Withdrawal from the Paris agreement or the WHO, denial of the pandemic during his first term, criticism against universities and major scientific institutions during the campaign… Donald Trump’s return to power is cause for concern in the scientific community . Specialist in research policies for over thirty years and journalist on the editorial staff of the prestigious journal Science, Jeffrey Mervis needed twenty-four hours to recover from the “shock” of this election before agreeing to respond to L’Express. A fine connoisseur of the mysteries of Washington, he nevertheless puts the consequences of this second term, particularly in budgetary matters: “For us, the president proposes, but Congress disposes.” Interview.
L’Express: You rub shoulders with many scientists. What is the mood in the laboratories, a few days after the election of Donald Trump?
Jeffrey Mervis: Most researchers are very worried. They did not support President Trump’s policies in his first term, and they fear that some of the same policies will be repeated in this new term, or even that more policies that they consider extreme will be adopted. They are also concerned about the campaign’s rhetoric. Donald Trump and Vice President-elect JD Vance have harshly criticized higher education in general. To the extent that researchers are affiliated with academic institutions, these attacks on universities worry them. And then, of course, they worry about funding levels, because that’s always a major concern. In the United States, the president does not have effective control of the budget, but he can play an important role in determining spending levels.
Did Donald Trump’s first term really have a negative impact on scientific research?
It depends on the field, so it is difficult to generalize. The withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement was very poorly received by scientists. But at the same time, that hasn’t stopped research on the impact of climate change from continuing, because that work is funded by federal agencies that have maintained their budgets. Of course, during the pandemic, the White House has spread a lot of misinformation. Scientists have tried to disprove them and some of them, like Anthony Fauci, have become targets of the Trump administration. It was more difficult for the public to obtain accurate information. But this same administration was able to accompany and support the development of vaccines, which were available at the end of 2020 and allowed us to fight the pandemic. Many give him credit for this.
But today, concerns seem much stronger, due to Donald Trump’s anti-science rhetoric, his way of questioning established facts….
On climate change, of course, many wonder whether Donald Trump and the new administration will continue to pretend that scientific evidence for warming does not exist. That said, it is important to understand how the American government works. When it comes to annual budgets, the president proposes, but Congress disposes. It is Congress that has the authority and responsibility to decide how much to spend: the government does not necessarily get what it asks for. During his first term, Donald Trump presented several budgets with substantial cuts to research. But each year, Congress has reversed these cuts and, in some cases, granted significant increases and in others, small increases. Overall, research spending has increased under the Trump administration. Of course, most scientists say it’s not because of Trump, but in spite of Trump.
There is no Department of Science within the American government, nor a “research budget”. When the president submits a budget, it is divided into 12 parts and 12 subcommittees review each of these requests. It is therefore possible that the budget of one agency increases, that of another decreases and that of a third remains unchanged. Each government has its own priorities. During Trump’s first term, artificial intelligence and quantum were priorities. So his administration repeatedly asked for big increases in those areas, and demanded cuts in other areas it didn’t support, like climate research. But ultimately, it’s always Congress that decides.
But this time around, Trump seems to have fewer checks and balances than during his first term?
In reality, we don’t know yet. The Republicans won the majority in the Senate, but it is not certain that they will maintain it in the House of Representatives. If so, it will be much easier to legislate than under the current mandate. But it won’t be automatic, because even members of Congress belonging to the president’s party don’t always bend to his wishes.
For example, Donald Trump has said he wants to abolish the Department of Education. This may seem very strange to your readers, but in the United States we have a decentralized education system. Most education funding comes from local and state sources. However, the president cannot unilaterally abolish the Department of Education because it needs congressional approval. And even though Republicans control both chambers, many elected officials, Republicans and Democrats, think it would be a very bad idea to eliminate this department. The president cannot act alone.
The same goes for questions of immigration, another crucial subject for scientists?
Foreign-born researchers have contributed much to the strength of American science, and there are great concerns about this. The president may issue an executive order to change the rules regarding who is admitted and how easy or difficult it is to obtain a visa to come to study in the United States or to remain there after studies are completed. But to go further and make these changes permanent, he would need to amend immigration laws – executive orders, meanwhile, can always be changed by the next administration. However, for forty years, Congress has never managed to agree on immigration reform. It has never been possible to separate the debate on how to increase the immigration of highly qualified people, i.e. those with advanced degrees, from the debate on how to prevent people from entering illegally in the country. There is no consensus, so nothing happens.
What about Robert Kennedy Jr., to whom Donald Trump seems to want to give significant powers in the field of health?
This is not the case yet! Donald Trump has never made it clear that he would appoint him to the government, and if he did, he would need Senate approval. But Robert Kennedy Jr. is a very controversial figure, with a lot of fuss. If he has any influence, it will likely be as an advisor, although that is not at all certain at this point.
Ultimately, all this seems much more reassuring than we imagine on this side of the Atlantic…
I don’t know if that’s reassuring, but yes, there are counter-powers. In Congress, historically, both parties have supported basic research. Today, however, there is pressure to cut spending in general. And historically, when we reduce overall spending, we also reduce budgets for science…
Could Trump’s election encourage the departure of American scientists to other countries?
The global hunt for the best minds has always existed, and there is no doubt that if any of our most accomplished researchers want to leave, they will find a country to welcome them. But beyond that, it’s hard to know what might happen. It does not seem to me that European countries have the employment opportunities or the will to accommodate a mass migration of American scientists. The real problem is our ability to establish international collaborations. It is these exchanges that have made American research so strong, and if Trump makes these collaborations more complicated, the effect will be very negative. This is where their main concern lies.
.