Since his return to the White House, Donald Trump has launched an attack on the legitimacy of science in the United States. As the United States is at the heart of global research, the consequences of this offensive are being felt on an international scale. Closures of renowned research centres (NOAA), mass redundancies (NASA, NIH), restrictions on communication between researchers, bans on programmes linked to diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility[1], suspensions of international collaborations, the offensive measures have multiplied in recent weeks creating a climate of concern and doubt in the scientific community.
But this legitimate doubt, which is a fundamental part of the scientific process and of our profession as communicators, is now in jeopardy. Not because of excessive complexity, but because of deliberate political choices that affect the very foundations of the production and circulation of knowledge. And this is where communication issues come into their own: by undermining scientific institutions, reducing access to data, stigmatising certain research themes (climate, diversity, gender)[2], the Trump administration is not only attacking researchers, it is also attacking the very conditions in which science can be explained, defended, made audible.
What is under attack here is not just science as a discipline, but its right to be said, transmitted and, above all, believed. What is under attack is the legitimacy of evidence-based discourse. How can we continue to produce meaning, convey nuance and create a bond of trust, in a context where proven expertise and opinion built on emotion or belief are made equivalent?
A wind of protest
In the face of this attack on science, nearly 1,900 American scientists have raised their voices in an open letter[3], strongly emphasising the fundamental role of research in the public interest. Their message is clear: these policies threaten not only the independence of research, but also the ability of science to provide society with reliable knowledge. In France, figures such as Alain Puisieux[4], President of the Institut Curie, and Antoine Petit[5], President and CEO of the CNRS, have also expressed the dangers posed by these decisions.
Because the consequences are not just local or technical: they go to the very heart of the social contract that links science, society and democracy. They call for rapid, structuring responses at several levels:
- The suspension of access to certain databases raises questions about our ability to guarantee robust conservation and sharing of data and to protect our knowledge from possible erasure, whether ideological or linked to technical issues (IT shutdowns)?
- How can we pass on living, rigorous and open knowledge if science itself is forced to keep quiet about certain words, certain subjects, certain populations? A science that self-censors is a science that deprives itself of its critical forces, and this silence undermines any well-founded public discourse.
The misfortune of some, makes the happiness of others
Yet this situation, worrying as it is, also opens up a window of opportunity for Europe. As the American scientific system is under attack, the European Union can embody an alternative model: welcoming researchers under threat, affirming its deep attachment to academic freedom, and strengthening its own data platforms and research structures. This is an opportunity to reaffirm the role of science as a common good, and, with it, to rebuild a European narrative of knowledge, based on transparency, cooperation and informed debate.
Is doubt still useful?
To conclude, what is at stake today in the US political decisions could constitute a profound reconfiguration of the relationship between knowledge, truth and legitimate speech. Weakening science in one sense means shaking collective confidence, weakening critical thinking and making the public arena vulnerable to simplistic, emotional and even manipulative narratives.
For communicators, this situation is an eye-opener: it forces us to think about our responsibilities, to defend nuance and to cultivate rigour in our messages. If our job is to protect the conditions for reliable speech, then we need to support those who research, verify and explain.
In a world where facts are debatable, where expertise is relativised, where emotion replaces argument, doubt remains our ally, provided that it is informed, structured and controlled. It’s up to us to ensure that it doesn’t become a weapon against knowledge, but rather a tool to help us pass it on more effectively.
By Pauline Cabanas
[1] ‘Donald Trump’s data purge has begun’, The Verge
[2] ‘Space science is under threat from the anti DEI purge’, The Verge
[3] Public Statement on Supporting Science for the Benefit of All Citizens
[4] Tribune by Alain Puisieux for Le Monde, ‘La science est mondialement en danger’
[5] ‘La recherche française touchée par l’onde de choc de la politique antiscience de Donald Trump’, Le Monde
