2025 has not been kind to American science. Amidst budget cuts to the National Institutes of Health and reports of censorship in government funding as part of a larger push to end diversity, equity and inclusion policies, further alarming news arrived in the revelation that President Donald Trump’s new science advisor is actually not a scientist at all. Michael Kratsios, a former chief technology officer in the Department of Defense, was nominated for the position by President Trump in late January 2025.
His nomination immediately sparked disbelief and outrage from some of the nation’s top scientists and former science policy advisors. Recommending Kratsios, who has a Bachelor of Arts in Politics and a certificate in Hellenic Studies, symbolizes a wider, troubling trend of American anti-intellectualism, which has grown in strength since the first Trump administration. The rejection of subject-matter experts for those with less proven expertise in a given area highlights a worrisome shift toward the prioritization of breaking the status quo at the risk of losing reliable specialized knowledge and demonstrated proficiency.
More formally known as the director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the science advisor’s responsibilities have historically included providing science and technical advice that can be utilized to “provide the greatest benefit to society.” Former advisors have been praised for their outstanding scientific credentials. President Obama’s science policy advisor, Dr. John P. Holdren, received degrees in aerospace engineering and theoretical plasma physics from MIT and Stanford and was a member of the National Academy of Sciences (considered “one of the highest honors a scientist can receive”). Even President Trump’s science policy advisor during his first term, Dr. Kelvin K. Droegemeier, was a respected meteorologist, professor, and vice president for research at the University of Oklahoma. Droegeimer also co-founded the National Science Foundation’s Science and Technology Center for Analysis and Prediction of Storms. So why the sudden turn towards a seemingly under-qualified, non-scientist science advisor?
At 38 years old, Kratsios’ resume includes interning for Republican Senator Lindsey Graham and serving as the chief financial officer for Clarium Capital Management, before landing as the chief of staff to Peter Thiel, a co-founder of PayPal, at Thiel Capital. It was while working with Thiel (who up until very recently supported Trump, both politically and financially) that Kratsios first caught Trump’s eye, and was subsequently appointed to be the deputy assistant to the president for technology policy. In 2020, he was promoted to serve as the acting undersecretary for research and engineering, an appointment which also raised concerns at the time for Kratsios’ “relatively light resume” — in fact, the person he replaced held a PhD in aerospace engineering and had served as a NASA administrator.
Despite both past and present concerns, Kratsios’ position has stuck. In seeking to understand why a non-scientist was able to land this prestigious position, it’s important to take a broader look at President Trump’s attitude towards science, and his perpetuation of the anti-intellectualism movement. As Professor Matt Motta, author of the book “Anti-Scientific Americans” explains, the anti-intellectualism movement as a whole is defined by a “dislike and distrust of scientists, college professors and other experts.”
Although the phenomena has recently received more media coverage, anti-intellectualism as a part of American life has existed since the 1930s, when the Republican Party was characterized by some as being the less intelligent of the two parties. Rather than fighting this label, Republicans embraced it. What followed was a decades-long trend of the Republican Party consistently favoring politicians who could connect with the “common man” more than with Harvard graduates. In doing so, members of the Party began to regard expert opinion with suspicion and contempt, choosing instead to favor the voices of those they deemed were not part of the snobby, intellectual elite.
“What followed was a decades-long trend of the Republican Party consistently favoring politicians who could connect with the ‘common man’ more than with Harvard graduates.”
This growing anti-intellectualism set the stage for the election of President Trump in 2016. As a businessman and TV show personality, Trump was as far-removed as one could be from the traditional political candidates who ran for office. Holding the notable distinction of being the only president in U.S. history to have no prior military or political experience, Trump’s rise to power was helped in part due to his “underdog story” (defying seasoned politicians and experts who said he would not make it) as well as his public denunciation of expert voices and opinions. Describing Anthony Fauci, head of the National Institute for Infectious Diseases as a “disaster,” and public health officials as “idiots” during the COVID-19 pandemic, Trump’s presidency has repeatedly championed figures who decry expert opinions and rely more on ideological narratives than facts. As a result, he successfully upholds the anti-intellectual tradition of disdaining the intellectual elite, making him popular among supporters. Kratsios’ appointment is merely the latest manifestation of this trend.
An argument can be made that the appointment serves a wider, if seemingly questionable, purpose. The recent TikTok legislation pushed by Congress as well as the establishment of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) by technology leader Elon Musk, which has been tasked with “modernizing federal technology and software,” makes it clear that technology policy and management are a clear focus of the second Trump Administration. In fact, even Dr. Neal F. Lane, President Bill Clinton’s science advisor and a former critic of Kratsios, stated that Kratsios’ appointment might be “warranted given Washington’s current push to beat China in the global A.I. race.” Kratsios’ prior experience as principal technology policy advisor, and his current management role at the California-based company Scale AI, may justify this statement.
However, his legitimacy as a technology expert is called into question by some when considering speculation that his appointment to deputy assistant to the president for technology policy within the first Trump administration was a move used to “further an already cozy relationship” that Peter Thiel (and several other high-ranking executives) had with the White House at the time. Prior to this appointment, he had no other experience working in or with the tech industry.
Whatever the motives to choose Kratsios as a science advisor, the implications are troublesome nonetheless. For the first time since World War II, when politicians on both sides of the spectrum agreed to use science as a toolkit for national progress, science no longer receives the priority and respect it deserves. The decline of the golden age of American science may be upon us.