Inside Trump's Science Agenda: Anti-Science Claims, Fauci's Damage, DEI & China w/ Michael Kratsios

Key Takeaway

Use a scientific mindset for one decision today: write down the claim you believe, the evidence that would support or weaken it, and a small test you can run this week. Rather than treating consensus, authority, or a bigger budget as proof, ask what outcome would demonstrate that an approach actually works. Review the result, update your view, and repeat. Progress comes from curiosity, measurable feedback, and willingness to change course.

Episode Overview

Michael Kratsios, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, discusses the administration’s argument for reforming U.S. science funding and restoring trust in the scientific process. The conversation covers research stagnation, funding incentives, AI-enabled discovery, support for young scientists, major national technology projects, and competition with China.

Full Transcript

Transcript of Inside Trump's Science Agenda: Anti-Science Claims, Fauci's Damage, DEI & China w/ Michael Kratsios from All-In Podcast. Auto-generated from episode audio; may contain minor errors.

Is this government anti-scientific? We essentially want to double the scientific output of the United States. Did we lose that, or did that lead to moments like the one with Fauci? That's a great question. Are we currently in this populist moment in the West, where science and technology are seen as tools of the elite and therefore must be broken and destroyed? That's the most tragic thing. That's a really crazy fact. Science has stagnated in the United States, and what the heck is going on? Michael Kratsios, welcome to the All-In interview.

Thank you for having me. I'm excited to be here. So, you're the director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy here at the White House. Can you tell me a little about what that function is? What are you doing here? Yes, the Office of Science and Technology Policy was created in the 1960s to coordinate science and technology policies across the government. So, something very special about the US is that we don't have an agency that does science and technology. We have many agencies that carry out science and technology work.

We have a National Science Foundation that conducts basic research. We have an Energy Department that manages our laboratories. The War Department has extensive R&D programs, such as DARPA, for example. So, the only office in the White House, or in the government in general, that can coordinate all of these efforts is the office I head, called OSTP. What we try to do is work with the president to define the national science and technology agenda and then implement it across all our agencies. And you've had this role before, right?

So, in the last administration, I was the Chief Technology Officer of the United States. So, if you think about OSTP , it's about science and technology. And when Trump won, I managed the technology portfolio for the president. So, let me start by asking if this government is anti-scientific. It 's not anti-scientific. I think one of the things I'm most proud of is the release of a new report a few weeks ago called Science, a new golden age. And I think anyone who reads this report will likely see a government that cares deeply about science and technological endeavors in the U.S.

We very much want the U.S. to be the home of the next great scientific discoveries. We want to empower young scientists. We want to create an ecosystem that allows our greatest scientists to work on the most difficult problems across the U.S. And for us, we're doing everything we can to align all of our agencies, as I just mentioned, to help make this a reality. But getting back to the point, there's a study I'm going to share with you from Nature, which is one of the scientific journals.

They interviewed 2,000 of their readers, who are all scientists. 86% supported Kamala Harris in the election, according to the poll, and Donald Trump received 6 %. Why is that? What is happening to the perception of the president and this government as being anti-scientific? In my opinion, the scientific community has lost its way in recent decades. I think the United States has been the site of some of the most incredible scientific transformations in history, and the government has played a significant role in many of them. If we look back and think about the Manhattan Project or Apollo, those are seismic events that only the US government could have organized and carried out.

I believe that, in the last 15 or 20 years, science has been profoundly and intensely politicized, and we are no longer asking the difficult and important questions about what exactly constitutes the scientific method. How should we approach it? Should we question some of these conclusions? Um, and yes, um, you know, I think it's been dominated by this kind of dogma, and I think it really grew and peaked with COVID, where suddenly, you know, there was a certain individual who, if you didn't agree with what he said, suddenly you became anti-scientific and...

And to me, I think that's the most anti-scientific conclusion you could draw , and I really think we have to go back to basics, and that's what we're trying to do in this government. Yes, I mean, based on what you call the scientific method, for many people here who may be watching and aren't familiar with it , it's like you're asking questions. The process of science is a process of asking questions and raising concerns, and this questioning leads to experiments that collect data, and this data is what informs your insights, and then you continue to ask questions.

The idea that science is authority is almost antithetical to the basis of the scientific method, which is constant questioning. That's because I completely agree. And I think that what we, as a government, for many, many decades, have not strived for and dedicated ourselves to is applying those same principles of the scientific method to the way we, as a government, approach science policy and research and development. Currently, if you talk to an average lobbyist, which is obvious to the scientific community, the only thing they are fixated on is, singularly, the budget for research and development.

If the number doesn't increase, then they haven't done their job and haven't supported science. And for me, that's a question. But the most important question every scientist should ask is: Is the way the U.S. government spends $200 billion in science and technology funding every year really generating the best and greatest discoveries for the American people? Are there other ways to apply this capital to different organizations, for different scientists, and across different time horizons? There are many questions we should be asking but aren't, and that's what the New Golden Age of Science is trying to bring to light.

So, I've heard this a lot from my friends who are scientists, researchers, who work both in the academic community and in private industry and elsewhere, that there's a perception that this government, this administration, is cutting funding for science. And it seems that what you're saying is that there's an allocation of resources, perhaps from some things to other things, how are you seeing it? Yes, I think the most important thing people should define initially is that there should be a distinction between a proposed budget and the dollars that are appropriated by Congress.

