Upon taking office for his second term, President Donald Trump wasted no time in issuing a series of executive orders that could significantly alter the course of science and research in the United States. These orders, while not capable of changing existing laws, will redirect government priorities, especially in areas like climate science, public health, and federal workforce dynamics. According to policy experts, the orders mark a clear signal of the administration’s intent to scale back the role of scientific expertise in decision-making, potentially undercutting the influence of government scientists. This analysis is drawn from an article published in Nature.
One of the most high-profile moves comes with Trump signaling his intent to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Climate Agreement, echoing his first term’s decision. This action, which he claims is necessary for national security and to address high energy prices, also includes declaring a ‘national energy emergency’ that would expedite the approval of fossil fuel-based energy projects. This could involve bypassing environmental regulations, such as those protecting endangered species. Critics argue that while Trump’s executive orders may resonate politically, the global shift toward renewable energy, driven by declining costs for technologies like wind and solar, could limit the long-term effectiveness of these policies.
In another significant move, Trump announced plans to withdraw the U.S. from the World Health Organization (WHO), a decision that could severely impact the country’s ability to effectively respond to global health crises. Public health experts warn that such a move would undermine U.S. leadership in global health, cripple collaborative efforts on emerging diseases, and allow other nations to step in, potentially pushing agendas not aligned with U.S. interests. Experts like Jennifer Nuzzo, an epidemiologist at Brown University, highlight that a U.S. pullout could delay responses to future pandemics, as the WHO plays a key role in sharing data and research on infectious disease outbreaks.
However, the legality of withdrawing from the WHO through an executive order is in question. As the U.S. joined the organization via a congressional act in 1948, it may require Congressional approval to leave, leading to potential legal challenges.
On the domestic front, Trump’s orders also focus on reducing the size and regulatory influence of the federal workforce. These include a 90-day hiring freeze, potentially forcing scientists and engineers working for the government to either leave voluntarily or face a significantly reduced role in shaping policy. Trump’s emphasis on requiring federal employees to return to the office full-time and his controversial push to recognize only two genders on official documents further align with his broader goal to cut government spending.
In addition, the reinstatement of a controversial policy known as ‘Schedule F’ could allow the administration to replace career scientists with political appointees loyal to the president. This has raised concerns about the politicization of science, with experts like Don Moynihan from the University of Michigan warning that it threatens the impartiality of government science, potentially undermining long-established standards of civil service.
While these executive orders are seen as a blow to scientific integrity, some sectors like artificial intelligence and quantum computing could see a boost under Trump’s second term. However, experts like Robert Atkinson of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation express serious concern about the broader implications for the scientific community. Atkinson argues that the administration’s priorities indicate a significant shift away from science-driven policymaking, with the federal government taking a more hands-off, regulatory approach that may stifle innovation and scientific progress.
This post was originally published on here
