Trump’s War on Science Threatens National Progress
A cultural analysis of how cuts to science and dismantling expert-driven policy weakens US leadership and innovation.
Trump’s fatal cuts to federal science funding aren’t a budget decision but a power play.
It’s a move that does more than defund research. It shifts power to centralized control, where decisions are made at the top, dissent is punished, and expertise is determined by personal loyalty.
What’s Happening
Trump’s administration slashed funding for federal research institutions, triggering nationwide protests.
Scientists, researchers, and medical professionals are pushing back, demanding transparency and inclusion in policy decisions.
Trump is creating a totalitarian government in the US, where the ruling party dictates policy, not the experts.
For decades, the US operated under a low-power distance model in science, where knowledge was shared, debate was encouraged, and research guided policy. That’s over.
Trump’s administration has imposed unilateral funding cuts to agencies like the NIH and NOAA. He has replaced scientific consensus with political control. In response, thousands of scientists are taking to the streets, demanding that expertise—not political ideology—shape federal policy.
Should government be based on expert-driven, transparent decision-making, or should a single leader dictate policies without consultation? It all depends on your cultural perspective.
Why It Matters
Scientific policy isn’t just about research—it’s about who controls knowledge and decision-making. This shift toward a dictatorial government, where a leader imposes policies without the experts, reshapes how science functions in Trump’s America.
But here’s what everyone misses: this isn’t about funding cuts or personality—it’s a cultural shift.
The culture is changing from sharing knowledge and collaboration (low-power distance) to authoritarian (high-power distance) decision-making. Countries like Australia, Canada, and the UK operate under low-power distance, where scientists directly influence policy. The U.S., under Trump, is abandoning that scientific culture, choosing dictatorship-type control.
Scientists expect a voice in policy, not political suppression. In low-power distance cultures, expertise holds weight. Defunding research silences critical voices, weakening policy effectiveness.
Dismissing expertise weakens US credibility. Countries that respect scientific leadership maintain global influence, while countries that undermine experts lose power.
High-power distance leadership creates instability when governments replace knowledge with politics, industries suffer, innovation stalls, and long-term progress halts.
Low-power distance countries, like Switzerland and Germany, integrate science into decisions. They make informed decisions. Trump is changing the U.S. culture to be authoritarian, where loyalty matters more than expertise.
If this continues, the US will fall behind in technological advancements, medical research, and global leadership. Countries that use knowledge thrive—those that suppress it decline.
What’s Next?
Americans can expect continued protests and a scientific brain drain, and they will lose their technological lead. Unless the US reverses course and returns to a culture of expert-driven policy, other countries will take the lead and leave the US behind.
The more Trump forces a high-power distance culture, the closer the US gets to a culture dictated by political convenience, not science or knowledge. Once that trust is gone, so is American leadership in science and technology. And no American wants the US to lose its technological lead.