curiosity, value fast, hungry for more
✅ What happens when America’s most famous mathematician gets his research abruptly defunded?
✅ Brian Keating sits down with the legendary Terence Tao to unpack how sudden political decisions are shaking the very roots of scientific progress.
✅ From unexpected funding cuts at UCLA to the ripple effects on future generations of researchers, this INTO THE IMPOSSIBLE episode dives into the hidden battle between bureaucracy and blue-sky discovery.
✅ If you care about the future of science—and want to hear how one genius is fighting back—don’t miss this conversation. Subscribe & listen now! 🚀
Conversation Starters
Absolutely! Here are 5-10 conversation starters for a Facebook group to spark insightful discussions based on this episode of The INTO THE IMPOSSIBLE Podcast featuring Terence Tao and Brian Keating:
Research Funding: What are your thoughts on Terence Tao’s experience with abrupt federal funding cuts at UCLA? How do you think politics should influence (or not) the progress of pure science?
Impact on Science: Terence Tao describes federal funding as the “roots of a tree” for research. Do you agree with his analogy? How do you see basic research underpinning the technologies we use daily?
Alternative Models: Should math and science research rely more on private philanthropy or government funding? What would a new, sustainable model look like?
Public Perception: Brian Keating raises the question—“Why should an auto worker in Ohio pay for pie-in-the-sky math research?” How would you respond to skeptics of basic research?
Prize Culture in Math: Terence Tao discusses the effects of prizes like the Fields Medal and Millennium Prizes on mathematicians. Do you think big awards are motivating or do they sometimes stifle collaboration? Why?
Millennium Problems: Which Millennium Prize problem fascinates you the most, and why? Should there be additional “broad problems” as Tao suggests, rather than focusing on singular breakthroughs?
Role of AI: During the conversation, Brian Keating jokes about “being set upon by AI.” What role do you see artificial intelligence playing in advancing mathematical research?
Bureaucracy vs. Science: Terence Tao mentions the chaos caused by changing rules and lack of due process in federal research funding. Has anyone here experienced similar upheaval in academia or research?
Long-Term Planning: How important is predictability in grant funding for scientific progress? Can meaningful discoveries still happen if researchers must constantly scramble for support?
Community Impact: The episode highlights how sudden policy changes affect entire academic communities, not just individuals. What ripple effects have you seen when funding is disrupted at universities or research institutions?
Feel free to dive in with your thoughts, questions, stories, or counterpoints—everyone’s perspective can help deepen our understanding of the issues raised in this powerful episode!
🐦 Business Lesson Tweet Thread
THREAD: Why Math Funding Matters — Lessons From Terence Tao on The INTO THE IMPOSSIBLE Podcast 🧵
1/ Imagine Einstein getting canceled before E = mc^2. That's how it felt for Terence Tao when his funding got slashed at UCLA. Pure math—poof. Gone.
2/ Tao isn’t just thinking about himself. The real cost? Students, postdocs, research communities—whole fields forced to scramble for emergency cash. Science progress? On pause.
3/ Funding used to be stable and predictable. Now, one government memo and decades of planning get tossed out the window. No process, no warning, just chaos.
4/ You might think donations or “rockstar” mathematicians could make up for it. Not really. It’s the broad ecosystem—the overlooked, unproven researchers and long-term projects—that dies without steady support.
5/ Why should anyone in Ohio care about twin prime theory? Turns out math is the roots of the tech tree—cell phones, cryptography, even video calls. Cut the roots, the tree dies.
6/ Prizes and billionaire patrons sound cool, but only the federal government can deliver the scale and stability science needs. One-year grants & hero-worship don’t build the next generation.
7/ Tao’s vision: focus on solving big swaths of problems, not just one-off moonshots with million-dollar checks. Real progress is cumulative.
8/ Political noise aside, the future of American innovation hinges on how we fund curiosity. If we let bureaucracy win, we all lose.
9/ Listen to Tao. Support the roots, not just the showy branches.
🔗 #INTOtheIMPOSSIBLE #math #funding #innovation
✏️ Custom Newsletter
Subject: 🎙️ NEW EPISODE: How Terence Tao Handles Having His Funding Cut (and More!)
