Does Donald Trump hate scientific publishing

Does Donald Trump Hate Scientific Publishing?

by

Table of Contents

Introduction

If you’re a scientist in the U.S. government who just lost access to one of the world’s leading scientific publishers, you might be wondering the same thing many others are now asking: Does Donald Trump hate scientific publishing?

The Trump administration recently abruptly terminated a series of longstanding contracts between major U.S. federal agencies and Springer Nature. It has also been alleged that Science journal subscriptions, among others, were no longer accessible to employees across key departments such as the Department of Energy, Environmental Protection Agency, and even the National Institutes of Health.

This wasn’t a budgetary mistake or clerical error. It was a deliberate move. And it sent a very loud message: scientific literature—at least that which resides behind paywalls—may no longer be welcome in the halls of American bureaucracy.

This raises a series of questions that go beyond administrative budgeting. What does this action signal about how the current administration views science itself? Are publishers being punished for representing a knowledge-based order that Trump’s brand of populism fundamentally distrusts?

So, what does this really mean? Is this just another chapter in Trump’s war on the elite? Or does it reflect a deeper antagonism toward the scientific establishment, and by extension, the publishing ecosystem that fuels it?

Let’s dive in.

Trump’s Rocky History with Science

Donald Trump has never had a cozy relationship with science. His first administration, from 2016 to 2020, was marked by skepticism toward climate change, hostility toward environmental regulation, and disregard for epidemiological guidance during the COVID-19 pandemic. These are not opinions. They are historical facts backed by policy choices.

From withdrawing from the Paris Agreement to publicly criticizing Dr. Anthony Fauci, Trump’s approach to science has often been combative, and some would argue, performative. He has repeatedly framed scientific consensus as an obstacle to economic growth, personal liberty, or national sovereignty.

Now, as he enters his second term, the latest assault appears to be focused on the gatekeepers of science: publishers. But this time, the move is quieter, more surgical, and arguably more insidious. Instead of bashing scientists on TV, this is a backroom budget maneuver with far-reaching consequences. No headlines, no fireworks—just an institutional chokehold.

Canceling contracts with Springer Nature isn’t just about cutting costs. It’s about cutting access. That, in itself, is a form of censorship, not in the book-burning sense, but in the bureaucratic, passive-aggressive way that says, “We just won’t pay for this anymore.”

The War on Paywalls. Or Science?

Let’s entertain a generous interpretation: maybe Trump is protesting against paywalls and the high costs of accessing research. Springer Nature charges exorbitant subscription fees, and open access has been a topic of discussion for years. Perhaps this is a step toward democratizing science.

Nice try. But no.

If this were about open access, the administration would’ve announced investments in open science infrastructure, partnerships with preprint repositories, or at least support for the Public Access Program. None of that happened. Instead, they just cut ties and said little else. There were no public statements, no transition plans, and no alternative access strategies.

So, let’s be honest. This isn’t about embracing open access. It’s about rejecting the institutions of science as they currently stand. It’s a signal to the bureaucratic middle layers of the federal machine that scientific knowledge doesn’t matter unless it serves a political narrative.

If anything, the move weaponizes a long-standing debate—open access vs. subscription models—without actually aligning with either camp. It’s not policy. It’s posture.

Anti-Intellectualism in Government

There’s a deeper cultural undercurrent at play here. Trump’s political base thrives on anti-elitism, and academia, research institutions, and scientific publishing are often lumped into the category of “elitist.” In this view, publishers like Springer Nature represent globalism, technocracy, and all the other -isms that populist rhetoric loves to demonize.

Scientific publishing becomes collateral damage in a broader war against intellectual authority. Cutting Springer Nature contracts fits neatly into a narrative where bureaucrats, scientists, and scholars are portrayed as out-of-touch technocrats trying to run the country from behind a wall of peer-reviewed jargon.

There’s also a political utility in attacking expertise. When facts become optional and data is inconvenient, undermining those who generate knowledge becomes a strategic maneuver. Trump doesn’t have to call scientists the enemy—he just has to defund them, discredit them, or cut off their informational lifelines.