Therefore, Congress controls the purse strings . They are the ones who decide how much scientific funding there will be, and they have continued to fund science consistently over the last decade and more. But I think, you know, the most important political question to think about is, and the way I see it, spending more money on the wrong kinds of things isn't the right political action. What is an example of this? So, for me, I think... And excuse me, because I'm just going to say that by 2025, this government has halted, frozen, or terminated $3 billion in unspent funds in active exchanges.

Yes. And then, you terminated grants that scientists or laboratories received or obtained approval for. So, perhaps you could give us an example . What were those $3 billion, and what were some of those other things that the government would say aren't really the right place for... That's a good point. I mean, for me, I think the best example is the National Science Foundation. And for some listeners, the NSF is essentially the main funder of external basic research in the United States. So, you have about 8 to 9 billion dollars a year, where most of that money is given to academics at universities who do research in all sorts of basic science domains.

Senator Ted Cruz and the Senate committee analyzed grants awarded during the Biden administration and found that about 1/4, or 25%, of NSF grants during that period were allocated to DEI-related science. And if you think about it, it's an astronomical amount . That's about US$2 billion a year times four years. That's $8 billion in scientific funding earmarked for these DEI-related initiatives , and that's not science. And it shouldn't be. And this is a pure manifestation of the politicization of science, where the Biden administration stood up and said, "Oh, if you want to get a grant, you need to talk about some factor related to DEI in your application.

That's the only way we'll give you money." And obviously that 's not how we should do it, and that 's not gold standard science. There were also cuts in climate science research. And this is an issue that has been deeply criticized in the media and by a broad representation of the scientific community, journals, associations, and others. Could you describe the government's view on how stable anthropogenic climate change is—that is, whether the climate is changing because of human activity and the release of carbon into the atmosphere—and how critical this is?

Is it a climate emergency? And what do we know? What don't we know? And why are the dollars being redirected away from these research efforts? Secretary Wright has been very clear about this and kind of serves as the focal point for many of these issues in the government . And what he publicly defended, and said many, many times, is that yes, the climate is changing. So, yeah, you know, humans have been burning fossil fuels for the last 100 years, and that has contributed to the CO2 in the environment.

What is not true, and what the data does not support, is that it is a climate emergency. And I think one of the best examples of this is what happened with these CPR 8.5, as they call them. So, these are the scenarios in which climate scientists try to estimate the impact that these climate changes will have on the world. And this was the most extreme scenario ever presented in various national climate assessments, as well as those conducted by the IPCC. And finally, they determined a few months ago that they could not, with any scientific integrity, prove the continuation of this scenario.

So, we had to remove it. So, for me, I think a lot of media coverage, a lot of new reporting, and a lot of funding were based on this simulation of the future that didn't materialize, that did n't happen. Precisely. And I think it's this crazy narrative that kind of revolved around where, you know, they put this extreme scenario, which most people believe would never happen, and now this year has proven that it will never happen because they've even removed it from all their predictions. However, every media report on every climate assessment over the past 20 years has always focused on the extreme example.

That's what the media focuses on, and that's what kind of captures the attention of all these people, and I think that 's a terrible disservice to science. So, in the last decade, or two decades, one or 15 years or more, that's why so much funding has been directed towards climate research, climate science, and ending grants, reducing budgets is kind of a step backwards? Is that the way to think about it? I think the way we like to look at it is that, you know, we want to invest in technologies and sciences that will ultimately create abundant energy for Americans.

Something you strongly advocate for, and which we've talked about needing to overcome—we need to win this merger race. We set a goal for 2035, for example, for this. We have been one of the most advanced governments in this country's history in nuclear energy, and we are trying to accelerate it, get it up and running, and provide energy to Americans as quickly as possible. So, for us, I think technology is what will have the biggest impact on ordinary Americans. Yes, I mean, I would give two arguments.

One is that China's carbon emissions into the atmosphere eclipse the rest of the world, and roughly 50% in the US doesn't make much difference. Therefore, it can be argued that the economic cost is worthwhile, mainly because it primarily affects the poorest communities, and while wealthy communities cannot afford alternatives, the poorest communities lose access to certain energy sources. For sure. For sure. I think the numbers I've seen, you know, approximately, you know, 2 billion people around the world use this kind of very dirty fuel for cooking in their homes, things like wood, dung, or charcoal.

And this leads, according to the UN, to about 3 million deaths every year because of it. And you know, these are the people for whom, you know, clean fossil fuels can make a big difference in their quality of life and overall. And then, if we can accelerate towards alternative energy sources, which undoubtedly doesn't necessarily require government intervention to happen. In some cases, you need to have technical advancements like fusion, but solar power, backup batteries , I mean, there's such a strong economic incentive. It's cheaper, it's easier, it's implantable, which is why the market is kind of putting us in this situation.

That's what matters in the solution. You might believe that carbon going into the atmosphere can cause climate change. You might believe that the world is getting warmer. But you could also argue that the best way to solve this problem isn't necessarily to go back 30 or 40 years, but to move forward with new technologies that replace carbon, instead of forcing things and making them more expensive, which makes it very difficult for people to adapt. Of course. And I keep coming back to your point about China.

I mean, any of these types of extreme political reactions to this kind of perceived problem would inevitably harm Americans more and wouldn't solve the problem, whether you believe that's happening or not. So, let's talk about the NIH. I want to talk a little about the stagnation of scientific progress in the United States . It's easy to look around and say that we have AI, we have gene editing, we have an understanding of the genome, we have flying cars. I mean , all these things came from the United States.

