As soon as he was sworn in 47th President of the United States On Monday, Donald Trump signed a series of executive orders that could reshape science at home and abroad. The orders — which direct the federal government’s actions but cannot change laws — are designed to change policies and priorities on a variety of scientific issues, including climate and public health. They also aim to reduce the government’s workforce, including scientists, and potentially reduce its authority.
It’s unclear how much weight the many orders will carry, but policy specialists have spoken nature say that they clearly mark the direction Trump wants to take the United States in his second term in the White House.
“A lot of the power of the executive branch is in messaging,” says Gretchen Goldman, president of the Cambridge, Massachusetts-based Union of Concerned Scientists. And the message so far is clear, he says: “The administration is trying to undermine government experts themselves, as well as the processes by which we make science-based decisions in government.”
About supporting science journalism
If you like this article, please consider supporting our award-winning journalism subscribe. By purchasing a subscription, you’re helping to ensure a future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas that shape our world.
here nature examines some of the most important executive orders for science.
Climate change
Trump signaled in an order that – Similar to his first presidency from 2017 to 2021 — The United States would withdraw from the 2015 Paris climate agreement. Citing national security concerns and the impact of high energy prices “ruining” American citizens, so did Trump declared a ‘national energy emergency’ at homean act in which his government could give the green light to fossil fuel-based energy projects.
Trump’s emergency order, one of many focused on energy issues, would allow US agencies to identify energy projects where federal regulations and laws to protect, for example, endangered species, keep progress, according to the president. Agencies would then be allowed to move more quickly to approve projects, including through the use of “any statutory emergency authority.”
But there are limits to what Trump can achieve because, in many ways, “the economy trumps Trump,” says Mark Maslin, an Earth system scientist at University College London. For example, Maslin says, it’s much cheaper to invest in renewable energy such as solar and wind today than it used to be, which means they’ll continue to invest in those technologies.
Conversely, it will be easy for Trump to withdraw the US from the Paris Agreement, which commits nearly 200 countries to limit global warming to 1.5-2°C above pre-industrial levels. During Trump’s first presidency, his administration had to wait more than three years before formally withdrawing from the treaty due to the rules of the agreement. Joe Biden, succeeding Trump as US president, quickly rejoined. This time, the exit process will only take one year.
Even if the Paris agreement will continue to function without the US — the world’s second largest emitter of greenhouse gases — many scholars worry that a US exit will inevitably reduce the pressure on other countries to act. This follows the Earth last year it reached the highest temperature on recordand scientists say that countries must increase their efforts to reduce emissions if they are to meet the global target.
“Anything to delay or stop that effort will cost lives on the ground,” Goldman says.
On withdrawal
As expected, Trump also signed it Order to withdraw the United States from the World Health Organization (WHO).The United Nations agency responsible for global health says the new president has mishandled the COVID-19 pandemic. He also said the United States pays a disproportionately large fee to the agency compared to other member nations.
Trump The United States announced that it would withdraw from the WHO In May 2020, during his first term as president, but because the process takes a year, Biden blocked his first day in 2021.
Public health researchers say that leaving the WHO will hamper the country’s ability to respond swiftly to health threats and diminish the country’s reputation as a global health leader. Since its annual contribution makes up more than a tenth of the organization’s billion-dollar budget, the United States may leave the agency’s mission as well. “It’s a very troubling sign for the global community about our urgency as partners in health protection,” says Jennifer Nuzzo, an epidemiologist who directs the Center for Pandemics at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island.
WHO member countries share information and expertise on infectious disease outbreaks and other threats, and without that key knowledge and data (such as the DNA sequence of an emerging virus) the United States will be slower to respond to crises, Nuzzo says. In addition, the withdrawal “creates opportunities for other countries to intervene and assert themselves in ways that are not compatible with US interests,” he said. For example, the United States has been a leading voice calling for stringent biosecurity measures in the construction of new pathogen research centers around the world, he added.
A US withdrawal from the WHO could also jeopardize cooperation with the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), said David Heymann, an infectious disease epidemiologist and former director general of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. MOE. Flagship US public health agencies manage more than a dozen WHO collaborating centers on everything from influenza surveillance to antimicrobial resistance. “It would be a loss for the CDC, but it would be a loss for the WHO,” he says.
It is not clear whether Trump can withdraw from the WHO using an executive order, as the US joined the agency in 1948 through a law passed by the US Congress. It may therefore require the approval of Congress to leave. Lawrence Gostin, a specialist in health law and policy at Georgetown University in Washington DC, who directs a WHO Collaborating Centre, he said on the social media platform X that he is considering challenging the order in court.
Deep cuts
Several of the orders Trump issued on January 20 relate to the federal workforce, which includes approximately 280,000 scientists and engineers. The Trump administration is seeking to reduce its size and regulatory power.
In one, says Trump There will be a 90-day hiring freeze for the federal governmentwith a directive to reduce the size of the federal workforce when the order expires. Other orders could entice federal workers to quit their jobs: Trump, for example He wants to order federal employees back to the office full timeand that agencies must recognize only two sexes, male and femalewhich, for example, would prevent workers from showing their preferred gender in official documents.
It’s all part of a broader effort to reduce spending and the size of government. For many observers, the message for science is clear. “This is the world we’re going to be in,” says Robert Atkinson, president of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, a nonprofit think tank based in Washington, DC. “We will not spread science. Actually, we’re going to cut it.”
Another executive order focuses on changing the rules governing civil servants: those hired based on their expertise rather than as political appointees. Stating that all federal employees working in “policy-influenced positions” must be accountable to the president, the order reinstates the policy formerly known as “Schedule F.” The Trump administration tried to implement it in its first term. It would have been easier for the administration to fire tens of thousands of employees, including many government scientists, and replace them with political loyalists. The Biden administration rescinded that order and more establish a new rule designed to improve the protection of public functions. The Trump administration, however, is moving forward with its Schedule F changes, which are being challenged in court by a union representing public employees.
“It represents an unprecedented politicization of public service,” says Don Moynihan, a political scientist at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. “Traditionally, we have this clear distinction between political appointments and career officials. The F programming wants to blur that part of the line, if not completely erase it.’
Some areas of science and technology, such as AI and quantum computing, It is expected to benefit from the second Trump administrationThe barrage of executive orders on Day 1 did not inspire confidence in researchers or policy specialists. “Honestly, I’m more worried now than ever,” says Atkinson. “I think the stars are aligning in a way that could hurt the science community at the federal level.”
With additional reporting by Ewen Callaway and Miryam Naddaf.
This article is and was reproduced with permission first published On January 21, 2024.
