For almost half of Donald Trump’s first US presidency, which ran from 2017 to 2021, he did not have an official science adviser. His second term is shaping up to be different.

As he prepares to take office for the second time on 20 January, Trump has already made nominations for three key science-advisory positions. Some observers are hopeful that this signals a greater interest in science and technology, but much uncertainty remains about how the advisers will shape US science.

What Trump’s election win could mean for AI, climate and health

If confirmed by the US Senate, Michael Kratsios, who served as chief technology officer during Trump’s first term, will lead the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), which coordinates science policy across the US government. He will also be the president’s science adviser. David Sacks, a tech investor, will be the new administration’s ‘AI and crypto czar’, as well as the chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), a body of research and industry specialists external to the White House. And roboticist Lynne Parker, who directed artificial intelligence (AI) efforts during the first Trump administration, has been tapped for a new role assisting both Kratsios and Sacks.

Trump’s focus on AI has resulted in the speedy appointment of these advisers, says Kirstin Matthews, a science-policy researcher at Rice University in Houston, Texas. The advisers did not respond to Nature’s requests for comment.

In a statement on Trump’s social-media platform Truth Social, the president-elect said that his science advisory team will “unleash scientific breakthroughs, ensure America’s technological dominance, and usher in a Golden Age of American Innovation!”

Nature spoke to science-policy specialists, including a former US science adviser, about the team and what recommendations they might give Trump.

Powerful influence?

Science advisers to the US president can exert a powerful influence on policy. One example scholars often cite is John Holdren, a physicist who was presidential science adviser and head of the OSTP during the 2009–17 presidency of Barack Obama.

“You can see Holdren’s fingerprints all over White House climate policy during the eight years that he served as science adviser,” says Kenneth Evans, a science-policy researcher at Rice University. Obama also designated Holdren an ‘assistant to the president’, which gave Holdren direct access to the president and increased his influence, Matthews says. “A lot of times, science advising is just being in the room” when decisions are made, she adds.

Trump’s first science adviser, meteorologist Kelvin Droegemeier, wasn’t named until nearly two years into that presidency and didn’t receive the same designation, limiting his influence over policy, specialists say.

Many researchers were disappointed by presidential science policy during Trump’s first administration. The then-president made anti-science decisions on a range of issues. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, Trump downplayed the dangers of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus and sidelined government researchers.

This time, Trump has given Kratsios the designation of ‘assistant to the president’. Researchers expressed support for the decision. “I think it’s to Trump’s credit and to Kratsios’s great advantage,” Holdren tells Nature.

‘We need to be ready for a new world’: scientists globally react to Trump election

Although Kratsios lacked a background in science policy, he was “a bright spot in the first Trump administration”, Evans says. Tobin Smith, senior vice-president of government affairs at the Association of American Universities (AAU) in Washington DC, says that the AAU’s work with Kratsios during that time was positive, adding, “he is certainly a tech guy more than a science guy, but he understands science”.

Scientific expertise in the US government is spread across many agencies. The OSTP was designed to help coordinate them all, and is basically “there to herd cats, to break down silos”, Evans says. This means organizing broad scientific projects, such as the BRAIN Initiative, which draws on multiple agencies, as well as industry, to undertake the enormous task of mapping the human brain.

Similarly, PCAST, which has generally been composed of representatives from across academia and industry, produces reports that guide US science policy on a wealth of topics, from modernizing firefighting to the impact of nanotechnology. During Trump’s first term, PCAST was delayed in starting, reduced in size and many members were business executives. Researchers say that the composition of PCAST will be an indicator of what science policies the second Trump administration will focus on.

On the agenda