So I think it would be easy to argue that we are making great progress as a nation. We have made great progress as a nation. But if you look at NIH funding, in 1998 it was 14 billion . 2003, 27 billion. 2024, 47 billion. So, the budget has more than tripled since 1998, but there hasn't been a proportional increase in innovative treatments stemming from that funding. People call this Eroom's Law. It's like Moore's Law in reverse. It has fallen approximately 80 times since 1950 in terms of returns per dollar spent.

And it halves every 9 years. So, every 9 years, we lose half the efficiency we had in getting a return on the investment we are making. And I think that comes from your report or what was published. So, has science stagnated in America? What the hell is going on? I think, in general, our argument is that yes. And I think that's an example. I think what many Americans see, feel, and notice quite obviously, but which I always like to talk about, is the speed of the flight.

You know, in the 1990s you could fly on a Concorde, but now you can't anymore. We're flying slower than we were , you know, 10, 20 years ago. And I think we can do much better. And I think the question we always ask is why? Why is this happening? And in the context of government funding, I think you could say one thing: well, look, okay, all the easy problems have already been solved, so the easiest ones have already been harvested, so it's harder to solve the next problem.

Of course. But I think, overall, the problem is that we haven't been innovative at all in the way we conduct science. Whether at the NIH , the NSF, or any of their scientific agencies, the answer has always been: "Let's keep doing the same thing, but adding more money and hoping to get proportionally more results," instead of asking harder questions like : are there other ways to conduct science? Are there other types of scientists who could obtain funding? They could get money. Are there other institutions that could obtain funding?

And I think these are some of the questions we've started raising in the New Golden Age about how we should really look in the mirror and ask ourselves: are we spending money in the smartest and best way? Why didn't we do this along the way? And as you put in more money, where does it go that makes the overall result less efficient? Well, there's no incentive to do that . I think that incentive in Congress is often just to keep increasing budgets that ultimately go to specific districts or states.

From the government's perspective, there's no incentive to check your homework and reveal that what you're doing isn't working very well. It's always easy to find a headline saying you're raising funding in the XYZ domain, but the work is actually very difficult. It's not easy to analyze $47 billion in funding and figure out what 's working and what's not. And I think that's what we're trying to introduce. I mean, there's a concept of metascience that's introduced in the report where we're creating metascience units at the NSF and the NIH, where we'll actually start conducting experiments.

Perhaps there are different ways to do the financing. Then we can analyze this, correct course, and direct the money to places where innovation is actually happening. Then you'll start doing your own experiments on how you're allocating money. Yes. To see what has the highest return. Exactly. Measure that? Well, I think you start by figuring out what experiments you want to conduct. So, I think you know, for example, at the National Science Foundation , almost all grants are offered in a very standard, typical format. There is a group of reviewers who conduct this review based on merit.

There are perhaps three or four people from a specific area. They take all the applications, analyze them, and select those they believe to be most meritorious. You know, you could argue that it's based on merit, of course, but it also often encourages scientists not to necessarily propose crazy, daring, innovative, and out-of-the-box ideas. They tend to want to propose ideas that are in the rejection zone and that the board, for example, will support. So, one thing we're going to test at the National Science Foundation is a concept called golden tickets, where each of the evaluators will receive one, two, or three golden tickets.

And this was initially tested in Denmark and a few other places. And the theory is that, you know, the reviewer can then unilaterally, without the rest of the committee agreeing, make a selection for a specific scholarship. So, you encourage people to have more interesting scholarships. But I think what's also cool about this concept is that you 're actually encouraging better people to participate on the boards because they have a winning ticket and are more likely to want to participate. So, we want to run this experiment and see what kinds of requests actually get approved and what kind of science gets done.

So, this creates an incentive for scientists to propose crazy and outlandish ideas because the way scientists normally get a research grant, which is what they need to do because that's how they make a living, is literally to get a grant, pay their salary , pay the salaries of the people in their lab. You go and submit a scholarship application that looks like the kind of thing you think will be approved. And normally this is low risk because if something is likely to happen, the review board would say, "Okay, great.

We're awarding this scholarship because we're sure the money was well spent ." But the reality is that in venture capital, which you and I know well, only one in ten things will work out. It's a power law. This thing is worth 100x. And you want to have nine out of ten failures because that means you're taking too many risks. This is how you truly push the boundaries, discover new things, and make great strides: you have to take risks, which means failure. Yes, exactly. And that's exactly right.

I think another example of this is that, typically, most NSF grants last about 18 months. And this became a kind of natural balance that the NSF achieved , considering the academic calendars. But, you know, not all research ideas require 18 months. Some of them require 3 or 6 months. Some of them require 5 years. And I think another thing we're going to test, which we proposed in the New Golden Age, was this idea of ​​different scholarship durations. And to allow opportunities for people to try out quick grants, where they have an idea that can be implemented in 6 months and, if it works, they can apply for a longer grant.

Or you might have ideas with longer timeframes , which would require 3, 4, or even 5 years to work on, and which we would then evaluate. So, fundamentally , at almost every stage, what the Golden Age tries to do is find the scientists where they are. Some ideas require 18 months, others require 6 months, and we want to make sure there are opportunities for them to at least present their ideas for evaluation. Well, in addition to funding ideas, an alternative model is to fund individuals. This has been strongly argued, as you and I know, in the world of venture capital, you find great entrepreneurs.

