Science Still Struggling
Did I influence the Trump administration? In 2025, I wrote multiple articles criticizing its proposed draconian cuts to federal science budgets, such as those of NASA and the National Science Foundation (NSF). I was particularly scornful of the administration’s plan to shut down one of two detectors of the NSF-funded Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO), noting that this would severely limit the project’s cutting-edge science, since the detectors work in tandem; they are respectively in Washington state and Louisiana, with the distance between them useful for observations. I also encouraged an astronomer I was in touch with to write an opinion article explaining this, which she did.
After protracted congressional negotiations and a government shutdown, the Trump administration mostly didn’t accomplish its proposed cuts, with funding for LIGO staying basically intact. I didn’t presume I’d had any effect on this favorable outcome. Recently, though, the administration put out its latest budget proposal, which again proposes massive slashes to science budgets. These include cutting NSF’s budget from $8.75 billion to $4.86 billion, with LIGO’s portion dropping from $48 million to $29 million.
Yet unlike last time, the administration no longer states that it wants to shut down one of the LIGO detectors, instead specifying they’re both to stay in operation at a “reduced tempo." While this will still be detrimental to the project’s science, it isn’t as obviously stupid as the earlier proposal, which was akin to ordering eyeglasses with only one lens. Therefore, I wonder if any of my efforts, directly or indirectly, influenced administration budget planners, such that, although continuing to pursue damaging policies, they shied away from a particularly absurd one. In any case, it’s progress of a sort.
Given the Trump administration’s weakened political position, one can expect resistance in Congress to the latest proposed cuts, which has already started to form, though steep declines may still be in the offing. In any case, the recurrence of the budgetary attack on science—this time exacerbated by fiscal pressures from the Iran War—are a reminder that the administration’s ineffectiveness in achieving its policy aims shouldn’t be confused with rational thinking or moderation on its part.
Budget numbers don’t tell the full story. The administration has been slow to release funds even after reaching agreements with Congress. It also has scaled back science advisory panels, reducing their independence and transparency. Plus, restrictive immigration policies and investigations of foreign scientists have undermined the attractiveness to foreign talent that’s been a key element of US scientific prowess for decades. And foreign countries increasingly are courting American researchers to set up labs and companies.
Early this year, the Pew Research Center released a poll showing a majority of Americans think it’s “very important” for the US to be a world leader in science. The results showed a partisan divide, however, in that 65 percent of Democrats believed the US is “losing ground” on this front, whereas only 32 percent of Republicans thought so. On the Democratic side 79 percent considered government funding “essential” for scientific progress, compared to 45 percent of Republicans. (All these numbers include people who “lean” to a party, not just members.)
A majority (61 percent) of Americans said science has had a mostly positive effect on society, with 76 percent of Democrats and 51 percent of Republicans agreeing. People with higher levels of education were much more likely to agree, across party lines; this included 92 percent of Democrats with a college or graduate degree (compared to 63 percent of Democrats with a high school education or less), and 69 percent of Republicans with a college or graduate degree (versus 37 percent of Republicans with high school or less).
Overall, there’s enough awareness of the problem and the stakes that moving past the Trump war on science could be an effective theme for a future Democratic presidential candidate. More subtly, it could also be deployed by a Republican candidate seeking ways to differentiate from an unpopular administration while retaining the bulk of its supporters.