Hi friends,
We’ve got a brand new episode of The INTO THE IMPOSSIBLE Podcast that you won’t want to miss. This week, Brian Keating walks and talks with the legendary mathematician Terence Tao in a candid, eye-opening conversation.
What’s the story?
Imagine waking up one day and finding out your research funding has been canceled—just like that. That’s exactly what happened to Terence Tao, the “Mozart of Mathematics,” when the Trump administration abruptly axed funding at UCLA. In part one of this special two-part series, Tao reveals how he navigates not only mathematical equations, but also the chaos of bureaucracy and sudden political decisions.
5 Keys You’ll Learn in This Episode:
Inside the Funding Crisis: How dramatic and sudden policy changes can shake the foundations of American research—and why Tao says this round is unlike any previous cuts.
Science Needs Stability: Why long-term, reliable funding matters not just to top-tier scientists, but to students and future innovators.
Why Math Matters (to Your Cell Phone!): Terence Tao breaks down how everyday technologies—like your smartphone—owe their existence to deep math research.
The Problem with Prizes: Are big awards motivating or misleading? Tao shares his take on Fields Medals, hero worship, and why mid-tier prizes might matter more.
A New Model for Discovery: Should we rethink how research is supported in America? Tao explores alternatives, and why relying just on philanthropies or private patrons isn’t enough.
Fun Fact from the Episode:
Did you know that the word “inequality” in a math grant proposal can trigger its rejection nowadays? Tao shares that some funding was canceled simply due to this keyword—not scientific reason!
Outtro
If you’re into the intersection of science, society, and the totally unexpected twists that can happen, you’ll love this conversation. Brian Keating and Terence Tao get real about the future of research, where AI is taking us, and why foundational math is like the roots of a tree (without it, everything else dies off!).
Call to Action:
Don’t miss Part Two—subscribe now so you’ll be the first to hear Tao dive even deeper into his research, artificial intelligence, and the biggest questions about math itself.
Listen to the full episode here [link], and let us know what you think!
Stay curious,
The INTO THE IMPOSSIBLE Team
P.S. Check out our bonus chat with UCLA PhD Sam Harris on why he thinks political decisions are endangering American science!
🎓 Lessons Learned
Sure! Here are 10 lessons distilled from the episode, each with a concise title and description:
Abrupt Policy Shifts Matter
Unpredictable rule changes disrupt research funding and planning, impacting scientists and the institutions they rely on.Funding Cuts Cause Ripple Effects
Suspending grants affects not just individuals but entire programs and institutes, forcing emergency measures and resource scrambling.Due Process Is Essential
Longstanding practices ensure stability; bypassing them leads to confusion and collateral damage across the scientific community.Federal Funding’s Unique Role
Federal grants support broad, stable research ecosystems, unlike the often short-term focus of private philanthropy.Stability Enables Big Science
Research projects and talent development need predictable, long-term funding to flourish and maintain America's scientific edge.Math Powers Modern Life
Fundamental mathematics enables technologies we all use, from cell phones to cryptography, even if its impact isn't visible.Basic Research Needs Defending
Even work with no immediate application, like number theory, forms the roots for future innovations everyone benefits from.Prizes: Blessing and Burden
Prestigious awards raise visibility but can distort perceptions and discourage collaboration on major problems.Broad Challenges Over Singular Goals
Solving classes of problems can foster collaboration, inclusivity, and incremental progress, rather than all-or-nothing pursuits.Sustainable Models Needed
America’s research future depends on reevaluating funding structures to ensure resilience against political or administrative disruptions.
