In the early morning hours when Donald Trump’s electoral victory became clear, stunned academics across the nation began picking up the pieces. Donald Trump had already waged a war on science and this term promises even more aggression. Within hours, social media was awash with speculation: What would Trump’s second term mean for public health? For science? For a country still grappling with the lasting scars of a global pandemic?
Many of the nation’s most respected voices in public health and science were quick to voice their concerns, pointing to troubling precedents from Trump’s first term.
“We’ve got a lot of work to do, and I fear a hard road ahead of us,” Saskia Popescu, an epidemiologist and assistant professor at the University of Maryland, told The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. Her tone mirrored the unease shared by scientists, public health advocates, and even biosecurity experts. They fear that in Trump’s return, the U.S. could veer sharply away from a science-based approach to policy, putting millions of people—and decades of progress—at risk.
An Isolationist Approach to Global Health
One of the most significant shifts could come in the realm of international cooperation on health issues. Trump previously withdrew the U.S. from the World Health Organization (WHO) during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, a move widely criticized by scientists and global leaders alike. The WHO relies heavily on U.S. funding, and Trump’s earlier withdrawal disrupted the organization’s ability to respond to international crises, especially to COVID, which claimed the lives of nearly seven million people worldwide.
Georgios Pappas, a physician and zoonotic disease researcher, worries that another WHO exit would weaken the U.S.’s standing in global health. “Withdrawing or reducing U.S. support for the WHO and cutting funding for other health programs will put in jeopardy critical achievements against infectious diseases,” he warned.
Trump’s victory also casts uncertainty on longstanding global health initiatives, such as the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). This program, initiated under George W. Bush, has saved millions of lives by providing life-saving treatment to people with HIV and AIDS, primarily in Africa, but is likely to be defunded in Trump’s term.
Pappas isn’t alone in his fears. Other experts warn that this potential pivot toward isolationism could turn the U.S. from a global leader in health into an isolated nation.
Vaccine Skepticism and Health Disinformation
At home, Trump’s stance on vaccines is alarming. During the COVID-19 pandemic, his administration helped fast-track the development of vaccines—a major scientific triumph. Yet Trump also became a polarizing figure, often spreading mixed messages about the severity of COVID-19, the need for lockdowns, and the benefits of vaccination. Trump received his vaccine dose, so he’s not technically a vaccine skeptic — but much of his base seems to have embraced vaccine skepticism, viewing masks and vaccines as symbols of government overreach. In line with his populist rhetoric, Trump may satisfy his voter base disrupting current vaccine regulations.
<!– Tag ID: zmescience_300x250_InContent_3
–>
Public health leaders are especially worried about Trump’s ties to Robert F. Kennedy Jr., one of the country’s most vocal anti-vaccine activists. Recently, Trump hinted at the possibility of appointing Kennedy to a prominent health position — a potential alliance that looks like a backslide into science denialism. “We could see a dismantling and restructuring of federal health agencies,” they cautioned, adding that Kennedy’s promotion of anti-vaccine theories could undermine trust in life-saving immunizations.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has emerged as a prominent figure in the anti-vaccine movement, frequently disseminating misinformation that contradicts established scientific consensus. He has persistently claimed, without credible evidence, that vaccines are linked to autism and other health issues, assertions that have been thoroughly debunked by extensive research. Kennedy’s organization, Children’s Health Defense, has been identified as a significant source of vaccine misinformation, contributing to public hesitancy and undermining public health efforts. During the COVID-19 pandemic, he amplified false narratives about the safety and efficacy of vaccines.
If Kennedy joins Trump’s administration, it looks likely that many federal health agencies will be disrupted and may reverse progress in vaccine safety and policy.
Such moves would come at a precarious time. Although the public’s memory of COVID-19 may be fading, emerging threats like H5N1 avian influenza and a new strain of mpox in Africa highlight the constant risk of another pandemic. Without strong vaccine policies, the U.S. could see a resurgence of preventable diseases that had been nearly eradicated, from measles to polio.
An Attack on Scientific Expertise?
