The campaign promises that propelled Republican President-elect Donald Trump to a decisive victory last week over Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris, including huge tax cuts and tough anti-immigration measures, threaten collateral damage to the U.S. research enterprise, science advocates say. They foresee less money for basic research and a restricted flow of foreign scientists into the country. They also expect the new administration to ignore the scientific consensus on numerous topics, including climate change and public health.
“There’s no good news for science in this election,” says Rice University physicist Neal Lane, former director of the National Science Foundation (NSF) and science adviser to President Bill Clinton (D). “And that means no good news for U.S. high-tech industries and for the country.” As a result, “We’re going to be playing defense,” says Bart Gordon, a former Democratic congressman who is now a lobbyist at K&L Gates.
Government spending on research rose from $161 billion to $200 billion in the first 2 years of President Joe Biden’s administration. But it plateaued this year after a budget agreement capped overall federal spending; nonmilitary research, about half the total, fell by 10%. Spending on civilian science could drop even further as Republicans seek cuts to offset the massive increase in the federal deficit expected to result from Trump’s push for lower taxes, says Gordon, who chaired the House of Representatives science committee from 2007–10.
“Basic research is vulnerable,” he says, “because it doesn’t give you an immediate bang for the buck” in new revenue. Although research has traditionally enjoyed bipartisan support, Gordon adds, “there are many Republicans who think that, if the research is so important, industry will do it on its own.”
Along with the White House, Republicans will control both the Senate and the House when the new Congress convenes in January 2025. As a result, Republicans will chair every committee, including those that oversee funding for science agencies. In the Senate, the new majority should also make it easier for Trump to win approval for his nominees for senior science positions.
Higher education lobbyists are dismayed at the likely new chair of the Senate commerce and science committee: Senator Ted Cruz (R–TX). Cruz, who easily won reelection last week, has declared war on initiatives to increase the diversity of the scientific workforce. In a recent report he criticized many NSF grants promoting diversity and inclusion, adding fuel to Republican claims, led by Vice President–elect JD Vance, that universities are hotbeds of radicalism and out of step with U.S. values. Cruz has also been a thorn in the side of Democratic efforts to combat climate change, and research advocates are fearful that his chairmanship will give him an even bigger platform on those issues.
“It could be a very dark time for universities,” says one higher education lobbyist.
In the House, the science committee will have a new chair. The current leader, Representative Frank Lucas (R–OK), is stepping down because party rules limit his tenure. Gordon thinks that’s a loss for science. “Frank has managed to run the committee in a bipartisan, forward-looking manner,” Gordon says. “He’s not a progressive,” Gordon adds, “but he has helped move the ball” on a range of legislation favored by science advocates.
Representative Brian Babin (R–TX) is expected to succeed Lucas. With NASA’s Johnson Space Center in his district, Babin has been a cheerleader for commercial and human space exploration. Representative Zoe Lofgren (CA) is expected to remain the top Democrat on the panel. She’s been a fervent advocate of fusion as a future source of clean energy, a key initiative for the Department of Energy’s Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in her district.