They might have a bad idea, but because of who they are, they end up making something incredible work. I was rereading about Stewart Butterfield, who founded Slack, and he was working on a completely different business. He had 3 million left. He said to the investors, "Should I return the money?" But, by the way, we created a communication tool that we use in our engineering team. And they said, "No, go ahead, change it, make this the business." And then it became Slack. And they sold it for US$30 billion.

So, the idea in science might be the same, which is to find great people . Yes, you give them significant funding, let them decide how to spend the money, instead of having a sovereign board that analyzes every dollar they're spending and every action they're taking, gets out of their way and says: I believe you'll get somewhere. Here 's a lot of money, much more than you're asking for. It's been a long time here. I'll see you in 10 years, you'll discover something incredible. So I think one manifestation of that is the way we think about some of these early-career scholarships.

GRFPs are a kind of flagship grant that you have at the National Science Foundation, which, as you know, we award about 2,600 of them to the best and brightest aspiring PhD candidates in the country. The idea is that we'll give you this money to pursue your PhD, but it's completely portable. So you can take it wherever you want. You may have universities competing for you. And ultimately , you end up in a place where you feel comfortable and can do your best research. And that's where, once again, we reward the scientist as an individual and give them the opportunity to continue their studies.

So the alternative is to pursue large projects, the human genome project , the Manhattan Project, the Apollo lunar mission. Yes. China seems to be exceptionally good at it. In the context of central planning, they have these grand objectives that they want to achieve. And then they organize resources and allocate significant capital to achieve that goal. Yes. Is this an alternative financing model ? And if so, how do we organize and execute in a world where there are small laboratories, all working independently? Perhaps people are even competing with each other for scholarships.

We have the private industry doing what it does. As a nation, do we have the capacity to handle large, substantial projects that could truly make incredible advances for humanity, but which require significant capital, time, and a long-term commitment? I think the short answer is yes, and I think what we advocate and argue in the New Golden Age of Science is that we've lost our way in doing that. I remember what I mentioned before, I think most Americans look back fondly on things like the Apollo mission .

She kind of united the country. There was a discreet goal of something you were trying to accomplish, and only the federal government could gather the resources to do it. We advocate for a golden age, and we must return to it. That's not all we should be doing, but it should be one of the things we do along with everything else I just mentioned. And here are some examples of what we're doing in this area right now. I think the first one is about space. The president boldly stated during Trump's first term that we would return to the moon, and we're almost there .

I mean, we'll have American boots back on the lunar surface by 2028. We said we'll have a nuclear reactor in space by 2028. We'll have the first elements of a lunar base by 2030. These are big, bold bets that take a decade to realize, and we're going to do it. I think the second one revolves around quantum computing. So, the president signed an executive order last month launching a new national quantum initiative, and one of the main goals we 're trying to achieve is to create a scientifically relevant quantum computer by 2028.

It's a directive for the Department of Energy, and we're going to work very hard to make sure we can meet this pretty crazy timeline. I mean, in your field, you know, we really want to get to the merger by 2035, and we're working very hard to get the resources allocated in the DOE and combine them with all the private sector investments to get there. And I think the last one, which is sort of our big flagship project for the entire government, is called Mission Genesis, and it's where we essentially want to double the scientific output of the United States by applying AI to our most difficult scientific challenges and endeavors .

We fundamentally believe that AI will be the greatest unlocker for scientific discovery in the history of the world, whether in materials science, chemistry, mathematics, or physics. You know, applying AI to your discipline will fundamentally change how you do your science and accelerate how it gets done. And we launched an initiative at the end of last year to do this, and now we have virtually the entire government working on this effort. So, let me analyze this and try to understand the selection process. Because some things can be funded by private industry, and they will be, because there are hundreds of billions of dollars of capital flowing into AI.

There is a natural market incentive for individuals to use AI because it makes them more productive. Do you really need the government to fund things like quantum computing, AI, and science when those things are receiving hundreds of billions of dollars in private capital ? Instead of funding things that won't be found in private capital markets, like deep space research, understanding the origins of the universe, pure physics, let 's analyze these kinds of more fundamental scientific discoveries that everyone rejects, but we always find that in these fundamental understandings of our universe, some applications emerge years later that we hadn't even thought of.

And how do we make these selections? Yes, no, that's a great point. Something we strongly advocate is that we need to return the main focus of government-funded research to early-stage, pre-competitive basic R&D . This is discovery science. This is an area where the private sector is not encouraged to participate, and only the government can do so. At the same time , having these kinds of big, bold ideas that only the government can implement is also very important for businesses. If you consider the urgency of creating a scientifically relevant quantum computer by 2028, there is a lot of quantum activity happening in the private sector, but for them it's for commercial applications.

We want to create an instrument that can be used for scientific discoveries that will bring great dividends to the entire ecosystem. And I think that AI for science, I think the nuance there is that we're not spending money on the science that the private sector is doing around AI. You know, there's more computing power and more money going into AI than anything you could imagine today. And the government is not trying to compete in that space. What he's trying to do is say , like, look, if you're doing basic research on all the things you mentioned that are so important, you should consider how AI will impact or accelerate the work you're doing.

And we want to help you on this journey. I've always felt that a large part of the challenge with government is the complication. It's like entropy over time. You have all these different agencies, all these different groups, all competing for budget, and everything has gotten bigger. But is there a justification for consolidating so many of our agencies into a single science and technology agency, so that they are better organized, prioritized, and so that capital is allocated to the most important things? It's an ongoing debate. And I think that, after reflecting on it for many years working on this, I honestly think it 's a feature and not a bug.

