Trump's 'Golden Age' Science Plan Actually Threatens America's Future

America’s scientific achievements, from curing diseases to exploring space, rest on bold public investment and fearless inquiry. The Trump administration’s 2025 science policy, outlined by OSTP Director Michael Kratsios, claims to champion a ‘Golden Age of Innovation.’ Yet, its proposals slash federal funding, elevate corporate interests, and reject the diverse perspectives that fuel discovery. This agenda imperils the health, safety, and future of every American.

Kratsios’s speech at the National Academy of Sciences promises revitalized science through ‘Gold Standard’ practices, emphasizing truth and efficiency. Beneath the rhetoric lies a troubling reality: severe cuts to the NIH, NSF, and NASA, paired with a dismissal of diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts that have strengthened STEM. Can we truly believe this plan will sustain America’s global leadership in innovation?

The administration assumes private industry can fill the void left by gutted federal budgets. This overlooks a fundamental truth: basic research, like the foundations of GPS or mRNA vaccines, relies on public funds because its benefits reach far beyond corporate balance sheets. Proposed cuts, including a 37-40 percent reduction to NIH, could stall progress on cancer or Alzheimer’s, hitting marginalized communities hardest.

These choices carry real-world consequences. A $1.3 billion cut to NOAA weakens our ability to forecast hurricanes, endangering lives in vulnerable regions. Slashing NSF’s budget by half undermines the CHIPS and Science Act’s goal of doubling funding by 2027, risking America’s edge against China’s state-backed research. These aren’t just policy shifts; they’re decisions that shape who thrives and who suffers.

History offers a clear lesson. The bipartisan commitment to federal research, from Vannevar Bush’s 1945 vision to the 2009 stimulus, drove economic growth and global leadership. Trump’s plan reverses this progress, prioritizing short-term savings over long-term prosperity. Why would we abandon a proven strategy when the stakes are so high?

Kratsios’s ‘Gold Standard Science’ calls for reproducibility, transparency, and skepticism—values every scientist embraces. Yet, his examples, like the retracted 2009 Alzheimer’s study or COVID-19 school closures, distort complex challenges to justify distrust in public institutions. The Alzheimer’s case underscores the need for open data and peer review, not a shift to private control. School closures, made amid unprecedented uncertainty, reflect tough choices, not scientific failure.

The administration’s attack on DEI initiatives is especially misguided. Kratsios argues they undermine diversity of thought, but evidence shows diverse teams spark more innovative solutions. Eliminating DEI grants at NSF and imposing ideological constraints on research stifles the collaboration essential to breakthroughs. This approach doesn’t protect science; it narrows the talent pool driving progress.

Public trust in science, climbing to 76 percent in 2024, remains vulnerable. Democrats trust scientists at 88 percent, while Republicans lag at 66 percent. By vilifying DEI and framing science as politicized, the administration risks alienating the public further. When NASA sidelines inclusion for a vague ‘merit’ standard, it discourages young scientists from underrepresented groups. How can we inspire the next generation if we signal they’re not welcome?

Kratsios touts private-sector partnerships, noting industry’s $693 billion R&D spend in 2021. But businesses focus on profitable, late-stage development, not the foundational research that public funds support. Studies show a 1 percent increase in government R&D drives 0.025 percent productivity growth over five years. Shifting resources to firms that prioritize shareholder value over societal benefit leaves critical fields like climate science underfunded.

Streamlining administrative burdens, as Kratsios suggests, is a practical step. Researchers lose up to 40 percent of their time to paperwork, and the National Science Board’s Vision 2030 urges reform. But this modest gain is dwarfed by an agenda that undermines agencies like NIH and DOE, which have powered decades of discovery. Why pair a sensible fix with such destructive cuts?

Past mistakes loom large. Reagan-era reductions in non-defense research delayed U.S. advances in renewable energy, ceding ground to global competitors. Today’s proposed cuts to NOAA and NASA’s climate programs threaten our resilience against rising seas and extreme weather. Repeating this error in a warming world is reckless and shortsighted.

America’s scientific enterprise thrives on public investment and inclusive collaboration, not corporate dominance. The CHIPS and Science Act and National Quantum Initiative demonstrate how targeted federal funding can drive innovation while serving the public good. These models balance public-private partnerships with a commitment to research that benefits everyone.

Restoring trust demands transparency, not division. Open-science practices, like NIH’s registered reports and mandatory data sharing, can strengthen reproducibility without scapegoating DEI or climate research. Recognizing researchers who uncover errors, as integrity conferences advocate, would reward rigor and rebuild confidence in science.

Inclusion and excellence go hand in hand. Expanding STEM access, as Vision 2030 proposes, taps diverse talent and creates innovation hubs in underserved regions. By defending federal funding and embracing collaboration, we can ensure science serves all Americans, not just a select few. Our health, our planet, and our future depend on this choice.