Science and Politics: STEM Innovation Under Trump

President Trump signed an executive order establishing what his administration termed the “gold standard for science” early in 2025. The directive publicly required federal agencies to prioritize transparency, reproducibility, and unbiased peer review in research supported by public funds, but in practice, it has become a way for the government to conduct surveillance on innovative research and to control which scientific articles are published. 

This temporarily slows innovation, with the promised benefit of more solid papers and discoveries in the future. Proponents also argued that this policy will strengthen accountability and increase public trust in federally funded science. However, no science is foolproof; as exemplified by RFK’s vaccine policy, even Ph.D. candidates can publish misguided research. For the most part, the general public fears science and phenomena they do not understand. Some researchers have also raised concerns that the framework may expose scientific institutions to political interference. Reuters/Ipsos polling suggests that only one in four Americans believes that recent science-related policies are based on evidence rather than politics, and that number has only gone down with the new legislation. 

The administration’s fiscal approach has had sweeping effects on U.S. science. More than $1 billion in grants from the National Science Foundation (NSF) have been slashed, canceling over 1,600 projects, many of which focused on diversity, equity, and inclusion in STEM. The government has also threatened that any additional grants to the NSF lab are under scrutiny. The policy has turned into a hunt for buzzwords when reviewing grant applications, leading to questions about whether proposals are being judged on scientific merit or ideological conformity. Even papers containing words like “diversity” and “inclusion” in a purely scientific context are being flagged and deplatformed. According to The Guardian, these cancellations have dissolved research teams across the country, forcing cancer trials to shut down in Texas and delaying climate monitoring in Alaska. 

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has also experienced significant budget cuts and staff terminations, causing concerns about future public health preparedness. Experts interviewed by The Guardian warn that weakened leadership may hinder the nation’s ability to respond effectively to future health crises, especially at a level resembling that of COVID-19. Even private companies like Memorial Sloan Kettering have ordered every lab to cut its budget by 10 percent. The administration’s push to slash federal research budgets even further recently met resistance in the Senate, which rebuffed a proposal to reduce spending by 60 percent. 

With the money from these cuts, the Trump administration has placed significant emphasis on advancing already existing “high-priority” technologies. Quantum information science, AI, and 5G communications in rural communities were formally designated as national research priorities. The majority of Trump’s voting demographic is concerned with 5G coverage in their more rural area. Although the administration has cut funding towards certain research projects and universities, the Stanford Human-Centered AI Institute noted that the Trump administration’s AI Action Plan is among the most ambitious federal technology agendas in history. The administration has framed these projects as essential to maintaining U.S. leadership in global innovation.

However, Trump's policies have been off to a slow start, and they seem to be moving technologies in the wrong direction. For instance, training a single AI model can emit five times more carbon than an average person’s lifetime of car ownership, raising questions about whether U.S. investments align with pre-existing climate goals. Additionally, new legislation has been destroying flagship studies around the country, including renewable energy resources and gender inclusive studies. Cuts to Medicaid-funded university research—never a core Trump platform and not a priority for most of his voters—undermine rural hospitals and drug innovation for low-income Americans. Most worrying, though, is that the CDC and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) have been spreading misinformation to the families of the world, including the false claim that vaccines cause autism. Those organizations have even gone so far as to remove their recommendation for some vaccines. Since their removal, measles and many other diseases have been on the rise.

Scientific research under the Trump administration raises the question: what is more important—partisan technological innovation and development or tested research? The future of U.S. research may well depend on whether these accountability measures strengthen science or strip resources from public health, cancer treatment, and renewable energy studies that Americans rely on in daily life.