And I think the alternative to one extreme is what the PRC or China are doing. So you have a sort of single, top-down agency entity that sets priorities and tries to execute them. They've been trying to figure out essentially how to do EUV lithography ever since we put in place export controls in 2019, but no progress has been made. There is nothing more important to their economy than solving this scientific problem, and they haven't been able to do it. So, for me, one of the most special characteristics of our system is that we have people competing.

This type of free-market approach to innovation is a major characteristic of our ecosystem and one of the important reasons why we have all these advances. So, this is fundamental to our success. I think so. I think the fact that DARPA personnel and people working in R&D related to national security are in the DOW and not in some scientific agency makes their work much better and more relevant to their mission. So, before we get to China and talk about the great race that's happening in every domain , I don't speak to anyone in industry, government, or anywhere else who isn't intensely experiencing this kind of competitiveness with China right now.

But I just want to talk about how we allocate capital, NIH, and NSF. A large portion of the money goes to a government agency or a university. It seems to me that there are probably four channels, and you can have your own kind of rubric for that, but a government agency can take the money and do research. A university can take the money, the lab is located at the university, and the university manages the lab, and everything is done on a university campus. And we can talk about the challenges that come with that, which I think is very important to highlight.

And then there's industry, companies that have an economic incentive to do research and make discoveries and get money from the government to help them. And then there are these types of independent organizations like the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the Mayo Clinic, and in Europe there's the Max Planck Institute. I mean, there are institutions that are neither governmental nor private industry-owned; They are like a non-profit organization, if you prefer. Yes. How do we think about allocating capital among these four channels, why are they good, why are they not good, and how does the balance need to shift over time for us to get a better ROI on our science investments?

Yes. So, what you're bringing up here is one of the main reasons why we wrote the Golden Age report. So, if you go back a little in history, in 1945, World War II was ending. Vannevar Bush, who was a sort of scientific advisor to FDR, received a letter from the president asking him: "What will we do with the scientific enterprise after the Second World War?" And Vannevar Bush wrote his response, which became Science: The Endless Frontier, a sort of seminal work on how the U.S. government should interact with the scientific community.

And it served as a sort of guiding star for how we've thought about funding science over the last 70 years. And what Bush proposed was essentially the system we have today, in which the government funds basic research primarily at universities. And that created this enterprise in which all these researchers emerged, all this research emerged in the postwar era, which was able to do this great basic research. And in parallel to that, all the national laboratories that helped build the nuclear weapons of World War II and so on emerged to do the internal work you were talking about.

So, there were two parts. There was the government and there was academia. And the reason this was so important at the time was that the vast majority of scientific funding came from the federal government. Approximately 70% of R&D was funded by the US government, with about 30% coming from the private sector. What has happened in the last 70 years is a drastic change. Currently, approximately 70% of R&D is done by the private sector and 30% is funded by the federal government. And as you correctly mentioned, new institutions have emerged, things like philanthropies that fund focused research organizations, things like Howard Hughes, the Max Planck Institute, and so on.

And the question now is: is this model that Bush promoted, enacted, and led to the great discoveries of the last 50 years still as relevant today as it was back then? And our answer is no, we need to renew, and that's why you and we wrote The New Golden Age. And for us, the first basic question we always ask ourselves is: is the government spending on something that the private sector or others in the community, such as philanthropy, are not encouraged to do? And that should be your first cut at all times.

So you must ask yourself, what are the most important priorities for the United States? And I think that's something that sometimes almost creates tension with the scientific community. Many people believe that, you know, every scientific discovery is good and you shouldn't have an opinion about what's important. And I think we would say no, we disagree. Basically, the government is a group of elected individuals. Congress has a very strong opinion about where we should spend money, and they direct science funding all the time through their appropriations.

And the executive branch must have some kind of vision about what is important for the country. I know we'll talk about China in a second, but we have to win in things like AI, quantum mechanics, nuclear physics, and biological physics. I think we can have an overlap of what the highest priorities are for the US government and ensure that in areas where the private sector, philanthropy, and others cannot meet the need, the government can step in. So, what's happening with university funding? There's this administrative fee that universities have.

If you change that , maybe you could tell us a little about it. And what is this government's view on universities taking capital that was allocated for scientific research, receiving an administrative fee, and then using that money in ways that may be contrary to, or that this government views as contrary to, the principles of scientific research? Because some people argue that this administration is being political with the changes they are making and how they are allocating capital, because they dislike the politics or social views of university administrators.

My opinion as a scientific consultant is that we should find the best scientists wherever they may be. If they are in a university, we should fund them. If they are part of a focused research organization, we should fund them. If they're out in their garage doing amazing work and can pass a merit-based review panel, we should fund them in their garage. And, for me, I think the idea that we are open to funding scientists from outside universities has been somewhat distorted by the academic community into believing that we are, in some way, anti-academic scientists.

We support scientists and we don't care where they are, and I think that's a fundamental principle of the Golden Age that we will defend in the coming years. Okay. So, let's talk about the big race with China. In 2000, China was spending $33 billion a year. So, China increased its spending 19 times. China increased its spending 19 times, while the US increased it by about 3 times during the same period . I'll cite a statistic, but it will be somewhat difficult to verify. But I estimated that, about a decade ago, the US published about twice as many articles in scientific journals as Chinese laboratories, academics, and scientists, and today China publishes about 50% more in almost every field, with the exception of some biological sciences.

