President Trump receives a briefing on the track of Hurricane Dorian from Neil Jacobs, the acting head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. A few days later, NOAA was caught up in a spiraling scandal after it issued an anonymous statement walking back a tweet from a forecasting office that inadvertently contradicted a claim by Trump about the storm’s trajectory.
(Image credit – Shealah Craighead / The White House)
For three years, President Trump was a marginal figure in his administration’s science policy. While some other parts of the government were subject to radical policy shifts and sudden leadership changes, many science programs maintained essentially steady courses.
In 2020, though, Trump took on a central role when the COVID-19 pandemic brought his administration its most urgent science policy challenge . Denying the disaster’s scale and the need for strong federal action, Trump’s leadership shaped a national response that ranks among the worst in the world , with nearly a half-million American lives now lost.
In different circumstances, such turmoil could have been more widespread among science programs. For example, a number of them would have been hobbled or eliminated had Congress not rejected Trump’s repeated proposals for deep spending cuts, while internal opposition derailed incipient efforts to challenge consensus climate science. More than any changes in programs, it may be such looming threats that will come to be seen as science policy’s defining feature in the Trump era.
Anxiety over the future of government science was widespread even in the earliest days of Trump’s presidency, when many observers believed it would naturally be undermined by the cavalier attitude toward reality captured in the phrase “alternative facts.” That April, scientists and science fans gathered at “March for Science” demonstrations around the world to assert their values.
Although the early fears of systematic interference were not realized, scientists and scientific procedures were sometimes targets in the administration’s efforts to make broad, long-lasting changes in how agencies function. For instance, the Environmental Protection Agency barred holders of agency research grants from simultaneously serving on its advisory panels, calling it a conflict of interest. It also moved to restrict its use of scientific studies without readily accessible datasets, framing it as a transparency measure. Courts have since overturned both policies .
It will be more difficult to reverse the loss of talent that followed the sudden relocation of two Department of Agriculture research offices from Washington, D.C., to Kansas City. Although justified as bringing agency personnel into closer contact with stakeholders, White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney privately boasted it was a “wonderful way” to force government employees to quit. Another such move at the Bureau of Land Management has led to a similar employee exodus .
Climate science occupied a distinctly uncomfortable place within the Trump administration, as Trump himself repeatedly dismissed its conclusions and agencies tamped down on climate-related communications. Even so, the administration did publish the statutorily mandated National Climate Assessment, and a proposed “red team” challenge to consensus climate science never materialized . At the administration’s tail end, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy Director Kelvin Droegemeier dismissed two OSTP staff members who made a last-ditch, unauthorized effort to publish documents attacking consensus findings.
In general, though, prior to the pandemic Trump and his inner circle’s posture toward science was one of uninterest rather than hostility. For instance, Trump did not continue the Obama administration’s White House science fairs and he is the only president never to award a National Medal of Science since Congress established the honor in 1959. The one notable exception to this rule was that Trump’s daughter and adviser Ivanka Trump did seek to associate herself with science and STEM education policy, appearing frequently at science-related events.
Trump signs the National Quantum Initiative Act in December 2018, flanked by, from left, White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Coordination Chris Liddell, senior OSTP official Michael Kratsios, and Ivanka Trump.
(Image credit – The White House)
Alongside other federal leadership positions, President Trump left many science policymaking jobs in his administration vacant for unusually long periods , and he took a year and a half to nominate Droegemeier. Even after Droegemeier took up the job in January 2019, OSTP operated at the White House’s periphery, keeping clear of factional disputes as it concentrated on coordinating federal R&D strategies and addressing interagency policy concerns such as safeguarding U.S. research against exploitation by rival governments.
At the same time, OSTP’s peripheral role meant it was often invisible during certain important developments. It made few public comments on high-profile matters impacting the scientific community, such as tightened visa rules and interagency disputes over radiofrequency spectrum allocation. And, while it worked with science agencies to update grantee disclosure requirements, it appeared to take a back seat as the FBI and Department of Education aggressively cracked down on researchers and universities with undisclosed ties to foreign entities.
