Before Donald Trump takes oath for a second term as US president on 20 January, the US scientific community is preparing for what the next four years may look like. Many already have a sense of trepidation given his track record from his first term in office. There are concerns, for example, about his nominations for cabinet and other key positions. Others are worried about the role that SpaceX boss Elon Musk will play as the head of a new “department of government efficiency”.
Neal Lane, a senior fellow in science and technology at Rice University’s Baker Institute and science adviser to former president Bill Clinton, told Physics World that he doesn’t see “any good news for science, especially any fields or studies that seem to be offensive to important segments of Trump’s supporter base”. Lane says that includes research related to “climate change, reproduction, gender and any other aspects of diversity, environmental protection and justice, biodiversity, public health, vaccinations, most fields of the social sciences, and many others”.
John Holdren, who was science adviser to Barack Obama and is a member of Harvard University’s Kennedy School and the Woodwell Climate Research Center, is equally pessimistic. “The stated intentions of president-elect Trump and his acolytes concerning energy and climate policies are deeply dismaying,” he says. “If history is any guide, Trump will also try to put a large crimp in federal research on climate science and advanced clean energy.”
We saw budgets for science agencies go up [under Trump] due to a variety of factors, so that’s something we hope for again
Jennifer Grodsky
During his first term in office between 2017 and 2021, Trump tried to ban immigration from Muslim-majority countries and created the China Initiative that led to charges against some US scientists for collaborations with colleagues in Chinese universities. He also famously used a Sharpie pen to change the apparent course of hurricane Duran on a National Weather Service map, resulting in consternation from researchers.
When COVID-19 emerged, he suggested ineffective and possibly dangerous treatments for it and had a fraught relationship with Anthony Fauci, who was then in charge of the country’s response to the pandemic. Lane says that the administration is likely to continue “to downplay evidence-based science in setting policies and allow misinformation” to be published on agency websites. “That would result not only in damage to the integrity of US science, but to the trust the American public places in science,” Lane adds. “Ultimately, it could affect people’s lives and livelihoods.”
On the other hand, under Trump’s stewardship, the COVID-19 vaccine was developed at record-breaking speed, and while it took 18 months in office before he nominated a science adviser, his pick of meteorologist Kelvin Droegemeier was generally applauded by the scientific community. Funding for science also increased during Trump’s first term. “We saw budgets for science agencies go up due to a variety of factors, so that’s something we hope for again,” says Jennifer Grodsky, Boston University’s vice-president for federal relations.
And the nominees are…
In Trump’s first term, various members of his presidential staff and cabinet managed to dissuade him from pursuing some more unorthodox ideas related to science and medicine. And when they failed to do so, Congress acted as a hard brake. The Senate has a constitutional responsibility to advise the president on (and consent by a simple majority to) presidential nominations for cabinet positions, ambassadorships and other high offices. Since the new Senate will take office on 3 January with a Republican majority of 53 to 47 Democrats, many Trump nominees will likely be ready to take office when he becomes president on 20 January.
Most nominees for posts, however, are fully behind Trump’s desire to “drain the swamp” of Washington’s “politics as usual” and have some non-mainstream views on science. Stanford University health economist Jay Bhattacharya, for example, who has been picked to lead the National Institutes of Health, was a vocal critic of the US response to the COVID-19 pandemic who stated that lockdowns caused irreparable harm. Vaccine sceptic Robert F Kennedy Jr, an environmental lawyer, has been chosen to head the Department of Health and Human Services while Marty Makary, a Johns Hopkins University surgeon and cancer specialist who shares many of Kennedy’s attitudes about health, is tagged to lead the Food and Drug Administration.
While the nominees to head environmental and energy agencies come from more mainstream candidates, they could – if approved – implement significant changes in policy from the Biden administration. Trump wants, for example, to open protected areas to drilling and mining. He also aims to take the US out of the Paris Accord on climate change for a second time – after Biden rescinded the first removal.
As a sign of things to come, Trump has already nominated Lee Zeldin as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). A former Republican Congressman from New York and a critic of much environmental legislation, Zeldin says that the EPA will “restore US energy dominance” while “protecting access to clean air and water”. But his focus on pro-business deregulation is set to dismay environmentalists who applauded the Biden administration’s EPA ban on several toxic substances and limitation on the amounts of “forever” chemicals in water.
Swimming against the tide of a hostile White House will not be easy
John Holdren
When it comes to energy, Trump has nominated Chris Wright, founder and chief executive office of the Denver-based fracking company Liberty Energy, to head the Department of Energy. While Wright accepts that fossil fuels contribute to global warming, he has also referenced scientific studies that support his claim that climate change “alarmists” are wrong about the impact of a warmer world. If approved, Wright will participate in a new National Energy Council that Department of the Interior nominee Doug Burgum will chair. A software company billionaire and current governor of North Dakota, Burgum has mirrored Wright in accusing the “radical left” of engaging in a war against US energy to reduce climate change.
Lane predicts that the Trump administration will even try to privatize agencies within government departments, potentially including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which is part of the US Department of Commerce. “That could result in forcing people to pay to get timely weather reports,” he says. “To find out, for example, where a hurricane is headed or to receive better tornado warnings.”
Space Force
A different threat to science comes from Musk’s department of government efficiency, which he will run together with the biotechnology billionaire Vivek Ramaswamy. As the owner of SpaceX, Starlink and Tesla, Musk – currently the world’s richest person – asserts that the department can cut $2 trillion from the roughly $6.5 trillion annual US government budget. While some are sceptical of that pledge, scientists fear the effort could target science-related agencies. The Department of Education, for example, could be shut with several prominent Republicans, including Trump, having already called for its elimination.
Another possible target for budget cuts is NASA, which is already in financial trouble, having been forced to postpone the next lunar Artemis mission to April 2026 and the planned crewed Moon landing to mid-2027. Trump has nominated Jared Isaacman – a billionaire associate of Musk – as the agency’s administrator. Co-founder of the aerospace firm Draken International, Isaacman developed and financed September’s Polaris Dawn mission, in which he and three other private astronauts were taken into orbit by Musk’s SpaceX rockets. If confirmed in office, Isaacman is expected to expand existing links between NASA and the commercial space sector. The power of authority: why we need to rely on experts
Another impact of Trump’s second term could be collaborations between US and foreign scientists. A return to the China initiative that Biden rescinded seems possible, and Trump has promised to continue the hard line against immigrants that marked his first term in office. Some university leaders have already warned overseas students not to travel home during the winter break in case they are not allowed back into the US. “New executive orders that may impact travel may be implemented,” a statement by the leadership of Massachusetts Institute of Technology noted. “Any processing delays could impact students’ ability to return to the US as planned.”
As the Biden administration departs and Trump is sworn into office on 20 January, many scientists will be hopeful, but unconvinced, that science is heading in the right direction. For Holdren, the next four years simply promises to be a rocky time. “Swimming against the tide of a hostile White House will not be easy,” he adds. “Let us hope all who understand the challenge will rise to it.”
