Shortly after being sworn in as 47th President of the United States On Monday, Donald Trump signed a series of executive orders that could reshape science at home and abroad. The executive orders – which direct the federal government’s actions but cannot change existing laws – are designed to change policies and priorities on several scientific issues, including climate and public health. They also aim to reduce the government’s workforce, which includes scientists, and potentially reduce its authority.
It’s unclear how much weight many of these orders will carry, but policy experts who spoke to Nature say they clearly mark the direction Trump intends to lead the United States during his second term in the White House.
“A lot of the power of executive orders is in the message,” says Gretchen Goldman, president of the Union of Concerned Scientists, an advocacy group based in Cambridge, Massachusetts. And the message so far is clear, she said: “The administration is trying to undermine government experts themselves, as well as the processes by which we make science-based decisions in government.” »
On supporting science journalism
If you enjoy this article, please consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribe. By purchasing a subscription, you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
Here Nature examines some of the most relevant decrees for science.
Climate change
Asset reported in a single command that – similar to his first presidency from 2017 to 2021 – he would withdraw the United States from the 2015 Paris climate agreement. Citing both national security concerns and the impact of high energy prices that are “devastating” American citizens, Trump also has declared a “national energy emergency” in his countryan action that could allow his government to give the green light to energy projects based on fossil fuels.
Trump’s emergency order, one of several executive orders focused on energy issues, would allow U.S. agencies to identify energy projects where federal regulations and laws protecting, for example, endangered species, are delaying progress, according to the president. Agencies would then be allowed to move more quickly to approve projects, including by using “any legal emergency authority.”
But there are limits to what Trump can accomplish, because in many ways “the economy trumps Trump,” says Mark Maslin, an Earth system scientist at University College London. For example, Maslin says, it is now much cheaper to invest in renewable energy sources such as solar and wind than before, meaning investments in these technologies will continue.
By comparison, Trump will struggle to withdraw the United States from the Paris agreement, which commits nearly 200 countries to limiting Earth’s warming to 1.5 to 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. During Trump’s first presidency, his administration had to wait more than three years before formally withdrawing from the pact due to the rules of the agreement. Joe Biden, who succeeded Trump as president of the United States, quickly joined the group. This time, the exit process will only take a year.
Although the Paris agreement will continue to operate without the United States – the world’s second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases – many researchers fear that a US exit will inevitably reduce pressure on other countries to act. It follows the Earth reaching its highest temperature on record last yearand scientists say countries need to step up efforts to reduce emissions if they are to meet the global target.
“Anything that delays or stops these efforts would result in loss of life on the ground,” Goldman said.
Back
As expected, Trump also signed an order for the United States to withdraw from the World Health Organization (WHO)a United Nations agency responsible for global health that the new president says has mismanaged the COVID-19 pandemic. He also said the United States pays a disproportionate amount of dues to the agency compared to other member countries.
Asset announced that the United States would leave the WHO in May 2020, during his first presidency, but because the process takes a year, Biden blocked it on his first day in office in 2021.
Public health researchers say leaving the WHO would cripple the country’s ability to respond nimbly to emerging health threats and damage the country’s reputation as a global health leader. With its annual contribution accounting for more than a tenth of the organization’s multibillion-dollar budget, U.S. withdrawal from the WHO could also undermine the agency’s mission. “This is a very worrying signal to the global community about how serious we are as a partner in protecting health,” says Jennifer Nuzzo, an epidemiologist who directs the Pandemic Center at Brown University, in Providence, Rhode Island.
WHO member countries share information and expertise on infectious disease outbreaks and other threats, and without this key knowledge and data – for example the DNA sequence of an emerging virus – the United States will be slower to respond to crises, says Nuzzo. Additionally, withdrawal creates “opportunities for other countries to intervene and assert themselves in ways that may not be consistent with U.S. interests,” she said. For example, the United States has been a leading caller for strict biosecurity measures when building new pathogen research centers around the world, she adds.
A US withdrawal from the WHO could also jeopardize collaboration with the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), says David Heymann, an infectious disease epidemiologist at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and former Deputy Director-General of the WHO. WHO. America’s flagship public health agency runs more than a dozen WHO collaborating centers in areas ranging from influenza surveillance to antimicrobial resistance. “It would be a loss for the CDC, but it would be a loss for the WHO,” he said.
It is unclear whether Trump can withdraw from the WHO by executive order, as the United States agreed to be a member of the agency in 1948 through a law passed by the U.S. Congress. So leaving the country may need Congressional approval. Lawrence Gostin, a specialist in health law and policy at Georgetown University in Washington DC who directs a WHO collaborating center, said on the social media platform X that he plans to challenge the order in court.
Deep cuts
Several of the orders Trump issued on Jan. 20 focus on the federal workforce, which includes about 280,000 scientists and engineers. The Trump administration is seeking to reduce its size and regulatory power.
In one, Trump says there will be a 90-day hiring freeze for the federal governmentwith the directive to reduce the size of the federal workforce when the executive order expires. Other orders could prompt federal employees to quit their jobs themselves: e.g., Trump seeks to require federal employees to return to the office full timeAnd force agencies to recognize only two sexes, male and femalewhich would, for example, prevent employees from indicating their preferred gender on official documents.
It’s all part of a broader effort to reduce spending and the size of government. For many observers, the message to science is clear. “This is the world we’re going to live in,” says Robert Atkinson, president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a nonprofit think tank based in Washington, DC. “We are not going to develop the science. In fact, we’re going to reduce it.
Another executive order focuses on changing the rules governing civil servants – those hired on the basis of their expertise rather than political appointments. Stating that all federal employees who hold “positions of political influence” must be accountable to the president, the order reinstates a policy formerly known as “Schedule F” which the Trump administration attempted to implement during its first term. That would have made it easier for the administration to fire tens of thousands of workers, including many government scientists, and replace them with political loyalists. The Biden administration revoked this order and also put in place a new rule intended to strengthen the protection of the civil service. The Trump administration is nevertheless moving forward with its changes to Schedule F – which are already being challenged in court by a union representing public sector employees.
“This represents an unprecedented politicization of public service,” says Don Moynihan, a political scientist at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. “Traditionally, we have this clear line between political appointees and career public service. Annex F seeks to blur, if not completely erase, this dividing line.
Although some areas of science and technology, such as AI and quantum computing, should benefit under the second Trump administrationThe first day’s barrage of executive orders did not inspire confidence among researchers or policy specialists. “I’m actually more worried now than ever,” Atkinson says. “I think the stars are aligning in a way that could really harm the scientific community at the federal level.”
With additional reporting by Ewen Callaway and Miryam Naddaf.
This article is reproduced with permission and has been published for the first time January 21, 20245.