Assessing the Trump factor in US science: fear and uncertainty

R&D budget cuts. Visa restrictions. Anti-China policies. Political witch hunts on campus: these are among the scary memes circulating in the US academic community following Donald Trump’s election to what promises to be a turbulent second term as president.

For many in academia, it was an unpleasant shock to wake up to the news on Wednesday morning that Trump had defied the polls again and won by a wide margin. “The mood was sombre on campus”, says Caroline S. Wagner, a science and tech policy professor at Ohio State University. Among the students in her classroom, “half were devasted, and half were, ‘it is what it is.’”

With Trump’s return, “We are in a completely new space. I don’t think anybody knows what to do,” she says.

Indeed, what Trump will actually do on science and tech policy is a mystery, of his own making. On the campaign trail, he presented voters with a bundle of contradictions and exaggerations about what he might do – and those were further muddled by alarming pledges from allies like anti-vaxxer Robert F. Kennedy Jr., mega-billionaire Elon Musk, the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank and a crowd of Republican state and Congressional candidates, all vying for media attention.

Still, despite the anxiety, some in Washington are advocating calm. Though worrisome, “there isn’t any cause for panic,” cautions Charles Wessner, a Georgetown University adjunct professor of science and tech policy. Rhetoric aside, the fact remains that powerful US industry interests still support federally funded science and technology, and even Republican Congressmen like having federal science projects in their districts. Further, some aspects of US R&D policy – like the Biden administration’s historic expansion of semiconductor funding – fit easily into Trump’s anti-China agenda, and could even be an argument for expanded cooperation with European allies.

“There are real opportunities to cooperate” with Europe on chips or other strategic technologies, because it’s mutually beneficial in facing China, Wessner says.

Hope springs eternal

Indeed, within hours of the election results, academic advocates in Washington were hard at work on post-election strategies.

“Our number one piece of advice to our [university] members is to educate the new members of Congress, the new administration officials, about why the work of our universities is so important,” said Tobin Smith, senior vice president at the Association of American Universities. Academics must “make the case why research is critical to the nation, to our economic interests, to our national security interests, our health interests.”  

After a frenetic election year that saw the nation’s top universities painted as elitist villains, and three of its presidents ousted, there’s plenty of work ahead. “There’s a narrative out there that somehow US research universities are taking advantage of federal funding,” says Jack Cline, vice president for federal relations at Northeastern University in Boston. In fact, “the US research community has a good story to share,” making sure lawmakers “are aware of the economic impact these federal dollars have in their Congressional districts and states.”

And there could be some silver linings for research. On the campaign trail, Trump often praised himself for starting Operation Warp Speed in 2020 to fund COVID vaccine development. There’s speculation now in Washington that he might take a similar approach to other grand challenges that science can help solve. So, rather than getting into the minutia of individual agency budgets, he could push for more cross-cutting “moon-shot” projects with exciting goals, ample research funding, lavish industry procurement contracts and political appeal. As with Warp Speed, “other aspects of science and innovation could see a boost under Trump,” says Erica Goldman, a project director at the Federation of American Scientists.

Wagner says that kind of science framing has been popular with politicians for some years; Biden launched a “cancer moonshot.” She adds, “the smart money would be on [Trump] repackaging things like quantum, nanomaterials” and other hot topics into cross-cutting initiatives.

Notwithstanding a few morsels of optimism, the mood in the Washington science establishment is fear – and some whistling in the dark. In a statement, the American Association for the Advancement of Science said, “While the US election is over, it is too soon to tell whether campaign rhetoric will translate into new policies. In many areas, science broadly enjoys bipartisan support in Congress.” It urged its members to focus for now on getting the current budget enacted; in a pre-election compromise, Republicans and Democrats on the Hill had agreed to a temporary extension of the old budget, which has been due to expire early next year.

Here’s a quick rundown of the main issues concerning the scientific community:

The R&D budget: Trump has often condemned aspects of federal research spending, especially in climate and renewable energy. Most lobbyists expect, with a strong hold on Congress, he will undo much of Biden’s green research funding in the 2021 Inflation Reduction Act. A broader concern is that, in the inevitable battles ahead over federal deficits and revenues, science budgets become collateral damage. Then there’s a uniquely Trumpian prospect: that he “impounds” research money already appropriated by Congress, simply refusing to spend it. That approach would fit the authoritarian vibe he projected throughout the campaign. It would be challenged in court, but at the least it would mean severe cashflow problems for the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health and other big US science funders. 

Immigration and visas: A nativist immigration policy was core to Trump’s campaign, and many expect he will crimp the flow of foreign students and researchers to American universities. Whatever the actual policies, the noise alone is likely to discourage many researchers from even contemplating a move to the US. Aside from hitting university revenues, that would intensify worries that the US is losing a fight to attract the scientific talent its tech industries need. Another possibility is that Trump revives his 2017 ban on visas for travellers from seven Muslim countries. “Restrictive and harsh immigration policy, especially around high skilled immigration, will likely have a significant impact on the talent pipeline for the science ecosystem, particularly in AI and emerging technology like biotech,” Goldman said.

China: Many expect Trump to revisit his 2018 China initiative, under which the Justice Department pursued several Chinese-American academics for failing to disclose ties to Beijing while taking US research grants. His first effort fizzled without significant convictions, but the Biden administration didn’t entirely abandon it, continuing with its own plans to boost research security at American universities.

Europe: Trump’s rhetoric has for years been anti-European, and especially anti-NATO. But in science and technology, his bark may be worse than his bite. At present, says Wagner, cross-border collaboration accounts for 30% to 40% of all scientific publications in the world – and almost all the growth in international co-publication has been between Europe and the US. “I don’t really see the collaborations with Europe being threatened,” she says. “In fact, I think we’re looking to enhance our agreements” – as was seen recently when Dutch and American authorities agreed that Dutch chip-equipment maker ASML would restrict some sales to China while increasing US sales.

Health research: This is the scariest topic for many, due to uncertainty over what role anti-vaxxer Kennedy will have in the new administration. The Heritage Foundation’s project 2025 plan talked of revamping the National Institutes of Health, the world’s biggest government funder of health research, reducing overheads by cutting the number of disease-specific institutes. Trump has talked of repealing Obamacare. On the other hand, the powerful American pharma industry is a big fan of government spending on health research, especially in fundamental science  – in part to save itself the cost. At present, nobody can guess how this will get resolved.

Climate and energy: One of Trump’s signature acts in his first term was withdrawing the US from the Paris climate accord – later reversed by Biden. He repeatedly praised fossil fuel extraction. And early on the campaign trail, he frequently scoffed at Biden’s renewable energy investments and climate research budgets. But as soon as Tesla car-founder Musk joined his team in October, he muted his opposition to electric vehicles. The upshot, as with much of Trump’s plans: anybody’s guess.

AI and digital research: On the campaign trail, Trump’s general attitude towards regulation has been “less is more” – and that’s expected to carry through to new fields like artificial intelligence. The EU’s AI Act was the first to regulate the new technology, but so far in the US there has been no political consensus on what, if anything, should be done. Analysts at the Atlantic Council, a Washington-based think tank, expect Trump to let industry regulate itself, “giving companies wide leeway to innovate without oversight constraints.” They also expect he will eschew multilateral AI forums, and instead “favour a US-centric approach, aiming for victory over China in an AI race and establishing independent US dominance.”