Hmm. China kind of took the lead. Explain to us the importance of the scientific race with China. Why does this matter? Why should people care? Isn't science for the benefit of humanity? Does n't everyone benefit when progress is made, when discoveries are made ? Why should Americans care, and why should the world care, about where we stand in relation to this type of discovery competitiveness with China? I think the Chinese realized some years ago that technological and scientific leadership is the most important fundamental building block for economic and national security.

Everything we do as a country is, in a way, rooted, in my opinion, in scientific and technological discovery. We see this with what is happening with semiconductors today, the advances we've had in transformers and other technologies that have led to today's great language models. It's literally everything that's driving our economy at its core, with some kind of scientific discovery. I think, for me, to talk a little about what I mentioned before, I think what I keep trying to promote is this idea that trying to centralize science historically hasn't led to the kind of advances you might want.

And I think the free-market approach is this extraordinarily vibrant entrepreneurial ecosystem that we combine with the scientific funding that the government provides, combined with what the industry is incentivized to do, that ultimately leads to these great discoveries. And I think I'm also very confident because we continue to be the place where everyone wants to come, work, live and study. Everyone wants to build a business here . Everyone wants to learn at our universities. And that's something that makes our ecosystem so special and unique. And that's why we have to nurture it and ensure that we continue to succeed.

You could argue that some of our greatest discoveries were centrally planned, managed, and funded. Human Genome Project, Manhattan Project, Apollo, and so on. Yes, generally, market competitiveness leads to greater advancements within the system, ultimately resulting in better outcomes. And that's why I think the portfolio approach we've been talking about is so important. I mean, that's why we made these bold bets on quantum mechanics, space, and fusion. But at the same time, we opened the door for this type of discovery science and free-market approach to commercialization.

So, where do you think China is really getting it right? You know, when you're advising the White House, the president, and you know, you're talking about politics, mhm. When we look at China, what do we see as being incredibly well-done in terms of their politics? The playbook they've been using for a long time is essentially to copy our intellectual property, create cheaper alternatives to that specific technology, sell them in the United States, bankrupt our businesses, and then pressure us. And I think you've seen that with a wide variety of technologies over the years.

And I think that's something we need to be very, very aware of. I think the second area where they've taken action and/or threatened to act is around some of our essential minerals, which we recognize as a very important part of our larger ecosystem of technology and science, or, if you prefer, supply chain. So, these are things we have to constantly think about and prepare for in order to be able to be independent. The number of articles they are publishing undoubtedly suggests they are reliable, peer-reviewed, and you would say they are making discoveries and are surpassing us in many cases.

What is helping them with this? So, intellectual property theft, dumping in the market—that's something like industrial trade policy—but on this central basis of discovery, they're not getting ahead of things, and what are they doing well in this? Are they just funding more? Well, I would say that, by certain estimates, they are spending almost at parity with us. Mmm. But according to some estimates, they earn 2x for every dollar invested, other estimates 4x, and other estimates 10x. Mmm. Because their labor costs are lower, they have much more automation, and their supply chain costs are lower.

Obviously, the standards are different there in how things operate. So, on a dollar-for-dollar basis, they are spending significantly more than we are in terms of generating results, and this is showing up in the articles that are being published. Is it simply a matter of spending more, or are there other things we could do differently? Look, I think what we could do much more of is encourage more Americans to go into STEM fields. This is something that's been on my mind for many, many years, and the statistic I've been following for a long time is the percentage of US-born, you know, PhDs in computer science, for example.

If you go back in time, you know, 30 years, I think it was, you know, 70% were Americans and 30% were foreigners, and now it's reversed. Hmm, and I think for us as a country, you know, I believe that having a STEM-literate workforce is one of the most important superpowers we could have as a country, and we're doing everything we can to find ways to encourage our younger students to continue pursuing those degrees. And for me, going back to that, I think another thing we have to take much more seriously is what I've observed in our scientific ecosystem: our young scientists, those who have just finished their PhDs and are starting their academic careers, have one of the hardest jobs you can imagine.

You receive almost nothing, you're in a university, you work very hard to do research. These are the most poorly paid people you can imagine for what they are doing for our country. For us, I think we have to give back to them through our scientific endeavors, to reward them, to give them opportunities to work on their best ideas, and to allow them to excel. I think that's what we're focused on. So, we trained many foreign students. We bring them here, they do their doctorates here. Why don't we let them stay longer?

So, what immigration policy also reinforces the points you mentioned earlier about putting the right people in the field, putting the right people in scientific research? We have many Chinese students who come here, graduate, get doctorates, and we don't have a program to actively retain these talents. They go back and work in laboratories or in Chinese industry or, you know, in other countries. And China is now beginning to attract scientists from India and Europe. Why aren't we doing this? Because we don't have a pool of local talent in science.

Shouldn't we be more proactive in recruitment and retention? I think we need to do two things. I think, first, we need to ensure that we are encouraging young Americans to pursue these STEM fields. And for those who wish to stay , they must be allowed to pursue legal avenues to remain here. So, is this policy being heeded by the government? Is she accepted? Or it conflicts with a policy that prioritizes the United States, that aims to prioritize Americans, ensuring that jobs go to Americans before... Well, I don't think anything I've said conflicts with policy.

I mean , I think we ask basic questions before we even start thinking about anyone else, like how we need to get our house in order regarding how we can get more Americans to follow these things. Again, these figures surrounding computer science should be very alarming to people. The idea that, you know, seven out of ten STEM PhD candidates in the United States are not American. Anyone can look at this and say that it just doesn't seem right, considering the way we've educated Americans for so many decades.

