Inside Trump's Science Agenda: Anti-Science Claims, Fauci's Damage, DEI & China w/ Michael Kratsios
In a Nutshell
Trump's OSTP director argues the U.S. must overhaul how it funds and conducts science by replacing politicized criteria like DEI with merit-based "golden ticket" grants, shorter and longer grant durations, and new meta-science units at NSF and NIH to test what actually produces breakthroughs. He warns that China now outspends the U.S. nearly 2-to-1 and publishes 50% more papers, while U.S. science stagnates under aging researchers, collapsing STEM pipelines, and inefficient agency structures. The administration's response is a "New Golden Age" plan prioritizing basic research, accelerating fusion and quantum computing by 2028, and restoring public trust by returning to empirical questioning instead of top-down dogma.
These notes were generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies.
Michael Kratsios, Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), states the administration is not anti-science. The administration released a report called "Science, a new golden age" which demonstrates commitment to the American science and technology enterprise. The goal is for the US to be the home for the next great scientific discoveries, empowering young scientists and creating an ecosystem for working on the hardest problems throughout the country.
OSTP was created in the 1960s to coordinate science and technology policy across the administration. Unlike other countries, the US does not have a single agency for science and technology. Instead, various agencies handle different pieces: the National Science Foundation conducts basic research, the Department of Energy runs national labs, and the Department of Defense has extensive R&D programs including DARPA. OSTP is the only office in the White House that coordinates all these efforts, working with the president to set the national S&T agenda and implement it across agencies.
Kratsios previously served as Chief Technology Officer of the United States in the first Trump administration, running the tech portfolio.
A Nature poll of 2,000 scientists found 86% supported Kamala Harris in the election while Donald Trump received 6%. Kratsios attributes this perception to the scientific community losing its way over the last few decades. Science has been deeply politicized over the last 15-20 years, with dogma replacing proper scientific questioning.
This politicization peaked during COVID when disagreeing with certain individuals was labeled as anti-science. Kratsios considers this the most anti-science conclusion possible, arguing that science is fundamentally about asking questions, conducting experiments, collecting data, and continuing inquiry—not relying on authority.
The US government spends approximately $200 billion annually on S&T funding. Kratsios questions whether this spending is driving the best breakthroughs for the American people, and whether different deployment methods to different organizations, scientists, and time horizons could be more effective.
Congress controls science funding through appropriations, not proposed budgets. Congress has consistently funded science over the past decade plus. However, spending more money on the wrong types of things is not the right policy action.
The National Science Foundation funds approximately $8-9 billion annually in extramural basic research, primarily to academics at universities. An analysis by Senator Ted Cruz's Senate committee found that roughly 25% of NSF grants during the Biden administration went toward DEI-related "science." This equates to approximately $2 billion per year over four years, totaling $8 billion in funding that went to DEI-related initiatives rather than actual science.
The Biden administration required grant applications to include DEI-related factors to receive funding, which Kratsios identifies as a manifestation of science's politicization and not "gold standard science."
Secretary Chris Wright serves as the administration's voice on climate issues. The administration acknowledges that the climate is changing and that humans have burned fossil fuels over the last hundred years, contributing to CO2 in the environment. However, they maintain that the data does not support the existence of a climate emergency.
The RCP 8.5 scenario, the most extreme climate projection used in national climate assessments and IPCC reports, was recently determined to lack scientific integrity and was removed from predictions. Media coverage has consistently focused on this extreme scenario over the last 20 years, despite it being an unlikely outcome.
The administration's focus is on investing in technologies that create abundant energy for Americans. They have set a 2035 target for winning the fusion race and have been among the most forward-leaning administrations on nuclear energy. Technology is viewed as having the biggest impact for everyday Americans.
Approximately two billion people worldwide use dirty fuels like wood, dung, or charcoal for cooking, leading to roughly 3 million deaths annually according to UN reports. Clean fossil fuel could significantly improve quality of life for these populations.
China's carbon output eclipses the rest of the world. Any extreme policy reactions to perceived climate problems would hurt Americans most without solving the global issue. The economic costs of climate policies disproportionately impact poorer communities, who lose access to certain energy sources and pay the most for alternatives.
NIH funding has increased from $14 billion in 1998 to $27 billion in 2003 to $47 billion in 2024—more than tripling since 1998. However, there has not been a proportional rise in breakthrough treatments. Eroom's Law (Moore's Law reversed) indicates drug discovery efficiency has fallen roughly 80-fold since 1950, with efficiency halving every 9 years.
Kratsios cites the speed of flight as observable evidence of stagnation: the Concorde allowed supersonic flight in the 1990s, but current commercial flights are slower than 10-20 years ago. While some argue all easy problems have been solved, the broader issue is lack of innovation in how science is conducted at agencies like NIH, NSF, and others.
The administration is introducing meta-science units at NSF and NIH to run experiments on different funding approaches and analyze outcomes. This represents a shift from simply increasing budgets to questioning whether current methods are effective.
At NSF, most grants undergo standard peer review with 3-4 reviewers from a particular field who select the most meritorious applications. This system incentivizes scientists to propose ideas within the "strike zone" rather than bold, innovative concepts.
The administration will test "golden tickets" where each evaluator receives 1-3 golden tickets allowing unilateral selection of grants without committee agreement. This concept was previously tested in Denmark and aims to incentivize interesting proposals and attract better reviewers to participate.
Most NSF grants last approximately 18 months based on academic calendars, but research ideas don't all require this timeframe. The administration proposes testing different grant durations: fast-track grants for 3-6 month ideas, and longer grants for 3-5 year projects.
The GRFP (Graduate Research Fellowship Program) at NSF provides portable funding to approximately 2,600 aspiring PhDs annually, allowing recipients to take funding anywhere and enabling universities to compete for talent.
China demonstrates effectiveness at organizing resources around big objectives through central planning. The question remains whether the US can tackle major projects like the Human Genome Project, Manhattan Project, or Apollo missions in a system characterized by small competing labs and private industry.
The transcript cuts off mid-sentence discussing national capacity for big projects.
The United States maintains the capacity to tackle major long-term scientific projects that require significant capital and extended time commitments. The Apollo mission is cited as an example where the federal government marshaled resources to achieve a discrete national goal that unified the country. The argument is that America should return to pursuing such ambitious initiatives alongside other research approaches.
Three major initiatives are highlighted. First, the space program includes plans for American boots back on the moon by 2028, a nuclear reactor in space by 2028, and the first elements of a moon base by 2030. Second, quantum computing efforts were launched through an executive order establishing a national quantum initiative with the goal of creating a scientifically relevant quantum computer by 2028, directed to the Department of Energy. Third, the Genesis mission represents the flagship project aimed at doubling the scientific output of the United States by applying AI to the hardest scientific challenges across material science, chemistry, math, and physics.
Private sector investment in AI reaches hundreds of billions of dollars with natural market incentives, but certain areas require government funding. Deep space research, understanding the origins of the universe, and pure physics represent fundamental scientific breakthroughs that emerge years later with unexpected applications. The primary focus of government-funded research should be basic early-stage pre-competitive R&D and discovery science where private sector incentives do not exist.
Consolidating agencies into a single science and technology agency is a perennial debate. The current distributed system is viewed as a feature rather than a bug, contrasting with centralized approaches like China's. The Chinese model represents a top-down directed single agency entity that sets priorities and executes them, but this has not produced breakthroughs such as solving EUV lithography challenges since 2019 despite its economic importance.
Four channels exist for research funding allocation. Government agencies can conduct research directly. Universities can administer labs on campus. Industry companies can receive government funding when they have economic incentives. Independent organizations like Howard Hughes Medical Institute and Max Planck Institute function as nonprofit entities separate from government and private industry.
The 1945 Vannevar Bush report "Science: The Endless Frontier" established the current system where government funds basic research primarily at universities. At that time, the federal government paid for roughly 70% of R&D while the private sector contributed 30%. Over 70 years, this ratio has reversed with the private sector now conducting roughly 70% of R&D and federal funding at 30%. New institutions including philanthropies and focused research organizations have emerged during this period.
Universities charge administrative fees on allocated research capital. The administration's view is to meet the best scientists wherever they are located, whether at universities, focused research organizations, or working independently. Scientists should be funded based on merit-based review regardless of institutional affiliation. The position is that scientists are not anti-academic but rather pro-scientist, willing to fund exceptional work outside traditional university settings.
China increased annual science spending from $33 billion in 2000 to $670 billion in 2021, representing a 19x increase compared to the US 3x increase over the same period. A decade ago, the US published roughly twice as many scientific papers as Chinese researchers. Today, China publishes roughly 50% more papers in nearly every domain except some life sciences. Technological and scientific leadership is viewed as the most foundational block to economic and national security, with all economic activity rooted in scientific and technological discovery.
China's playbook involves copying US intellectual property, creating cheaper alternatives, dumping them in the US market, driving American businesses out of operation, and then squeezing remaining competitors. This pattern has been observed across various technologies. Critical minerals represent another area where China has taken or threatened action, affecting the tech and science ecosystem supply chain.
Despite similar spending levels, estimates suggest China generates 2x to 10x more output per dollar invested due to lower labor costs, greater automation, lower supply chain costs, and different operational standards. This efficiency is reflected in publication rates and is attributed to both spending levels and operational differences.
US-born PhD recipients in computer science have declined from 70% thirty years ago to approximately 30% currently. Encouraging more Americans to enter STEM fields is viewed as critical for maintaining scientific competitiveness. Young scientists completing PhDs face significant challenges including low pay and difficult working conditions at universities, requiring systemic changes to reward and support their research efforts.
Many foreign students, including Chinese students, receive PhDs in the US but lack programs for active retention, often returning to work in Chinese labs or industry. China is now attracting scientists from India and Europe. The policy approach requires two components: encouraging young Americans to pursue STEM fields and allowing those who want to stay to pursue legal pathways for retention.
The approach is not viewed as conflicting with America First policy. The priority is addressing how to get more Americans to pursue STEM education before considering other talent sources. The statistic that seven out of ten STEM-related PhD candidates are not American is considered alarming. Programs at the National Science Foundation that previously supported gifted and talented American students in middle and high schools were discontinued, representing a policy reversal needed to encourage STEM pursuit.
