Anti-Trump Science Media Begins
On day one of Trump’s presidency,
the screams from Big Science began
Think what you want about President Donald Trump; it is not the business of pure science to take sides in politics. To the extent it spends taxpayer funds, Big Science is a servant of the people. It must bow to the will of the voters or find its own money.
Keep in mind the following contrasts about Big Science and Big Media regarding the Biden and Trump administrations. (1) They never treated Biden with the hostility Trump gets, even though Biden, suffering from dementia, was the most corrupt president in recent memory, pardoning his own family members 20 minutes before leaving office against his explicit promise not to do so, and issuing questionable pre-emptive pardons to liberals who might be accused in the future—a dangerous precedent. (2) A prosperous America is likely to bring in more money for science projects; why not be happy about that? (3) By not cooperating with the new administration, Big Science and Big Media shoot themselves in the foot by alienating a majority of voters who elected Trump by the largest margin in recent decades and delivered to him all seven swing states plus majorities in both houses of Congress.
Here are just a few of the stories coming through the science media wires on January 20th. Science reporters are already lining up against the new administration.
Trump vows to leave Paris climate agreement and ‘drill, baby, drill’ (BBC News, 20 Jan 2025). Matt McGrath is incredulous that Trump would withdraw from this non-binding treaty, which he says “comes after global temperatures in 2024 rose more than 1.5C above pre-industrial levels for the first time in a calendar year.” He credits Biden for increases in natural gas exports but fails to state the many bad decisions he made, such as drawing down the petroleum reserves, putting millions of acres off limits to drilling, and raising gas prices to record levels. McGrath says “President Trump’s previous effort to pull the US out of the Paris agreement served as a rallying cry for many Americans who were dismayed by leaving,” but he fails to mention the record number of voters who embraced his policies and are glad about the decision.
What do Trump’s environmental rollbacks mean for California? (Phys.org, 21 Jan 2025). In this piece, Paul Rogers does state some facts about positions but gives the emotional edge to liberals like Gavin Newsom and Jerry Brown, as if these governors, whom many consider losers, are and were courageous warriors for environmental justice. Rogers’ tone is one of opposition: California needs to resist the new president.
Trump signs executive order reversing Biden-era restrictions on oil and gas exploration in Alaska (Phys.org, 21 Jan 2025). This brief article is balanced, stating just facts about what Trump signed.
Trump leaves Paris climate agreement, doubles down on fossil fuels (Phys.org, 21 Jan 2025). Essam Ahmed calls Trump’s order pulling out of the Paris climate accord “a defiant rejection of global efforts to combat planetary warming as catastrophic weather events intensify worldwide.” He stresses the “scientific consensus” about global warming (see 13 Jan 2025).
Trump’s climate retreat shines light on green leaders (Phys.org, 21 Jan 2025). In this piece, Nick Perry says, “The United States withdrawing from the Paris Agreement is a blow to global cooperation on climate change, but other countries are marching ahead and stepping up leadership on the issue.” Is it impossible for a science reporter to take a different stance? Why doesn’t Perry say something like this?— ‘It’s about time that American shows bold leadership against other countries that are stifling their economies with globalist policies based on flawed science.’ That would be the day. Why is it unthinkable? Is science media necessarily liberal?
How President Trump could change NASA (Space.com, 20 Jan 2025). While not overtly negative, Andrew Jones writes in terms that emphasize turbulence and uncertainty: “As the Trump administration returns to power, NASA faces a crossroads that could redefine its mission for decades to come.” Could that not be a good thing? Jones mentions the Space Force that Trump created in his first term, but only mentions “fierce debate” in Congress over its funding and whether or not its headquarters will be moved; he says nothing about the good that it is doing. Jones talks about “battles over climate and earth science,” “debates swirling” about this or that, and “decisions in the coming months” likely to “reverberate across U.S. space policy.” The rhetoric is aimed at fear-mongering over what Trump might do.
Big Science and Big Media had better realize that they are alienating a majority of American citizens who voted for Trump and approve of his policies. They risk validating the terrible things that happened under the Biden/Harris administration, including the open-border crisis, crime, inflation, corruption and embarrassment on the international stage.
Why not look for some good things in the changes Trump is making? Isn’t it good to find ways to cut the national debt and reduce spending, to reduce waste and improve efficiency, and to protect the First Amendment against government censorship and to end lawfare? Won’t a return to equal justice under law benefit liberals too?
Surely there is something that science reporters can find to like if America does enter a new golden age that Trump is promising. We challenge science reporters to rethink their biases or at least be open about it. We suggest they start their articles with, “I am a Democrat globalist and socialist who loves Darwin. My pronouns are it and its.” Go ahead and have a good cry with a friend, then get back to the job of reporting the science news without political bias.