And I think we have a great opportunity through many of these science programs to bring people back. I think one thing I discovered while writing this book and this report was that we used to have programs at the National Science Foundation that really supported and encouraged gifted and talented students in American middle and high schools. These programs were interrupted. For some reason, encouraging high-achieving young students to pursue STEM in the United States was something the government decided to no longer fund. I think these are discouraging actions that we want to reverse.

Why does this happen? It seems silly. It seems that this is part of a larger effort related to DEI. I mean, they were...you can imagine, and you probably know what it's like to be in California. I mean, there were all these initiatives in San Francisco, where they stopped teaching advanced algebra to high school students. There is a battle now at the University of California over SAT scores. The teachers say: "We receive students who don't know, and we need to provide tutoring to teach them how to perform mathematical operations." At UC Berkeley, it 's crazy.

That's where I went . It was like you had to score 1,500 on the SAT just to get in there, back when the maximum score was 1,600. Yes. I don't know if it still is. But they stopped administering the SATs, and now you see that in the presentation when the children appear. And the teachers initially didn't want to remove the SATs, and now they're saying, "No, no, no, we need them back. We need them back." These policies are fundamentally hindering the progress of talented children in STEM in America, thus preventing the creation of a pathway for the next generation of scientists in America.

Yes, we should reward the greatest and most talented Americans and give them opportunities to pursue all their great science and technology for dreams and ventures. And I think that , for me, that's the most tragic thing, where you have children who have the potential to pursue this, but we actively run programs that discourage them from doing so. And this has to stop. The rest of the world is doing this, and so they are being well paid and given good houses and moving to China now. Yes.

Yes. That's a crazy, crazy fact. And I also think so, and I will continue to insist on this. I mean, honestly, the fundamental principle of the New Golden Age is to think about how we can elevate the scientist again. The way we fund our programs, the types of programs we fund, the way we structure our grants and fellowships— all of this is centered on the scientist themselves. It's not about the institution you work for, where you came from, or where you grew up. It's about you.

You can produce gold-standard scientific work, and we will support you. In the 20th century, post-World War II scientists, in particular, were celebrities, they were rock stars. They kind of appeared in magazines, newspapers, and television programs. And, you know, they were rewarded financially, with fame and notoriety. Did we lose that, or did that lead to moments like Fauci's? That's a good question. I really feel that there are some names nowadays that kind of correspond to this moment. If you think of someone like Demis, for example, from Google, who won a Nobel Prize, that means 90% of people hate AI.

That is true. Perhaps he can change this situation. I am not sure. He's the most qualified, but I think it's a tough battle right now. And truth. This deep-seated anti-scientific and anti-technological sentiment exists not only in the US, but throughout the West. Do you think this is generated locally because they feel forgotten? Scientists and technologists, if you analyze the major cycles historically, are usually scapegoated. They are often seen as elitist because they know things, they have things that others don't have. Yes. There is knowledge, there is access, there is control, there is power because when you have a new technology, you have a power that others don't have.

When you have understanding, you have something that others don't have. Are we currently in this populist moment in the West, where science and technology are seen as tools of the elite and therefore must be broken and destroyed? I don't know about that, but what I think is that I often think about what happened during COVID and what Fauci represented. And I think he did more of a disservice to science than anyone else in modern history. You know, when he defends positions such as, for example, that students need to wear masks in schools, when societies, pediatric societies, are releasing letters saying that it's normal for people to go out and protest collectively, but they can't go see their grandmother dying in the hospital.

No average American can listen to this and take the science seriously. So, I think there's a lot of healing that needs to be done, and that's why I think our approach of going back to the roots of gold-standard science is so important. We need to allow people to understand and trust what science is, and to see that it is something inspiring and good, something that can change our way of life. It's not a type of dogma, rule, or decree that comes from above. It's a process we're all a part of, that we're all experiencing and learning about the world and the universe we live in.

And I try to be more optimistic, but I think we really hit a low point during COVID and I think it's going to take us a long time to get out of this. Yes, my observation during that time is that I always assume that if everyone thinks something, it 's probably wrong. Yes. Yes. But if a percentage of people argue fiercely against something and some people argue in favor of something, there must be some objective truth to be found in that. Mmm. Mmm. But if everyone aligns themselves around something in a very uniform way, there's something really wrong with that.

But what scared me was how many people lacked empiricism; the fundamental basis of science is that you collect empirical data. You ask questions, inquire, and then collect data and use it to inform your conclusion. And there wasn't much empirical data being used to draw conclusions, and everyone aligned themselves around these conclusions and these assumptions and were told that they should trust the science, and as a result, this not only destroyed trust in science, but I think it brought to the forefront questions like: what happened to the scientists?

Why did they all line up like that? And why did everyone think it was normal to look down on people who asked questions when the very basis of science is asking questions? And it's okay if people ask stupid questions, if they ask the wrong questions, but there was this flaw in the scientific basis of scientists being able to ask questions without being rejected. I couldn't agree more, and anyone who asked questions was criticized by the scientific community as being anti-scientific. Excluded, yes. It's madness. Anti-vaccine, anti-this, anti-that, anti-science.

If you ask a question, you are anti-science if you question some of the conclusions of the IPCC reports on climate change; you may agree with some things, disagree with others, but if you don't agree with everything, you are anti-science. Well, no, but the idea that you would reject CPR 8.5, if I had publicly rejected it three or four years ago, I would have been dramatically criticized by everyone as being anti-science. You're a Trump supporter, anti-science, MAGA guy. But now the IPCC says we can even talk about it.