Moreover, despite Droegemeier’s focus on upholding “American values” in research, OSTP avoided comment during the administration’s various scientific integrity scandals, including the infamous “Sharpiegate” blowup surrounding Hurricane Dorian. While that spectacle struck mainly at weather forecasters’ morale, months later scientific integrity became an intense national concern when COVID-19 spread around the globe.
President Trump looks on as Anthony Fauci speaks at a White House Coronavirus Task Force briefing.
(Image credit – Tia Dufour / The White House)
The record-shattering speed with which vaccines were developed in response to COVID-19 has provided an extraordinarily clear example of how science policy can lay groundwork for an effective national response when such emergencies arise.
Yet most other aspects of the U.S. response have been plagued by failures. Some of the most critical failures occurred during COVID-19’s early phases, when Trump denied the disease would make inroads in the U.S. and downplayed its lethality , even as he privately acknowledged the danger. As deaths mounted, Trump pressed for a rapid return to normal life, contributing to the thorough politicization of measures such as mask-wearing and restrictions on public gatherings.
Trump’s messaging efforts also infringed repeatedly on government scientists’ integrity. In the early weeks of the pandemic, respiratory disease expert Nancy Messonnier was sidelined from public engagement after making pessimistic remarks. White House COVID-19 coordinator Deborah Birx soon became known for her strained efforts to accommodate Trump’s viewpoints. By late summer, one administration spokesperson was deriding government scientists as conspirators against Trump. Meanwhile, to find support for his policies, Trump had turned to an outside adviser with dubious qualifications, Hoover Institution fellow Scott Atlas
Some of the most direct and serious infringements surrounded Trump’s efforts to push unproven therapeutics, particularly the potentially dangerous hydroxychloroquine. Whistleblower Rick Bright alleged he was removed from his role as director of the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority, a central agency in the pandemic response, after he resisted pressure to back such treatments.
The lack of clarity and trustworthiness in the administration’s response quickly led to one of the more unlikely developments in recent U.S. science policy: the elevation of National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Anthony Fauci to the status of national icon . Yet, while in some circles Fauci’s name came to represent integrity in the face of political pressure, the fractiousness of the crisis led others to regard him as an opponent of Trump, with some even making death threats against him and his family.
While the pandemic exposed the fragility of the Trump administration’s approach to science policy, many science programs have nonetheless fared well over the last four years. With notable exceptions, Trump appointed uncontroversial figures to lead science agencies. And, while the White House sought steep budget cuts, Congress actually increased funding for many programs faster than it did during the Obama administration, when concerns about the national debt were more in vogue.
Increased funding has allowed some science agencies to move ahead at full steam with facility upgrades, new space missions, and other major projects. In addition, the administration’s efforts to slash federal support for energy technology development and commercialization led Congress to reaffirm bipartisan support for such activities. Trump’s repeated proposals to terminate the Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy brought the agency renewed attention, with its budget reaching record levels and bipartisan support declared for further increases.
Defense-related R&D has generally benefited from the Trump administration’s focus on the military, as tens of billions of dollars have flowed to efforts begun during the Obama administration to accelerate cutting-edge technologies. Likewise, the National Nuclear Security Administration’s budget ballooned as Trump pushed aggressively ahead with the modernization of the U.S. nuclear arsenal.
There was also agreement between the Trump administration and both parties in Congress on fostering specific fields regarded as strategically significant in view of heightened competition with nations such as China. Two new national R&D initiatives were established to advance quantum information science and artificial intelligence, while OSTP promoted those fields along with advanced manufacturing, advanced wireless technology, and biotechnology as “Industries of the Future.” All these areas will likely continue to be priorities under President Biden.
Space science remained tremendously productive under the Trump administration. At NASA, the shift in its human spaceflight program toward lunar exploration has revivified activities in lunar science, even as Congress refused to fund the Trump administration’s goal of completing a crewed landing in 2024. Furthermore, Congress continued to fund science efforts such as the flagship Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope, which the administration sought to cancel in favor of its other space priorities.
Notwithstanding the positive trajectory of many science programs over the last four years, this past year the COVID-19 pandemic has taken a toll on researchers, alongside others around the world who are struggling to cope with its impacts on routine activities. Recovering from the damage is a key task now left to the Biden administration.