To be fair, scientific publishing has its own problems; greedy pricing models, predatory journals, and access inequities. But attacking it from a position of ignorance and resentment doesn’t help anyone. It only narrows the pipeline of credible information flowing into government decisions.

What Will This Mean for Researchers?

Here’s a non-hypothetical consequence: a federal scientist trying to assess the latest research on renewable energy, water purification, or synthetic biology might now have to rely on outdated PDFs, inaccessible journals, or worse, search engine summaries.

Springer Nature, for all its issues, houses critical journals in medicine, physics, environmental science, and energy research. Losing access to these journals is not like losing your office vending machine. It’s more like losing your library during a PhD dissertation.

And let’s not forget: many U.S. federal researchers also serve as peer reviewers, authors, and collaborators for these journals. What message does this send to the scientific community at large? That their work is valuable, until it becomes politically inconvenient?

Internal memos circulating among agency scientists reportedly warn staff not to “seek alternative access through unauthorized channels.” That’s bureaucratic speak for: don’t use Sci-Hub. But with no legal alternative provided, the effect is academic isolation. And isolation, in research, is death.

Part of a Larger Plan?

One can’t help but wonder if this is just the beginning. The Trump administration has previously floated the idea of reducing federal funding for the National Science Foundation and NIH. So what’s next? Will academic grants be slashed? Will scientific integrity policies be quietly rewritten?

This is not paranoia. It’s pattern recognition. If a government limits access to data, cuts research funding, and undermines peer-review processes, the outcome is not cost savings. It’s regression. The Springer Nature cut might not be an isolated budgetary decision. It could be part of a larger ideological shift that sees science not as a neutral tool for policymaking, but as an adversarial force.

This broader agenda aligns with international trends as well. Populist regimes from Brazil to Hungary have also targeted scientific institutions under the banner of “sovereignty” or “economic freedom.” Science, in this world order, is just another lobby group to be outmaneuvered.

The Cost of Disengagement

In geopolitical terms, pulling away from science doesn’t just affect domestic policy. It comes with global implications. U.S. dominance in research and innovation has long been a soft power asset. Restricting access to scientific publishing makes it more challenging for American agencies to remain at the cutting edge.

Meanwhile, countries like China are increasing their research funding and infrastructure investments. In 2023, China invested over $450 billion in research and development (R&D), marking a new national record. While the U.S. still leads in overall R&D spending, China has surpassed it in several high-tech sectors, including artificial intelligence, green energy, and telecommunications. In a world where technological superiority is the new arms race, voluntarily dulling your edge isn’t just unwise. It’s self-sabotage.

America’s influence is built not only on military might and economic power but on the export of knowledge. Scientific publishing is a pillar of that influence. Undermining it weakens not only the academic community but also the very notion of informed leadership.

What the Publishing Industry Thinks

Unsurprisingly, the publishing world is alarmed. Springer Nature has remained diplomatically quiet, likely to avoid escalating tensions. But insiders are reportedly scrambling to assess the financial and reputational fallout. Losing a client like the U.S. government is not just a revenue hit. It’s a credibility signal.

Other publishers are watching closely. If this move gains traction, who’s next? Elsevier? Wiley? Sage?

At stake is not just money. It’s the question of whether scientific knowledge is valued at the highest levels of government. If the answer is no, the implications for public health, climate policy, and innovation are profound.

And this sends ripples beyond the U.S. It signals to allies and adversaries alike that America may no longer consider science a strategic priority. That’s not just embarrassing. It’s dangerous.

Conclusion

So, does Donald Trump hate scientific publishing? Not in the literal sense. But his actions suggest a disregard—or even contempt—for the institutions and infrastructure that make scientific inquiry possible.

Canceling contracts with Springer Nature isn’t just about subscriptions. It’s about signaling who matters and who doesn’t in the corridors of power. And right now, it looks like science, once again, is being shown the door.

In an era when misinformation is rampant, AI is transforming knowledge production, and global crises necessitate evidence-based responses, severing ties with science publishers is not just shortsighted. It’s self-defeating.

We can only hope someone in the administration starts reading, assuming they still have access to anything worth reading.

Leave a comment