THREE SCIENTIFIC «CHORDS»: How Global Political Changes Will Impact Science
Photo by Rafael Ishkhanyan on Unsplash
Radical changes in climate control, artificial intelligence, and healthcare — these are just some of the concerns that preoccupied the scientific community ahead of the 2024 U.S. presidential election. With Donald Trump’s victory, it became evident that the upcoming shifts would not only affect the economy and geopolitics but also the entire global scientific landscape. The newly elected president swiftly appointed trusted individuals to oversee AI-related matters, but decisions regarding other scientific fields remain uncertain… The editorial team of the international scientific journal Nature sought to analyze the emerging «Trumpist» scientific trends.
TRUMP FINALLY TAKES AN INTEREST IN SCIENCE
Donald Trump’s first presidency lasted from 2017 to 2021. During that time, he was slow to recognize the importance of prioritizing science and technology — for more than half of his first term, he didn’t even have an official science advisor. However, his second term promises to be quite different.
Even before his inauguration on January 20, 2025, as he prepared to reclaim the Oval Office, Trump announced the names of three candidates for key scientific advisory positions. Some experts believe this signals a growing interest from the new president in science and technology. However, much uncertainty remains about how these advisors will shape American science moving forward.
TRUMP’S SCIENTIFIC TRINITY
If confirmed by the U.S. Senate, Michael Kratsios will lead the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), the agency responsible for coordinating science policy across the U.S. government. He will also serve as the president’s chief science advisor.
Kratsios is no stranger to Trump’s inner circle. During the former president’s first term, he held the position of Chief Technology Officer. The second nominee for a key science advisory role is David Sacks, a tech investor often referred to as the «czar of AI and cryptocurrency» in the new administration. Sacks is set to chair the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST).
The third candidate also has strong ties to the field of artificial intelligence — and to Trump’s first presidency. Roboticist Lynne Parker previously led AI-related initiatives during Trump’s first term. Now, she has been appointed as part of the Kratsios-Sacks advisory team.
TRUMP ANNOUNCES A «GOLDEN AGE» OF SCIENCE
All three appointments clearly indicate that Trump and his administration consider AI development a top priority in their science policy. On his social media platform, Truth Social, the newly elected president declared that his team of scientific advisors «will drive scientific breakthroughs, ensure America’s technological dominance, and usher in a ‘golden age’ of American innovation!» The journal Nature sought opinions from various experts in science policy on this announcement. Here, we summarize the perspectives shared by specialists in interviews with the publication.
WHAT CAME BEFORE TRUMP?
Presidential science advisors in the U.S. have historically played a significant role in shaping policy. One frequently cited example is physicist John Holdren, who served as President Barack Obama’s chief science advisor and head of the OSTP. His influence was deeply embedded in the White House’s climate policies from 2009 to 2017.
As a designated «Assistant to the President», Holdren had direct access to Obama, significantly amplifying his impact on policy decisions. His role extended beyond merely being in the room when crucial choices were made. Trump did not immediately follow Obama’s example. His first science advisor, meteorologist Kelvin Droegemeier, was appointed only two years into his presidency.
FROM «ANTI-SCIENCE» TO A «BRIGHT SPOT»!
Droegemeier’s appointment came late and did not carry the same status as Holdren’s, limiting his influence on policy. Many researchers criticized Trump’s science policies at the time, viewing several of his decisions as anti-scientific.
For instance, during the COVID-19 pandemic, Trump downplayed the severity of the virus and restricted the involvement of government scientists in pandemic response efforts. However, in his second term, Trump appears to have corrected this «mistake» by ensuring that Kratsios holds the same high-ranking position that Holdren once did under Obama.
While Kratsios is more of a technologist than a scientist, he is considered to have a solid understanding of science, making him a «bright spot» in the new administration.
HOW THE GOVERNMENT «ADVANCES» SCIENCE
Scientific expertise within the U.S. government is distributed across numerous agencies, with the OSTP serving as the coordinating body that helps bridge bureaucratic barriers between them. Its role is to facilitate large-scale scientific initiatives, such as the BRAIN initiative for mapping the human brain.
This ambitious project brought together not only multiple government agencies but also key players from the American industry. A similar role is played by the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), which typically consists of representatives from academia and industry.
PCAST produces reports that shape U.S. science policy across a wide range of fields, from modernizing firefighting methods to assessing the impact of nanotechnology. During Trump’s first term, PCAST was not a particularly active body. However, experts now point out that the composition of the new PCAST will be a key indicator of which areas of science policy Trump will prioritize this time around.
AI — YES! EMBRYOS AND CLIMATE — NO
During Trump’s first term, his approach to science policy was radically different from that of the previous administration. Restrictions were placed on embryonic tissue research, and efforts to combat climate change were rolled back. Experts expect similar actions during his second term.
As for AI, Trump also plans to revoke Biden’s executive orders that promoted «safety and fairness» in AI development. Trump has repeatedly argued that his predecessor’s policies «hinder innovation» and «impose radical leftist ideas».
The new administration is not just giving AI the green light. In an interview, Kratsios emphasized the need to secure the United States’ long-term leadership in artificial intelligence. As a result, federal scientific agencies will take the lead in developing standardized testing for large language models.
TRUMP AGAINST INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY THEFT
Experts believe that one of the biggest challenges in Trump’s science policy will be international research collaboration, particularly with China, where tensions may escalate further. During his first term, Trump implemented measures to prevent China from «appropriating» American research.
This initiative drew criticism for resembling a witch hunt, as several U.S.-based researchers, mostly of Chinese descent, were arrested. The Biden administration shut down the program due to concerns over racial bias. However, there is a strong possibility that it will be reinstated under Trump.
Trump’s return to office may also bring renewed scrutiny over foreign student and researcher entry into the U.S., as well as the issuance of H-1B visas for skilled foreign workers.
During his first term, research security was a top priority for Droegemeier and the OSTP. They even developed specific guidelines for American researchers with international ties, outlining which information should not be shared to prevent conflicts of interest.
PRACTICAL APPLICATION? FUND IT!
That said, a scientific «iron curtain» is unlikely for America, as it would not be economically beneficial — especially for Trump’s close ally, billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk, whose companies heavily rely on H-1B visa holders. It appears that Musk influenced Trump’s decision to support these visas.
At the same time, Musk and biotech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy have been appointed co-chairs of an advisory body focused on reducing government spending. They have already proposed slashing it by $2 trillion.
Experts worry that if this happens, funding for fundamental research — especially projects without immediate practical application — could be at risk. Historically, Republicans have supported fundamental science, but given Trump’s pragmatic approach, he may decide to break with this tradition.
However, in the U.S., presidential initiatives do not always translate into actual policy. For instance, during Trump’s first term, Congress rejected his proposed cuts to science budgets, and federal research spending ultimately increased by about 10%.
Original research:
