My first policy gig was a postdoctoral fellowship in the US Senate of all places. For decades, scientific societies (in my case, the American Institute of Physics) have been plucking starry-eyed, freshly minted PhD scientists straight from the lab and tossing us into Washington DC’s political shark tank, all in the name of science policy exposure. And remarkably, it works!
This was early in Obama's second term—what we naively thought at the time was a uniquely polarizing era in US politics (hindsight!). The Tea Party was at its zenith, having flipped the house in 2010 and reshaped the Republican Party through fiery figures like Marco Rubio (remember when he was a rabble-rouser, not the so-called ‘centrist adult’ in Trump's orbit?), Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Mike Lee.
The Tea Party's agenda was straightforward: slash government spending and shrink the government’s footprint wherever possible (plus dismantle Obamacare, of course). So imagine my surprise when I found myself working closely with Marco Rubio's office on legislation aimed at boosting innovation within America’s network of federal national laboratories. These labs—epicenters of scientific research in energy, defense, and basic research—became unlikely bipartisan rallying points. Senator Rubio joined forces with my boss, Democratic Senator Chris Coons, to introduce the bill in the Senate, and remarkably, it passed the Republican-controlled house. The bill was even enthusiastically endorsed by the Heritage Foundation—a group I found myself working closely with in another unexpected twist.
Support for this legislation fell broadly into three camps: lawmakers representing districts with national labs (which are spread widely across the US); free-enterprise advocates pushing for efficiency and market-friendly reforms (notably the Heritage foundation and their Tea Party allies); and representatives whose constituents—including corporations—directly benefited from the labs’ facilities and expertise.
The Hidden Political Strength of Science
What I learned through this experience wasn’t what you'd typically expect a science wonk to say: the true political superpower of science isn’t found in the rational arguments we love to trot out—high ROI of R&D spending, national security and global competitiveness, innovation pipelines—but rather its broad-based, varied, and geographically dispersed constituencies.
Yes, trust in science is declining, especially among Republicans—and Trump, as Noah Smith convincingly argues, can be viewed as leading an ideological backlash against the progressive tilt among scientists and highly educated professionals more broadly. But the scientific enterprise isn’t just elite professors or researchers. Every dollar of federal science and innovation funding touches diverse, real-world communities—technicians, facility managers, administrative staff, small business owners, healthcare professionals, early stage companies and lab spin-offs (famously including Elon Musk’s Tesla), citizens ‘marching for a cure’, and countless others.
Indeed, this lack of a clear domestic constituency is precisely why USAID has become such an easy target for the Trump machine. While the agency is undoubtedly an important instrument of geopolitical soft power and advances U.S. global interests, it has no robust base of domestic supporters, making it “virtually costless to scapegoat.” Although U.S. farmers—who supply USAID with 41% of the staple commodities like rice, wheat, and soybeans used as food aid—do feel some impact, one could still dismantle much of USAID while protecting the narrower functions directly benefiting these farmers.
The Congressional Firewall
Trump tried to gut science funding early in his first term, but cuts to NSF and NIH didn't make it through Congress. Even with Republicans controlling both the House and the Senate, Congress repeatedly resisted the first Trump administration’s attempts to cut science budgets, and remarkably boosted spending for many science programs faster than during the Obama years.
Clearly, we have reason to be concerned about Trump’s renewed attacks on science. His second-term administration appears more emboldened, employing troubling tactics such as 'impoundment'—deliberately delaying or canceling funding already allocated by Congress. Combined with reports of staff layoffs, suspension of grant reviews, and other executive maneuvers designed to evade legal injunctions, these actions risk seriously undermining the integrity and functionality of the scientific system.
But here’s the thing: even in these unprecedented political times, Congress still responds first and foremost to local constituents. Science in America is everywhere. Nearly every state and congressional district directly benefits from federal science spending—whether through substantial NIH research grants, jobs created at universities, hospitals, and research centers, or programs like NSF’s EPSCoR, which explicitly targets states (mostly Republican) historically underrepresented in research funding. This widely distributed constituency will be exceptionally difficult to dismantle.
Trump's assault on science funding is undeniably harmful. Yet, paradoxically, it might also highlight science’s profound value to constituents—a political trump card, if you will. By attacking science funding, Trump may inadvertently spotlight the tangible benefits science delivers to voters, reinforcing its importance in a way that resonates broadly.
Excellent, excellent post, Rose!
YES YES YES, well said. Miss you!!! <3