Home > Opinion > Columns

Why does Trump hate scientists?

Published: 24 Mar. 2025, 00:01 Updated: 26 Mar. 2025, 20:37

Hasok Chang

The author is a chair professor of history and philosophy of science at the University of Cambridge.

The American scientific community is on edge. With the return of the Trump administration this year, basic norms that were once taken for granted are being shaken — scientists included are feeling the tremors. Federal funding for research has been slashed, with university-affiliated projects bearing the brunt of the cuts.

The epicenter of the disruption lies in the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which operates under the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The NIH is a massive organization overseeing 27 research institutes. It not only conducts its own extensive research but also funds a wide range of studies in medicine, physiology, and biology carried out at universities and other institutions. With an annual budget of around $50 billion, the NIH, alongside the National Science Foundation (NSF), has long been a cornerstone of American science.

A woman holds a sign at the Stand Up for Science rally to protest the Trump administration's science policies and federal job cuts on March 7, in Chicago. [AP/YONHAP]

Funding revoked, even after approval

The Trump administration has declared plans to dramatically reduce the budgets of both the NIH and NSF. This is not a gradual drawdown — it includes the abrupt cancellation of already approved grants. Such sudden cuts mean ongoing research could be halted midstream, leaving countless scientists unemployed.

One particularly controversial policy announced last month involved steep reductions in overhead funding attached to NIH projects. While the concept of “overhead” may be unfamiliar to the general public, it is crucial to how research institutions function. In addition to direct costs—such as equipment, hiring researchers, or traveling to conferences—grants also include indirect costs, which support the infrastructure that makes research possible. This includes maintaining lab facilities, utilities, administrative support, janitorial services, and even basics like restrooms and staff lounges.

Without adequate overhead funding, universities and research institutes would be forced to run projects at a significant loss.

Less than a month into his presidency, Trump proposed capping overhead expenses at 15 percent of direct costs. That is, for a $1 million research project, overhead reimbursement would be limited to $150,000. The average had previously been around 30 percent, so the cut is substantial. Outraged universities and institutions sued the administration, arguing the move was unlawful. The courts sided with them, temporarily halting the policy — but its long-term fate remains uncertain.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk greets U.S. President Donald Trump as they attend the NCAA men's wrestling championships in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on March 22. [REUTERS/YONHAP]

Why the hostility toward science?

It’s not immediately clear why Trump and his inner circle are so hostile toward science. Like most politicians, Trump has claimed to champion economic growth and the well-being of ordinary Americans. Why, then, would he undermine scientific and medical research — the very engines of technological progress and improved quality of life?

Ironically, figures like Elon Musk, who wields considerable influence over the Trump administration and champions smaller government, made their fortunes by commercializing cutting-edge science. Still, the administration's stance against federally funded research stems from a mix of ideological and political motives.

A wake-up call for apolitical scientists

First, Trump aims to consolidate presidential power while shrinking the federal government itself. Cutting funding to external institutions is part of this agenda. The goal isn't just budget reduction — it's about dismantling agencies that don’t align with his political vision. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has already come under attack, and the Department of Education may be next. These departments are viewed as vehicles of progressive policy and are therefore targeted for elimination.

The latest battleground involves university funding. Columbia University, for instance, faces threats of losing $400 million in federal funding because it allowed student protests against Israel during its war with Hamas. Other universities are now bracing for similar retaliation.

Trump’s base also harbors a deep-seated resentment toward intellectuals. Regardless of the field, academics are seen as arrogant and out of touch. Universities are viewed as breeding grounds for leftist ideologies that indoctrinate young minds. During the Covid-19 pandemic, this mistrust morphed into open hostility toward scientists, who were accused of imposing unpopular energy and public health policies on the masses. Any invocation of scientific facts is now met with counterclaims of “alternative truths.”

America, once regarded as the global capital of science — so much so that it drew me abroad as a young student — is facing the twilight of its scientific golden age. The repercussions of this retreat will inevitably be felt worldwide. Scientists, especially in STEM fields, have long been disengaged from politics. But now, more than ever, it’s time for them to wake up.

Translated using generative AI and edited by Korea JoongAng Daily staff.