Can America become great again by neglecting science? Unfortunately, it looks like President Trump might be testing this idea! When Donald Trump selected Elon Musk as his poster boy, many believed that this would lead to a bigger push for scientific research, development, and innovation during Trump 2.0. However, it appears that Trump’s focus on seeking immediate and visible economic returns from every investment the country makes could end up harming American interests in the long run.
It is critical to examine Trump’s approach to science during his first term to understand the potential direction of his actions in a second term. During Donald Trump’s first presidency there were constant efforts from his side to undermine science, public health, and environmental protections. He had downplayed crucial facts related to the COVID-19 pandemic, labelling Dr. Anthony Fauci, the President’s chief medical advisor at the time, as a disaster. He also promoted unproven remedies, such as snake oil, as potential cures for the virus. He had withdrawn the country from the World Health Organization (WHO). Furthermore, Trump had dismissed the scientific consensus on climate change and global warming, rolling back numerous regulations meant to protect the environment and public health.
In a second term too, Trump’s approach to science looks to mainly remain driven by his desire for immediate economic benefits and national security concerns. With the presence of Musk on his side it looks that he may champion certain technological advancements, particularly in the field of missile defence and space exploration. There could be a push for private sector-driven innovation and technologies related to defence. For example, his push for offering India F-35’s would have a simple commercial bias. But overall, it looks that his relationship with the scientific community within the US may continue to be strained. Scientific consensus on issues like climate change and public health are not palatable to him. His view of the US having technological leadership has both strategic and commercial connotations.
Taking into consideration a few executive orders issued so far by President Trump and some orders issued by Elon Musk’s ‘Department of Government Efficiency’ it is becoming clear that the present US administration is keen to reduce the funding offered to various scientific institutes, which are undertaking research on core science areas. It appears that at present the focus is on areas like biotechnology, health & life sciences and environmental sciences. There looks to be a reason for this, since Trump is exiting from the global structures like WHO and Paris agreement which are meant for providing medical services and requiring states to reduce greenhouse gases.
In fact during his first term, Trump had proposed deep cuts to the grants for the National Institutes of Health (NIH). However, but his idea had remained only at a level of suggestion. Now, this time he is acting and various grants to agencies like NHI stand suspended. There would be long-term implications of this action. Presently, NIH is the main funder of biomedical and behavioral research, which is carried out globally. The US government stripping infrastructure support from federal grants in the medical field would have significant and wide-ranging consequences. It would have an impact on the overall healthcare systems, there would be limitation of resources, which could have wide-ranging impact from response to medical emergencies to degeneration in Medical Education and Training to loss of jobs in the health and infrastructure sectors. Also, in the longer run, there could be some impact on medical insurance policy.
Trump’s policies are impacting all biomedical researchers in academia and in private companies since they rely majorly on NIH funding. His disdain for the World Health Organization (WHO) and for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is known. His dictate to ban the travel for Health and Human Services staff (without providing any justification for this action) would have long-term implications for the US health sector. It would impact various existing health services, data (sample) collections, exchange programs and research.
Policies during Trump 2.0, are impacting the survival of transgender community. For long agencies like CDC are working on medical aspects related to this community, while societal aspects are been researched on various social science research organisations. Trump is stopping grants to agencies studying both science and social science aspects. The world is surprised by the brashness of his approach and even the US judicial system is not accepting his views. Recently, a federal judge has paused the President’s executive order halting federal support for gender-affirming care for transgender youth under 19.
It has been reported that during 2024, the US endured at least 27 extreme weather and climate-related disasters that each reported damages of $1 billion or more. Everybody except President Trump understands that all this is happening mainly owing to climate change. It is surprising that the person who is obsessed with cost-benefit calculations is not ready to understand the economic dynamics of climate change.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) are facing potential budget cuts of 30 to 50 percent or more. Established in 1970, NOAA plays a crucial role in studying climate and weather, as well as undertakes weather forecasting. The agency observers oceanic and atmospheric conditions, collects, shares and stores weather related data, supports the fishing industry, and conducts deep-sea exploration. However, there are calls from certain political factions, notably aligned with the Trump administration, to fragment NOAA and shift weather forecasting tasks to the private sector. This push is based on the ‘Project 2025’ plan, a report from the Heritage Foundation, which criticizes NOAA and positions the agency as a body which has created a false narration of climate change!
It is unfortunate that the President of a most powerful country in the world that has long been a powerhouse in science and technology is making decisions that run counter to the long-term interests of his country. Such actions would also have a significant impact on the global pursuit of scientific progress. Viewing financial investments in science solely through the lens of immediate gains is short-sighted and unrealistic. Science is not just about economics and commerce; it is principally linked to human health and the well-being of our planet. Today, the US President is found increasingly aligning with the fossil fuel industry! Recently, he signed an executive order to bring back plastic straws—let us hope his policies do not emerge as the ‘last straw’ for the progress of science.