10 Surprising and Useful Frameworks and Takeaways
Absolutely! Here are ten of the most surprising and useful frameworks and takeaways from this episode of The INTO THE IMPOSSIBLE Podcast, featuring Brian Keating and Terence Tao:
Unpredictable Funding Cuts:
Terence Tao reveals that funding for scientific research at major institutions like UCLA was abruptly suspended with no consultation or notice—unlike previous budget cuts which included structured, advanced planning. This signals a new, much more volatile environment for American research.Collateral Damage from Bureaucratic Decisions:
The sudden, sweeping suspension of grants wasn’t targeted at individuals but instead penalized entire communities and operations for compliance issues unrelated to science. The lack of due process means all sorts of scientific initiatives suffer, not just those directly connected to the controversy.The “Ecosystem” Model of Research Support:
Federal funding, philanthropy, and private patrons form an ecosystem. While star researchers could seek private funding, federal grants are critical for sustaining large-scale, long-term science and for nurturing the next generation of scientists.The Importance of Predictability:
Successful research programs require stability and predictability, especially for multi-year projects and graduate-level commitments. The absence of this makes sustained, groundbreaking progress almost impossible.Mathematics as the “Roots” of Technology:
Terence Tao makes a powerful analogy: mathematics is like the roots of a tree—if you neglect basic research, the technological “tree” eventually dies. Today's everyday tech is all powered by foundational math research.Misleading Power of Prizes:
Awards like the Fields Medal or Millennium Prize generate public interest and PR, but they also skew public perception, making it seem like only a few “heroes” do math. Terence Tao cautions that this narrative can be unhealthy for the field.The Downsides of Competitive Problem-Solving:
When high-profile problems are close to being solved, secrecy can trump collaboration—contrary to the ideal of open scientific progress.Broad Versus Singular Problem Frameworks:
Terence Tao advocates for attacking classes of problems with broad methods rather than pursuing all-or-nothing singular breakthroughs. This cumulative approach encourages collaboration over fierce individual competition.Real-World Impact of Abstract Research:
Basic mathematical discoveries underpin almost every technology we take for granted—be it the functioning of cell phones, cryptography, teleconferencing, or data compression. Even “pie in the sky” math has practical downstream effects.Need for New Funding Models:
With federal support growing less stable, the episode explores the idea of new funding models—possibly drawing on philanthropy or private patronage more strategically—while acknowledging that only government grants have the scale and predictability needed for national research infrastructures.
These takeaways paint a vivid picture of the current challenges in American research funding, the hidden links between pure math and daily life, and the evolving philosophy of how science should be supported and celebrated.
Clip Able
Absolutely! Based on the transcript, here are five curated clips for social media—each at least three minutes long—with suggested titles, timestamps, and eye-catching captions:
Clip 1: “Chaos and Uncertainty: How UCLA’s Research Funding Was Cut”
Timestamps: 00:00:44 – 00:04:21
Caption:
Terence Tao shares the shocking moment when UCLA's research funding was abruptly axed, and the ripple effect on scientists, students, and groundbreaking programs. Why did it happen and what does it mean for American innovation?
Hear the inside story of bureaucracy vs brilliance.
Clip 2: “The Changing Landscape of Research Funding in America”
Timestamps: 00:04:53 – 00:08:24
Caption:
Federal support for pure science isn’t what it used to be—and world-renowned mathematician Terence Tao explains why. From government grants to private philanthropy, what models really work for advancing discovery?
Find out why long-term, stable funding matters more than ever.
Clip 3: “Why Should You Care About Math Research?”
Timestamps: 00:08:24 – 00:10:13
Caption:
Is pure math really relevant to your daily life? Terence Tao shows the hidden impact of mathematics on everything from cell phones to cryptography.
Math is the root of every breakthrough—see why it’s vital, not ‘pie in the sky.’
Clip 4: “Are Prizes Helping or Hurting Science?”
Timestamps: 00:09:20 – 00:13:04
Caption:
How do big prizes shape scientific progress? Terence Tao and Brian Keating examine prestigious awards like the Fields Medal and Millennium Problems, debating whether they inspire—or stifle—collaboration in mathematics.
Discover what recognition REALLY means to those at the cutting edge.
Clip 5: “Rethinking Scientific Challenges for the Future”
Timestamps: 00:13:05 – 00:14:13
Caption:
What if the future of math challenges isn’t one big problem, but thousands of smaller ones? Terence Tao introduces a radical new way to drive progress and make science more inclusive—with the help of AI and teamwork.
Don’t miss this innovative vision for the next era of discovery!
Let me know if you’d like shorter clips or want to focus on a specific topic for your audience!
Made with Castmagic
Turn any recording into a page like this.
Upload audio or video — interviews, podcasts, sales calls, lectures. Get a transcript, summary, key takeaways, and social-ready clips in minutes.
Google
Apple
Or learn more about Castmagic first.
Magic Chat
Try asking