Initiatives such as stopping advanced algebra instruction in San Francisco high schools and the University of California system's decision to stop requiring SAT scores are cited as policies that harm the progression of talented STEM students. Professors at institutions like UC Berkeley report needing to provide remedial math instruction to incoming students. These policies are viewed as actively discouraging gifted students from pursuing scientific careers and must be reversed to reward the greatest and most talented Americans.
Scientists in the 20th century, particularly post-World War II, were celebrities and rock stars featured in magazines, newspapers, and television shows, and rewarded economically with fame and notoriety. The question arises whether that cultural prominence was lost or led to moments like Fauci's influence. There are few names today that meet that moment, though Demis Hassabis at Google has won a Nobel Prize. While 90% of people hate AI, Hassabis may be the best qualified to turn that tide, though it's an uphill battle.
There is deep anti-science and anti-technology sentiment not just in the US but in the West. Historically, scientists and technologists have been scapegoated as elitists because they possess knowledge, access, control, and power that others do not. The question is whether the current populist moment in the West views science and technology as tools of the elite that must be broken and destroyed.
During COVID, Fauci represented a significant disservice to science more than anyone in modern history. When Fauci advocated for positions like students needing to be masked in schools while pediatric societies put out letters saying it was okay for people to collectively protest but not allowed to see their dying grandmother in a hospital, no regular median American could listen to that and take science seriously. The healing requires returning to gold standard science to allow people to understand and trust what science is about. Science should be seen as an inspiring and good thing that can change our way of life, not as dogma or rules or edicts from on high, but as a process that all are part of, experimenting and learning about the world and universe.
The observation that if everyone thinks something, it's probably wrong, but if some percentage of people argue viciously against it and others argue for something, there's objective truth to be found. However, when everyone aligns behind something uniformly, there's something really off. The fundamental basis of science is gathering empirical data, asking questions, inquiring, and using data to inform conclusions. During COVID, conclusions and assumptions were made without empirical data, with everyone lining up behind them under the directive to "trust the science." This not only destroyed trust in science but raised questions about why scientists lined up uniformly and why it became acceptable to put down people asking questions, when the basis of science is to ask questions.
Anyone who asked questions was criticized by the scientific community as being anti-science. If you question some conclusions in the IPCC reports on climate change, even if you agree with some things and disagree with others, you're labeled anti-science. The idea that pushing back on RCP 8.5 would have resulted in being dramatically criticized as anti-Trumper, anti-science, MAGA three or four years ago, but now the IPCC says we can't even talk about that anymore. Staying the course with gold standard science ideals of being inquisitive, asking questions, and following the scientific method will ultimately prove right.
The median age of an intramural researcher at NIH is 71 years old. This statistic was shared by Jay Bhattacharya, the director of NIH. The aging of scientists and the loss of STEM graduates and the pipeline may be hurting progress with China. There is a huge opportunity to bring young scientists back into the fold, with interesting developments expected at NIH.
The challenge is funding and gaining attention for pure science research in physics, mathematics, and astronomy when everyone is consumed with AI as an applied technology. While AI can be leveraged in other areas, fundamental research advances need to continue. After "A New Golden Age" was released, Russ Vought, the OMB director, and Michael Kratsios wrote their annual R&D priorities memo on the same day. The memo lists administration priorities and how individual agencies should write their budgets to map to those research priorities. First and foremost on the very first page is the importance of basic fundamental research, serving as policy for the United States on how agencies like NSF should be prioritizing those things.
The first implementation document is the R&D priorities memo that goes out to the White House and agencies, telling them the budget priority areas and practices to implement going forward. The top five research agencies with over $3 billion in R&D have a report due back 90 days after publication on implementation. Announcements have already started, including XLABS from the National Science Foundation to fund focused research organizations, and NSF's announcement around 4-year PhDs done in partnership with industry so people can graduate and go into industry much more quickly. The second piece is working with Congress on appropriations to align with the directions of "A New Golden Age."
Congress members want funding for their people, money to flow to their district or state. The balance needed is against what really matters for science and how it needs to get done, where the people and institutions are. It's not about taking money and spreading it to states, but achieving the clearly defined mission. The mission matters, not a money grab for everyone.
Most recommendations in "A New Golden Age" are nonpartisan or bipartisan. Rethinking methods for deploying science capital, funding different institutions, and promoting individual scientists are ideas that will be uniformly accepted or exciting to people on the Hill. The tenant that there is great work at select institutions in the northeast, but research is done all over the country and the best scientists no matter where they are should be funded, can gain support. The Hill will always be a slog.
There is optimism about winning in 2028. These ideas are pretty nonpartisan. If you're someone looking at the science ecosystem and wanting to succeed, these are generalizable ideas to get behind. The hope is to run hard through the tape over the next two years and prove they're working, making it costly from a political capital standpoint to turn around because the ideas will be working.
Keep All-In Podcast in your library
Save the videos and channels worth coming back to, and find them again in one place.
