What were the reactions of the academic world to the announcement of Trump’s re-election?
I first wanted to emphasize the fact that I’m definitely not speaking on behalf of the whole American academy. That being said, there is obviously a strong perception that this second Donald Trump’s term will be very challenging for scientists and the academy in its entirety. There are a lot of concerns from the standpoint of the culture on campuses with respect to initiatives related to diversity, equity, inclusion. Similarly, around immigration : American universities have tremendous attendance by foreign students and researchers and there has been a lot of anxiety around what will the climate be like under the second Trump administration for them. But there are still a lot of uncertainties about what he will really do. One thing is sure though : we are not expecting growth in science budgets. During the past Trump administration there were plans for significant R&D funding cuts — a 19 percent cut over a decade. A number of pieces of legislation passed under Joe Biden’s administration are under threat: The Chips and Science Act [editor’s note : a legislation authorizing nearly $280 billion in new funding to stimulate domestic semiconductor research and manufacturing in the United States], which has enormous opportunity for science, as well as the Inflation Reduction Act [editor’s note : reform plan that concerns climate with nearly $400 billion used to finance measures over ten years]. Despite major difficulties in some areas, others may have some opportunities for progress.
What kind of opportunities?
There could be opportunities for reforms that could be highlighted : modernising the National Institute of Health (NIH) or exploring efficiencies in research funding and return on investment from research. It could also be a great opportunity to create partnerships between academics and industry just as we witnessed during Donald Trump’s first time in office with Operation Warp Speed, a partnership initiated by the US government to facilitate and accelerate the development and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines. I do believe there are going to be some bright spots for innovation in federal science and enterprise even though there’s also an awful lot that seems like it will be pretty challenging.
Donald Trump has condemned certain aspects of federal research spending, particularly in the fields of climate and renewable energies. What is there to fear?
We will see a lot as early as next week concerning increasing fossil fuel exploitation, ending all of Biden’s forward looking energy policies or expanding offshore drilling. There is no doubt that the attempt is going to be very much pulling back climate gains. But in reality, there are a lot of aspects of the clean energy transformation that have passed a tipping point in the United States and that are likely to continue on their own momentum. A lot of the funding toward that transition [editor’s note : the Inflation Reduction Act for example] is already out of the door and is being implemented. The private sector, who is already making quite a lot of money on clean energy technology, could also be an obstacle to the implementation of certain actions. There is also a national consciousness rising around extreme heat and natural disasters — especially with the wildfire Los Angeles is facing right now. It is something that we have been underprepared for in terms of policy solutions and people are aware of it. In my opinion, it is likely that we will continue to see a disconnect between the narrative of Donald Trump and its government and the implementation of it all. It’s going to be very nuanced and they’re going to be opportunities to pull back and opportunities to drive forward, even in the context of a pretty challenging environment.
Does Trump have more power than in his previous term to implement his promises?
It is a complicated and uncertain situation. There’s clearly more political alignment now from both chambers of Congress and the administration. That wasn’t true for his first term. And also there is more sophistication on the incoming administration standpoint of how government works that wasn’t there the first time around. So there is a likelihood that there is going to be more effective actions. The flip side is that in the previous administration, we did not have the trillions of dollars that have been spent on climate change with the Inflation Reduction Act. Congress could decide not to renew the budget for this so-called climate law but there’s a lot of money that is already flowing to help make the transformation happen. Plus, this law is very popular, including in some Trump-supporting districts — a lot of the jobs there are directly due to this law. So from those standpoints, some of the reversals that are being promised might be hard to implement.
There is growing concern in the healthcare sector following the appointment of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as Secretary of Health. How is this indicative of Donald Trump’s plans for science?
The proposal to nominate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as Secretary of Health is really concerning indeed. The fact that he doesn’t openly believe in vaccines and the science that goes behind could have significant implications for health. But not only that. It also represents a major threat to people’s trust in science and scientific institutions. That said, some proposals could present opportunities for progress. Concerning the NIH, for example: the pressure put on the institute to demonstrate better return on investment is something that could push NIH to fund differently, invest in higher risk, higher reward research. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has also outlined a number of promises to « Make America Healthy Again » including the idea to make the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) work more effectively. Some of what RFK Jr. is espousing as policy needs — like less unprocessed food, better nutrition, better agriculture practices, like regenerative agriculture — are in fact needed to make America healthier. But it is hard to take the good out of this message from someone who does not believe in fundamental science, such as the importance of vaccines, and who is widely discredited by the medical establishment.
