Resistance is rising against the assault on science, the environment and marginalized communities by the administration of US President Donald Trump. Battles are starting to play out in courts, but these cannot be the only sites of resistance. A broader, more inclusive defence of science is needed.
I have felt the impacts of political assaults. In 2017, after Hurricane Maria hit my homeland, Puerto Rico, and killed thousands of people, the first Trump administration denied the death toll and delayed the provision of US$20 billion in disaster aid. And, last month, a programme I run at the University of Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania — to help undergraduates from all backgrounds gain research experience — was among thousands of US National Science Foundation grants branded as promoting “woke” diversity propaganda by Republican Senator Ted Cruz (Texas).
How Trump 2.0 is reshaping science
My colleagues face similar challenges (see go.nature.com/42twbyb). The University of Pittsburgh is one of several that have paused or frozen graduate admissions, spending or hiring in response to the threat of losing millions in federal funding. Meanwhile, community environmental justice groups that I work with have been denied more than $50 million that was committed to them through the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022. The Environmental Protection Agency has paused all funding actions related to Biden-era climate and infrastructure laws.
A rising chorus of voices in the scientific community is sending a clear message that researchers need to step up and defend our hard-won gains. But what is to be done?
On climate change, for example, some researchers have proposed that compromise with moderate sectors, such as backing carbon-capture technologies, might be a way to keep up momentum. Yet such solutions fall short on environmental justice. They come from ‘top down’ and rely on big companies; surveys show that the public is unfamiliar with them; and their effectiveness at scale is yet to be demonstrated. Instead, policies to transition away from fossil-fuel dependence should emerge from democratic processes and deliberations that include and centre the needs of affected workers and communities.
‘Silence is complicity’ — universities must fight the anti-DEI crackdown
Similarly, to protect the scientific enterprise itself, limiting ourselves to defence and elite-driven compromise will be a losing strategy. Those who believe in the importance of science for the public good should build power by boosting movements and coalitions and advocating for science and justice in the public arena.
We can learn from successes, such as the mobilizations that helped to enhance research-integrity policies after Trump’s first administration attacked science by sidelining and censoring scientists, reducing data accessibility and halting studies. Leveraging diverse voices through transnational alliances also has a proven track record, such as enabling the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women.
