Last month, The New York Times reported That the National Science Foundation, the government agency which finances non -medical research, has distributed money to the slowest rate for at least 35 years. Compared to the average of the year at the beginning of the previous decade, the financing of mathematics, physics and chemistry fell by 67%; 52% for biology; and 57% for engineering. The NSF crisis is not accidental. He reflects the hostility of the Trump administration towards basic research, part of a broader aggression against science.
It is also a case study in the weaknesses of the simplistic approach to the Trump movement to punish enemies, and how instincts that can be healthy in a situation can be disastrous in another.
Partly, the delay in disbursement funds was caused by a combination of incompetence and the time he has taken to examine research projects for “Dei” and other politically disadvantaged themes. Nevertheless, as if to leave no doubt about its ultimate intentions, the White House is proposal A budget that would reduce the financing of the NSF by 57% and for the National Institutes of Health by 40%. Cancel subsidies at Harvard during manufacturing impossible requirements is another sign that the administration does not think that support for science is worth it, as is its crusade against foreign students.
It is a bizarre set of priorities in light of what empirical research says about American science, and even the nature of the forces that supported Trump’s campaign in 2024: especially technological law. Of the 210 drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration from 2010 to 2016, each was connected in one way or another to financing the NIH. Qualitative estimates tend to find massive return on investment.
The advantages of American innovation go far beyond pharmaceutical products. The founding progress of artificial intelligence, from in -depth learning algorithms to fundamental natural language treatment models, often go back to basic research funded by the NSF and the Ministry of Defense. The mRNA vaccine technology – which allowed the rapid response to the cocheal despite its current poor reputation on the right – relied on decades of research supported by NIH on RNA biology and the delivery systems of lipid nanoparticles.
The human genome project has not only transformed biomedical science, but has catalyzed new entire industries in genomics and precision medicine. The global positioning system, initially developed by the Ministry of Defense, underpins modern navigation, logistics, agriculture and carpooling platforms. Even tactile screens and vocal assistants depend on breakthroughs publicly supported in the science of materials and the recognition of speech. Far from being useless, these investments are the root infrastructure for whole sectors of the 21st century economy.
In addition, a major political theme in recent years has been the rise of technological law, which preaches a positive attitude towards science and innovation. Marc Andreessen “Techno-optimistic manifesto” is perhaps the most famous document reflecting this perspective. Many thought that the involvement of successful Silicon Valley entrepreneurs would make Trump a more pro-science president. Although technological law has always been more interested in deregulation than government support for innovation, many people involved, in particular Elon Musk, have greatly benefited from subsidies and have built their businesses on work in the public sector. There were therefore reasons to hope that they would guide the administration in the right direction.
What is behind the current delays and cuts, as well as the massively reduced budget proposals?
First of all, there is a kind of Zombie budgetary conservatism, which was most clearly seen in the DOGE project. Rational tax conservatism would use a cost-benefit analysis and think about where the most useful cuts can be made. Scientific funding is a tiny part of the federal budget. The funds going to the NSF and the combined NIH are lower than a 10th of what the Pentagon receives. If you count everything scientific financing In the federal government, including at the Ministry of Defense, you end up with only 3% of the budget. DOGE failed in its attempts to reduce major expenses, and Trump’s major bill, despite certain reductions, will increase the deficit.
“Magi World does not see American institutions, even the most functioning, as shared inheritances”
Unable to win major victories on the expenditure front, therefore – and for political reasons that did not want to touch the rights or the pentagon – the tax hawks collapsed to attack the NIH and the NSF to at least have the impression of doing something. This will have negative consequences downstream for the country. But it would not be the first time that the administration has shown that it has prioritized short -term political victories over the long -term future.
The other factor here seems to be the degree to which cultural war dominates thought on the right. Like left -wing radicals who want to burn the entire system, Magi World does not see American institutions, even the most functioning, as shared inheritances that Americans have the obligation to cultivate and defend. Most scientists vote democratic and work in universities and research laboratories that Trump’s supporters perceive precisely as hostile to their values. For the Trumpians, it is not relevant that the average scientist devotes much more time to think of cellular development or the latest innovations in quantum computer science than destroying the nuclear family. Among the intellectually inclined Trumpians, the enthusiasm for the work of Carl Schmitt – the Nazi lawyer who defined politics as an enmity – gives birth to a global approach and zero sum of our common life.
There has always been a Maga movement in theory, and another in practice. Since Trump descended the escalator in the summer of 2015, he was a basic political phenomenon that the actors tried to shape their own ends. Some, such as immigration restrictions and anti-revealing activists, managed to obtain a large part of what they wanted from Trump. Others, such as technological law, found themselves in the cold when their priorities conflict with the opinions of the president and his most fervent supporters. For those who have a vision of American grandeur, the results were mixed.
The assault against American science was unfortunately a case of the identification of triumphant Trumpian on all kinds of elaboration of rational policies. The role of Musk in the administration before falling with the president only strengthened his natural inclinations. A healthier vision of nationalism would appreciate the successes of American science, would take things that work and try to rely on them, while surgically targeting gaps. There is certainly room for improvement, thanks to initiatives such as reducing DEI financing and the reduction of bureaucratic administrative formalities.
In some cases, the Trump administration has in fact moved the nation in the right direction. It seems that many, otherwise most of the subsidies that have been canceled, had a DEI componentIncluding education programs for women and minorities that are classified in the STEM funding category. An executive decree has ended a half-century ban On overland supersonic flights in American airspace. The Ministry of Health and Social Services under RFK, despite the adoption of anti-vaccine positions and other forms of charlatan, has taken some positive steps In terms of deregulation of the manufacturing capacity and marketing of new drugs.
Then, too, Trumpian desire to upset bureaucrats and those considered to be political enemies did a little good. During the covid, it was the elites of public and bureaucratic health that insisted that normal precautions are taken while expressing doubts about the feasibility of quickly delivering a vaccine, despite all the forms of reasonable cost analysis suggesting at the time when the government had to move as quickly as possible. There are certain jobs in the government’s scientific establishment which harm rather than promoting innovation. This includes not only the applicators of Orthodoxy DEI, but also a large part of the field of ethicsWhat is too cautious in trying to prevent damage, whatever the quantity that this limits the individual choice and makes it more difficult to supply new drugs and treatments that can help people and save lives.
The two sides of Trump’s administration policy towards science are a microcosm of the strengths and weaknesses of the large populist movement. The elites have regularly failed in their functions and have often made themselves ridiculous to the point that they discredited all of American science in the eyes of a large part of the public. At the same time, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the United States remains the innovative engine of the world, especially in the field of biomedicine. As the conservatives preached to the liberals, the change should always have come with a clear appreciation of what currently works well and can be easily rebuilt once it is destroyed. The approach of Slash-And-Burn can only wreak havoc on American scientific and industrial capacity.
The Bureaucrat Dei does not represent all American scientists. And each individual who votes against you is not an implacable enemy who must be funded, if not destroyed, whatever the advantages they can have. Many researchers and university leaders are too aware of the dead angles of their institutions. This means that by working with greater precision and sophistication, the administration could potentially find support for reform within the Academy. If something good will come from the Trump movement in the future, it will have to keep these nuances and these tensions in mind.