You know, so I think if you stay the course and continue to adhere to the basic scientific ideals of the gold standard— being curious, asking questions, following the scientific method—I think in the end you'll prove yourself right. Hmm. I mean, I think one of your points about the aging of scientists that you address in the reports is worth highlighting. Perhaps you could talk a little about the importance of where we are, because the scientific community we are working with today, and the loss of STEM graduates, the loss of the pipeline, may be hindering our progress with China.

No, I mean that we have to continue supporting and nurturing young scientists. And I think one of the most alarming statistics for me, which Jay Bhattacharya, the director of the NIH, shared with me, was that the average age of an internal researcher at the NIH is 71 years old. 71? 71. Is this the average age? The average age of a...So, this is research being conducted at an NIH institution. Wow. It's not about retirement age, like, you don't receive a pension before then? You know, I need to delve deeper into that statistic, but we think so .

But I think there's a great opportunity to bring young scientists back into the group. So, I would tell you to stay tuned because I think a lot of interesting things are going to happen at the NIH. So how do you get science and research into pure sciences, physics, mathematics, astronomy? How do you secure funding for this and get what they need in an era where it seems like everyone is so consumed with AI that it's not being applied to technology? Yes. And there is still important work to be done.

AI can be leveraged in some of these other areas. But how do you plan to compete in AI? Because in every meeting I attend, and you should too, it's just AI this, AI that, chips, progress with China, open models. This is kind of dominating the conversation in DC, dominating the conversation in the world. And I feel that we are leaving behind some of these really important advances that we need to make in fundamental research. So, after The New Golden Age was released, on the same day, actually, Russ Vought, who is the director of the OMB, the budget director, and I, wrote our annual R&D priorities memo.

In this memo, we essentially listed the administration's priorities and how individual agencies should structure their budgets to align with those research priorities. First and foremost, on the first page, we talk about the importance of basic fundamental research. And I think those are the things you mentioned. And I think this memo serves as a United States policy on how agencies like the NSF should prioritize these things. So, I'm excited to see us move in that direction. And, as you said, keep reminding the world that there's an absurd amount of capital being invested in R&D, especially in AI in the private sector.

We should think about the things that only the US government can fund, which is this type of basic research. So, after the publication of the New Golden Age, are there executive orders coming from the president to be followed? Will there be requests to Congress? I mean, what actions do you need to take in administration and with Congress to try to advance some of the ideals you've outlined? Fully. The first implementation document is this R&D priorities memorandum. So, this is a memo that goes to the White House, but it also goes to the agencies and basically tells them: "These are the priority areas and practices of the budget that you need to implement going forward." And the five major research agencies, those with more than $3 billion in R&D, have a report that must be delivered to us 90 days after publication on how they will implement it.

So, you've already started seeing announcements from agencies about how they're implementing the report. You had an announcement about X-Labs leaving the National Science Foundation to fund these focused research organizations. The NSF also released an announcement about 4-year doctoral programs that are done in partnership with industry. Thus, people can graduate from the doctoral program and then enter the industry much more quickly. And I think these are the programs we'll see in all of our agencies. I think the second part will be working with Congress on appropriations to ensure they are aligned with the directions of the new golden age.

But I would keep an eye out. I think we have a lot of things underway, and I think the first big step was the White House saying, "You must prioritize these things in your budgets." You will begin to see this manifest itself over the next year. The only thing that gives me the creeps when I come to Washington D.C., and thankfully I don't have to deal with it as often as you guys do, is going to Congress nearby and meeting with these guys in the House and Senate, and all they want is funding for their people.

They want the money to flow to their district or state. How do you balance this demand from Congress with what really matters, which we just talked about? That's science. This is how it has to be done. This is where the people are. This is where the institutions are located. And it's not about taking money and distributing it among the states. It's about fulfilling the clearly defined mission, and the mission is what matters, not greed for money for everyone. You know, I think there are a few ways.

I think the first thing I'm very optimistic about is that most of the recommendations in the Golden Age are very, very nonpartisan or bipartisan. I think the idea of ​​rethinking the methods by which we allocate scientific capital and try to fund different institutions and promote individual scientists are things that I think will be uniformly accepted or will excite people at the Congress. I think the other thing that could really work in our favor in Congress is that many of these tenants will affect many different states.

Like, if you go out and say, look, there's some really good work being done at a few select institutions in the Northeast. That being said, there is a lot of research being done across the country and we want to make sure that the best scientists, no matter where they are, are funded. I think this is something that could also gain a lot of support. So, I'm optimistic, but as you know, the hill will always be a struggle. And if it happens in 2028, and there's, say, a person from the DSA as president, do you think everything will go back to the way it was before?

And you know, what kind of institutional memory is created with your administration here and this idea of returning to this gold standard in science versus things being driven by social and political issues? I'm optimistic that one of them will win in 2028, but I think two of the ideas I mentioned earlier are quite nonpartisan. I mean, if you're just someone observing the scientific ecosystem and you want to succeed, I think these are generalizable ideas that you can support. And our hope is that we can really move forward during the gradual reduction over the next two years and prove that they are actually working.

And changing or reversing this will be costly from a political capital standpoint because they will be in place. Michael Kratsios, director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy here at the White House. Thank you for being with me today. Thanks. It was a lot of fun. I'm going all in.

Go deeper

• All All-In Podcast episode guides