President-elect Donald Trump will once again have the chance to leave his mark on this country’s scientific research enterprise.
But that’s cold comfort for many scientific researchers, who have long been troubled by Trump’s comments downplaying scientific consensus. Soon after he took office in 2017, about 15,000 scientists and science advocates converged on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., as part of a global March for Science protesting what organizers described as an “American government that ignores science to pursue ideological agendas” that “endanger the world.”
Trump’s election to a second term earlier this month has renewed concerns within pockets of the scientific community, including those worried about the incoming administration’s lack of respect for experts and evidence-based research. (A wide range of federal agencies are involved in overseeing science policy, and the federal government supplies colleges and corporations with billions in annual research funding.)
Most Popular
Anxiety ramped up last week when Trump nominated Robert F. Kennedy Jr., an outspoken denier of vaccine safety and efficacy, to be head of the Department of Health and Human Services. If he’s confirmed by the Senate, Kennedy’s public health beliefs—and his pledge to get rid of hundreds of civil servants—could put the entire American health-care system “at risk,” said one scientist and former COVID-19 adviser to President Joe Biden.
While such alarm echoes some of the reaction following Trump’s election in 2016, 2024 is a much different world. The past eight years—which saw policymakers navigate a pandemic, the rise of generative AI, intensifying culture wars and an increasing focus on research security—have reshaped the national conversation around public trust in the federally funded scientific research happening at universities nationwide.
According to a recent survey from the Pew Research Center, just under half of Americans (48 percent) believe scientists should stay out of policy debates. And though Americans’ confidence that scientists will act in the public’s best interest is up slightly since this time last year, it still hasn’t returned to pre-pandemic levels.
Experts say it’s too soon to predict what the next four years might bring for scientific research, but Trump’s first term—and his Republican allies’ priorities during President Biden’s outgoing administration—may offer some insight.
Trump’s Track Record
Trump’s first term was marked by an increased focus on research security, specifically protecting American research from China, which has made major investments in technological research—especially artificial intelligence—in recent years. And that has big implications for research universities. In 2018, Federal Bureau of Investigation director Christopher Wray told the Senate intelligence committee that higher education institutions are critical to combating China’s threats to American intelligence.
Soon after, Trump’s Justice Department launched the China Initiative as a vehicle to investigate American scholars’ ties to China.
Although the Biden administration discontinued the China Initiative in 2022—critics said it singled out people with ethnic, racial or familial ties to China—it continued support for research security policies. In August, the 45-year-old Science and Technology Cooperation Agreement between the U.S. and China expired, and it’s not clear if it will be renewed.
In addition to research security and the focus on China, Trump’s science policy record from the first term was largely defined by an incompetent response to the COVID-19 pandemic and deep skepticism of science and scientists. Trump also tried repeatedly to cut federal research spending.
Editors’ Picks
University researchers rely on billions of dollars of federal funding—from agencies such as the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation—to develop the technological and medical advances that have built the United States’ reputation as a wellspring of innovation. Congress, which has the final say on spending, ultimately didn’t support those proposed cuts during Trump’s first term.
But Brian Darmody, chief strategy officer for the Association of University Research Parks, suspects the incoming Republican-controlled Congress will also recognize that taking a sledgehammer to research may not go over so well in the communities they represent, including many that depend on university research endeavors to drive the local economy and, in some cases, create manufacturing jobs.
What’s Changed Since Then
Under Biden, Congress passed the bipartisan CHIPS and Science Act, a landmark piece of legislation that provided funding to manufacture semiconductor chips in the U.S. and authorized $200 billion in spending on scientific research, development and commercialization over the next decade. That included $81 billion for the National Science Foundation, which would have doubled the agency’s budget.
The CHIPS Act will likely be Biden’s key achievement when it comes to science policy, but the administration also led on efforts to tackle climate change by investing in clean energy jobs and boosting support for cancer research.
However, CHIPS has yet to reach its full promise because Congress has not so far fully funded the program.
The National Science Foundation, one of the agencies that is supposed to be leading those efforts, saw its budget cut by 8 percent earlier this year, a move that shocked the research community. And the NSF, which sent about $6 billion in research funds to universities in 2022, may also get caught in the crosshairs of the Trump and GOP’s crusade against diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.
Earlier this year, Texas senator Ted Cruz, a Republican, released a report accusing the NSF of funding scientific research projects that promoted DEI or “pushed neo-Marxist perspectives about enduring class struggle” during the Biden administration. And a week before Trump won the presidential election, the America First Legal Foundation, a nonprofit run by one-time—and possibly future—members of his administration, sued the NSF for records related to the foundation’s own investigation of the NSF’s “leftist ideology.”
Elon Musk, the tech billionaire whom Trump appointed to co-lead the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, posted on X, the social media platform he owns, that the NSF’s DEI initiatives are akin to “the corruption of science.” That stance suggests to some experts that science agencies’ policies related to DEI will likely come under more scrutiny in the next four years.
What’s Next
Research security and higher ed’s ties to China are expected once again to take center stage on the science policy front during Trump’s second term.
He’s already surrounding himself with politicians who support his “America First” approach. Both his pick for national security adviser, Representative Michael Waltz, and nominee for secretary of state—Senator Marco Rubio—have advocated for expanding restrictions on how U.S. researchers can collaborate with certain countries, including China, Iran and Russia.
Caroline Wagner, a professor of public policy at Ohio State University, said she believes that during Trump’s second term, prioritizing research security will likely “continue and probably be enhanced” and will in turn “have some influence on the willingness and ability of researchers in the U.S. to work with colleagues in certain countries.”
Darmody, of the Association of University Research Parks, said the specificity of those potential new research regulations will be key to ensuring that the American research enterprise isn’t hampered by an overbearing bureaucracy.
“I hope we’re specific enough to protect our crown jewels and not just overly broad ‘protect our technology’ types of initiatives,” he said. The latter could create an environment “where research administrators are overlooking what faculty are doing for fear that they may be violating some technology export regulation.”
In addition to the possibility of more stringent research security regulations, scientists may also have to compete even harder for research grants.
That’s because Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, who is also leading the government efficiency initiative, have said they want to cut $2 trillion—nearly a third—from the federal budget and eliminate entire agencies. If enacted, which experts say is unlikely, that plan could have ramifications for research funding. But maybe not across the board.
In Trump’s first term, funding for NASA increased, and the agency may see even more support during his second administration. (Musk, who also founded SpaceX, is outspoken about his interest in space exploration.)
While there may be more political support for some agencies over others, “I don’t think overall funding for research is going to increase,” Darmody said. “Research is going to be chasing headwinds. The counter to that is the interest in competing with China, and to the extent that obviates the push to reduce overall spending, there will be a lot of discussion around that.”
And those are the discussions that scientists need to be a part of as Trump’s second term gets underway, according to the Association of American Universities, which represents 71 public and private research institutions.
“The most important thing we are telling our member universities to do now is to educate the new members of Congress and new administration officials about just how important the work of research universities is for our country’s success,” Tobin Smith, senior vice president for government relations and public policy at the AAU, said in an email. “America’s research universities have been the world’s envy for decades. Why? Because the education we provide and the research we conduct on behalf of the federal government help make America stronger, safer, healthier and more prosperous.”