In Trump’s first term, experts felt sidelined by a leader who often prioritized his instincts over evidence. As the COVID-19 pandemic unfolded, seasoned health officials found themselves at odds with a White House more interested in controlling the narrative than confronting the virus.
This trend may worsen in Trump’s second term, with a proposal to reclassify federal employees as political appointees. Under such a system, many seasoned scientists in federal agencies could be replaced by political allies, reducing the government’s capacity for nonpartisan scientific guidance. Allison Berke, a biosecurity expert, worries about the potential consequences: “The Supreme Court’s overturning of the ‘Chevron doctrine’…promises to transfer even more power away from experts and toward political appointees, reducing the ability of scientists to meaningfully advise on policy.”
Already, Trump has hinted at disbanding the Office of Pandemic Preparedness and Response Policy, a move that would likely leave the U.S. vulnerable to future outbreaks. Experts warn that without this office, the nation’s ability to anticipate and respond to pandemics could erode further, with tragic consequences.
Environmental and Biosecurity Concerns
Trump’s re-election is also expected to impact climate science and biosecurity policy. Environmental advocates worry that Trump’s previous downplaying of climate change will continue. During his first term, he took steps to reduce the influence of the National Climate Assessment, the federal government’s comprehensive report on climate impacts across the U.S. Now, in the face of a likely record-breaking global temperature, Trump’s administration could delay or ignore critical climate science initiatives.
Al Mauroni, a senior policy analyst specializing in military biosecurity, paints a bleak picture for laboratory safety as well. “Given the significant growth of biological research within the United States, we ought to see more federal regulation and transparency to ensure safe practices,” he noted. Instead, Mauroni and others expect Trump’s administration to loosen restrictions on U.S. biotech firms, allowing them to advance without the oversight necessary to prevent accidents or misuse.
At the intersection between foreign affairs and research, Trump’s administration could potentially reestablish the controversial “China Initiative,” a Department of Justice program targeting economic espionage. While its proponents argue that it protects U.S. intellectual property, critics contend that it risks discriminatory targeting of Chinese-born scientists. Science advocates worry that an aggressive stance on China could chill international collaborations that are vital to scientific innovation.
Funding the Future of Science and Threats to Diversity
Although Trump has expressed support for technological innovation, his budgetary priorities could constrain the scientific landscape. Under the CHIPS and Science Act, the National Science Foundation (NSF) was set to receive a budget increase to boost U.S. semiconductor manufacturing and basic science funding. However, recent statements from House Speaker Mike Johnson indicate that House Republicans may trim these funds, particularly those supporting environmental justice and diversity initiatives in STEM fields.
The result? The NSF’s plans to double its budget over the next five years may be in jeopardy, undermining efforts to keep the U.S. competitive in a world where scientific advancements are increasingly pivotal.
Biomedical research may face similar obstacles. Trump’s potential restructuring of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) could slow advancements in treatments for diseases and increase bureaucratic obstacles for life-saving research. While he has previously supported vaccine research, experts worry that the broader landscape of biomedical research could suffer under a more restrictive budget.
In the coming years, scientists worry not only about funding but also about the erosion of inclusivity in research. Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs at federal agencies and universities are likely targets of the administration’s policies. With figures like Senator Ted Cruz, a vocal critic of DEI and slated to lead the Senate commerce and science committee, programs designed to broaden participation in STEM fields could be rolled back, threatening years of progress in making science more accessible to underrepresented groups. Cruz is also vocal critic of climate change reseach and mitigation programs.
Studies have shown that diverse research teams drive more innovative and impactful discoveries. By dismantling these programs, the U.S. risks sidelining talented scientists and leaving a gap in the global scientific arena.
As Donald Trump prepares for his return to the White House, the scientific and public health communities brace for a challenging period. Whether it’s vaccine policies that could leave millions vulnerable to preventable diseases, a reduction in scientific oversight, or a retreat from international health alliances, the stakes have rarely been higher.
The questions now resonate far beyond scientific circles. Will America remain a leader in global health and science? Or, as experts fear, are we on the cusp of a new era defined by science denialism and diminished resilience in the face of crisis?