Donald Trump has adopted some very tough positions on anti-discrimination and diversity policies, etc. Academics are often targeted by his critics. Is there a risk that he will try to establish a new cultural hegemony?
There are legitimate concerns around the country on that matter. We are already seeing some of the U.S. universities starting to strip away their language when it comes to diversity, equity, inclusion policies. We are definitely starting to see a kind of pressure on public institutions not to visibly show how they are embracing diversity on campus. It is a really concerning point. I personally have a daughter who is going to college next year and it is hard for me as a parent and an American citizen to realize that the environment is likely to be one that is made to feel less safe for more diverse communities.
Could Donald Trump have a direct impact on university politics?
Trump wouldn’t have the authority to directly influence employment at a university. There could be more indirect pressures on universities to limit academic freedom. We could imagine restrictions in federal funding — coming from the National Science Foundation, the NIH or other agencies — to universities or limits to federally subsidized student loan programs that are somehow linked to limits on diversity, inclusion programs. But this does not feel like it is a future I would want to imagine.
Donald Trump has also promised to make it easier to fire government experts, scientific or otherwise, if they oppose his political agenda….
I want to be careful to distinguish between federal scientists who work for the federal government and the academy. These policies would not apply to the academy. But there is definitely the concern that the way in which government experts, whether or not they are scientists or other federal employees, may be more at risk in this administration. During his last time in office, Donald Trump issued an Executive Order around the Schedule F appointment making it easier to dismiss federal employees. Though this was rescinded by the Biden Administration, he has announced his intention to reissue Schedule F on day one of his next administration. This would apply to all federal employees that can influence policy, whether their scientists or not… Which as you can imagine is a high risk for democracy.
As in his previous term of office, he mentioned the reduction of visas. What impact will this have on international partnerships? Will it still be possible to consider expatriating, scientifically speaking, to the United States?
This is one area that really remains to be seen. A few months ago, immediately following the election, I would have said it would be more difficult. But the conversations lately around the H-1B visa, which is the high-skill immigration visa, is now starting to sound like there is appreciation and recognition that it is not something we want to see restricted. Those pathways might be less vulnerable than people originally thought. That said, I do think that the culture around it may be a tough time. We may see fewer international students or researchers wanting to come to the U.S. to study. But there might also be a flip side on that matter. There might be an opportunity for more students from the US to study outside the U.S. to add their knowledge capital and to create more international science collaborations.
What might be the consequences of such a direct role for tech leaders like Elon Musk in shaping political narratives?
To me it is one of the most striking and unexpected direct outcomes of this election. No one really realised until a couple of months the influence the giants of the tech industry had and just how much that might play a role in the future. The presence of Elon Musk in the government is proof of this and will undoubtedly have an outsized impact. He is positioned to have a lot of influence on federal agencies by thinking about how to streamline administrative efficiency. It could help deliver on Trump’s plans to cut $3 trillion in spending and eliminate all of the positions he said he would once in office.
Do you fear that this new time in office will be the final blow to confidence in science in the United States?
I am inherently optimistic and I do believe science as an institution and science’s relationship to decision making has quite a long history and could not be completely broken. This trust might indeed continue to erode. With AI and our ability to generate false information, to shift norms around what is information that we should trust to make decision making and what is not, it is going to continue to get harder and harder. But I think the science community can really come together and kind of double down on making science more efficient. The same tools of AI that can build distrust can be used to create trust. I think science will play a role in holding the government accountable. Yes, we are going to be challenged to work very differently over the next four years. But I don’t think we’re going to see irreversible damages. It is important that the science community take a nuanced approach to the situation : where there may be areas of real peril, there may also be areas of real opportunity.
You can find the French version of this interview here.