Autocracies require ideological control and a single narrative about what is happening within the country. For authoritarian states that also seek to enrich their elite, science that might prevent enrichment must also be controlled. Both science and universities foster critical thinking and a pursuit of truth and evidence over ideology. They are the antithesis to the disinformation at the heart of so much autocratic propaganda, particularly populist attacks on minority groups seen again and again over hundreds of years. Science and academia promote collaboration and exposure to a range of different ideas and ways of thinking, both domestically and internationally. This has led to right-wing populist movements promoting distrust of expertise and scientific institutions.
Universities have long played a pivotal role as sources of resistance to autocracy and, for just as long, been subject to attacks and repression from authoritarian regimes. Recent examples include the Soviet 1956 takeover in Hungary, the 1968 Prague Spring in (then) Czechoslovakia, the Cultural Revolution (1966-72) in China, Hungary under Viktor Orban (2010-current), and Iran, first the Shah and then the Iranian regime since 1979. In a 2023 paper, Lars Pelke described universities as “pro-democracy hotbeds” and his research found that the more academic freedom exists in a country, the lower the chance of a new autocracy taking hold.
While any government will have priorities for areas of science it wishes to promote, there are key differences in how democratic and autocratic states go about it. Whereas democratic ones tend to specify key priority areas, researchers maintain academic freedom and priority areas will be transparent and subject to accountability. In authoritarian regimes however, more control is exerted and science that does not align with state ideology is explicitly suppressed and/or delegitimised.
Specific methods authoritarian government have used to control science include capturing existing scientific institutions by appointing loyalists and/or purging existing staff; ignoring or undermining scientific results that do not match the state narrative; and suppressing non-aligned research through censorship and loss of funding.
Additionally, authoritarian governments, particularly on the populist right, can lead to “toxic geographies” where local environments are degraded to the detriment of population wellbeing and health. Public health is also a common victim of populist right wing autocracies as part of a broader agenda to reduce trust in established scientific and governmental institutions, while appealing to nationalist sentiments and delegitimising considerations of equity.
In all of these respects, the Trump administration is following the classic authoritarian playbook. It is already suppressing research (both funding and output) on topics related to gender, minorities, equity, and climate change. It is directing funding instead towards priorities close to RF Kennedy’s heart, including casting doubt on the proven safe MMR vaccine and postponing key vaccination meetings. Trump has captured the key health and scientific bodies by appointing loyalists to Health, NIH, the CDC, the VA and the EPA. They are in turn furthering this capture by firing thousands of workers, cancelling grants and even cancelling leases on key buildings. Finally, the administration is ignoring climate science evidence it does not like and starting a massive push to expand oil and gas extraction.
There are three main ways authoritarian regimes attack universities: by withdrawing funding to weaken them (and allocating funding to ‘friendly’ universities); by actively targeting specific universities, students and staff; and by co-opting universities into a populist culture war.
Hungary is an informative current case study. In 2012, the government ‘reassessed’ university funding, cutting subsidies and whole entire research areas. In 2017, Hungary passed a law with the explicit purpose of banning the Central European University (CEU), a liberal university founded by George Soros. The CEU is now headquartered in Vienna. In 2021, remaining universities were ‘privatised’, but in effect the governing boards are political appointees and loyalists to Orban. Orban also successfully framed universities as “dominated by an intolerant liberal-left elite employing a “woke” agenda to indoctrinate students”. To ‘counter’ this, Hungary has funnelled large amounts of funding to right wing thinktanks and like minded academic allies. Orban met both Trump and Musk, keen admirers of his, in December 2024 at Mar-a-Lago.
Again, all the Trump administration’s actions against universities fall within these established methods. Many existing federal grants have been paused or cancelled; universities have been threatened with losing funding if they promote diversity initiatives or allow student protests; students’ social media accounts are being surveilled; and legislation has been proposed attacking university endowment funds. These are not just hollow threats: Georgetown Law School is being investigated over promoting DEI initiatives, Columbia University has had $400 million of federal funds removed because of Gaza protests, and a Palestinian student on a valid Green Card who organised protests has been detained on unspecified charges. Universities across the US are reducing their spending, pausing hiring and new student admissions. The next generation of scientists in key areas risk not being trained.
In a 2021 speech at the National Conservatism Conference, JD Vance said “we have to honestly and aggressively attack the universities in this country”, ending by quoting Nixon “The professors are the enemy”.
Science and health become victim to broader geopolitical populist goals, where authoritarian states undermine the global order. International aid frameworks are often criticised by authoritarian regimes because they are seen as extensions of neoliberal agendas that undermine national sovereignty and prioritize global elites over local needs. Authoritarian states are also much more likely to view international agreements and structures as impinging on their sovereignty. International public health bodies, particularly the World Health Organization (WHO), are distrusted. The open exchange of ideas fostered by science collaboration becomes a threat to the state’s need to control the narrative.
The other feature of authoritarian control of science is an aggressive pivot away from science that either has little immediate economic benefit or does not support the state’s economic goals. As Donmez put it, the state “prioritizes profit and control over academic freedom and critical thought”.
The administration has pivoted to oil and gas in its effort to drive economic growth while its threats to Fulbright scholars and NASA’s science programme target both ‘non-profitable’ science and a large established network of international collaboration.
The Trump administration immediately withdrew from the WHO and the Paris Climate Agreement, as part of its attack on global structures but also as they conflicted with its stated priorities (particularly the Paris agreement). It decimated international aid, stopping HIV treatment programmes and shutting down USAID. Last month, Hungary’s leader Orban responded to the ending of USAID with gratitude for uncovering a “dark conspiracy”. The harms are enormous, with people already dying from disease and starvation as a direct results of these cuts. Millions more might die over the coming years.
There are two things that have struck me about the attacks on science and universities over the last six weeks. First is the pleasure that the administration and MAGA loyalists are taking in what is happening. Second is the sheer speed at which this is all happening. For instance, Hungary took more than a decade to consolidate its grip on the universities. Because it’s only been six weeks, we don’t know how far the administration plans to go or what comes next. But what we know of other regimes gives us a guide on what to look out for – and guard against.
For science, we need to watch out for what new science is funded and how it aligns with the Trump’s priorities. Is federal funding of new climate science research completely over? Will research into infectious diseases, public health strategies and vaccination be curtailed? Will public health advice retreat from proven strategies from pasteurisation of milk to childhood vaccination? Will the administration seek to censor academic journals directly or support, new, state-aligned ones?
For universities, will the administration start attacking individual academics more directly? Will the surveillance of students be expanded into other areas of protest and will academics be under surveillance too? Will visas for international students and researchers be subject to ideological tests? Will the administration try to weaken the independent leadership of universities? What strategies could it use?
The bad news is that the Trump administration’s attacks on science fit clearly and neatly into the authoritarian playbook. The worse news is that the attacks are coming very quickly – the administration is aggressive, serious and purposeful. We must not pretend that we are simply seeing a badly executed ‘efficiency drive’ or a chaotic frenzy of action.
The good news is that the scientific and academic community has woken up to the threat and is starting to fight back. Last week saw the first mass Stand up for Science rallies around the country, although scientific institutions and universities need to do far more. Dr Anne Toomey also wrote a brilliant post about eight positive things scientists could do right now. The better news is that because the administration is using methods tried and tested elsewhere, we can plan for what might come next and learn from how scientific institutions and universities have sought to protect themselves elsewhere. Pressure your institutions and your political representatives. There is no time to lose.
*****
Editor’s Note – This article is republished with the author’s permission, with first publication on her Substack.
