Trump 2.0: Science Denialism
S Krishnaswamy
THE Trump presidency's engagement with the scientific community has been characterised by a very high level of tension, particularly during his second term as the president of the United States. Perhaps one of the most influential actions taken by Trump in early 2025 was to issue executive orders that suspended communication and froze spending at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the world's largest public funding agency of biomedical research. This action was detailed on January 21, 2025 in a series of instructions from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to halt all external communications until they could be vetted by Trump-appointed officials. Initially to run until February 1, 2025, the freeze resulted in the cancellation of essential research-grant review meetings, travel, and training for scientists throughout the United States.
The effects of this record freeze were felt in the scientists' inability to obtain necessary equipment for continuous research, such as test tubes and drugs for clinical trials, having a ripple effect within the scientific community. This action was interpreted as a message that the administration cared less about maintaining continuity in crucial health research and more about imposing political control over the language of science. Another shocking fallout from the executive orders of 2025 was the sudden halt to NIH research-grant reviews. Scientists who were dependent on NIH funding for pivotal studies were placed in limbo, with numerous scientists worried that their research lives were under threat. The NIH, which distributes close to $47 billion per year for biomedical research, was essentially brought to a standstill, with about 80 per cent of its budget stalled as a result of the halting of advisory committees and study sections.
This freeze, while temporary, caused shockwaves in the scientific community. Young researchers were most at risk, as delays in grant funding threatened their jobs and slowed work on essential health research. These disruptions will cause long-term consequences as careers were suspended and critical research came to a halt. The significance of the NIH freeze reaches far beyond the biomedical community. Other government agencies, such as the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), suffered equally. For the first time in its 60-year history, the CDC did not release critical epidemiological data in the form of disease surveillance reports such as the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR). These data are used by scientists and health professionals across the globe to monitor and respond to public health emergencies. This only worsened apprehensions in the scientific community about the Trump administration sabotaging public health initiatives when global health crises, such as the spread of infectious diseases, were still there.
LEGAL CHALLENGES AND EXCLUSION
On February 21, 2025, US District Judge Adam Abelson in Baltimore granted an injunction to temporarily suspend an executive order signed by President Donald Trump on his first day back in office that aimed to reduce federal funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. The NIH had already started digitally scrubbing its sites of references to DEI. Trump subsequently signed a second order mandating that federal contractors sign a statement attesting that they do not advertise DEI in their employment practices. On top of that, as a further move to replace military commanders viewed as pro-diversity, Trump suddenly removed Air Force General CQ Brown, the second African American general to be Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The legal fight over these DEI directives is likely to continue in the months to come.
NIH suspension was not a singular event but one part of a string of actions which seemed to be undermining scientific integrity. Trump's administration was already notorious for denying climate change policy, and leaving the Paris Climate Agreement was the grand sign of this. His pullout, decided in November 2020, was widely condemned by environmentalists and scientists as well since it essentially derailed one of the world's biggest anti-climate change initiatives. This time during the second term he has pulled the US once again out of the Paris Climate Agreement and also the World Health Organisation. In addition, Trump's appointments to the highest offices in federal agencies, that is, those in charge of environmental and health policy were, and still are, usually individuals who rejected the scientific consensus on vital matters such as climate change and public health. The appointments indicated the administration's reluctance to accept evidence-based policy, creating an environment where scientific research was biased and exclusionary.
The consequences of Trump's executive orders and appointments were also amplified by the increasing power of voices such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The recent Senate confirmation of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as health secretary is a glaring example of the way science denialism has been able to take hold within government. Kennedy, who has opposed vaccines, peddled COVID-19 conspiracy theories, and had AIDS controversy, is a major threat to the integrity of public health policy in the US. His seat gives him leverage to shape national health policy and research agendas, and there is fear that his anti-science ideology may be entrenched in the federal health and disease prevention approach. His ascent to power directly threatened the integrity of science because most people feared that his anti-science beliefs would become rooted in federal health policy.
For example, science denialism once took root in South Africa under President Thabo Mbeki. At that time, AIDS denialism had led to catastrophic health outcomes. During the late 1990s and early 2000s, refusal by President Thabo Mbeki to acknowledge HIV as the cause of AIDS led to the decision of the government not to provide antiretroviral drugs. This contributed to the deaths of at least several hundred thousand individuals. South African activists, like Treatment Action Campaign members, stood in the way of the government's position, fighting for access to lifesaving treatment. They ultimately became a crucial force behind one of the largest antiretroviral programs in the world. This was a lesson in the power of grassroots activism. In the absence of the grassroots activism in the US, in comparison to what happened in South Africa, the threat of Kennedy's denialism as the US response to AIDS, vaccines, and other key health issues can play out to be a disaster.
Kennedy's vaccine skepticism is not an isolated phenomenon. His incendiary comments regarding the etiology of chronic diseases such as cancer, diabetes, and obesity also raised anxiety among public health professionals. Scientists pointed out that while chronic disease was undoubtedly a major issue, prioritising it at the expense of infectious disease, especially in the context of the current COVID-19 pandemic and emerging threats such as bird flu, was a reckless oversimplification. These, in conjunction with the general defunding of science programs, shows how the policies of the Trump administration could be stalling progress in public health especially related to infectious disease research and chronic disease control.
PROJECT 2025: RIGHT WING LEGACY
The other alarming reality was the resurrection of Project 2025, the conservative policy agenda promoted by organisations such as the Heritage Foundation. The project was tailored to overhaul several federal agencies that oversee scientific research in a bid to limit regulatory scrutiny and decrease funding for climate research. The proposed reforms of Project 2025 would push the decline of scientific integrity even further, where political ideology prevails over evidence-driven decision-making. In response to this action, many within the scientific community took on a critical role. More than 50,000 scientists and activists signed open letters urging Congress to protect federal research funding and to halt political interference in the scientific agencies of the nation. However, many scientists found themselves powerless against the administration that seemed adamant about reshaping the scientific order according to its own political ideologies.
Trump's science legacy is one of obstruction, doubt, and political meddling. The attempts by the administration to stifle scientific research and cut funding to key institutions are a dire threat to innovation, climate action, and public health. The wider scientific community fears that this will become a precedent, stifling the free flow of ideas and making it more difficult to apply evidence-based policies for the benefit of all segments of society.
Trump is not a one-off phenomenon. He is the symptom of the continuing battle between evidence-based decision-making for the common good and the rightwing crony capitalist ideology such as is also taking place in India.
or reload the browser
