Export Model of Control – How Trump's Political Playbook Muzzles Research and Threatens Europe's Democracies

Our work is not only an analysis of American domestic policy, but also an early warning system for democracy on this side of the Atlantic. When we document how in the United States academic freedom is being shut down, climate science delegitimized, and public funds tied to political loyalty, we do so to alert readers in Europe as well. Because the defense of science is just as crucial in Germany as it is in America – and the first step toward defense is recognizing the pattern as soon as it emerges. Yesterday, Donald Trump laid the foundation with a sweeping decree to take the allocation of research funding in the U.S. out of the hands of independent experts and hand it over to political loyalists. The new "Improving Oversight of Federal Grantmaking" decree requires all departments to appoint political officials who not only participate in decisions on applications but in fact have the final say. From now on, only what supports the "political priorities of the president" is to be funded, while projects that allegedly "promote anti-American values" are to be excluded. Under this vague pretext, virtually any unwelcome research can be blocked – from climate research to social sciences.

The consequences are immediate: new calls for proposals, for example from the National Institutes of Health, are being frozen until the politically controlled review processes are in place. Peer review procedures that have proven themselves for decades – in which independent scientists assess quality – are thus degraded to mere recommendations that political appointees can overrule at any time. This is not only a break with previous practice, but a direct attack on scientific self-governance. The justification follows a clear playbook: isolated cases of scientific misconduct – such as at Harvard or Stanford – are inflated to sow general mistrust of all research. At the same time, topics such as diversity, equality, or migration research are deliberately discredited. Projects that "promote illegal immigration" or "deny the binary gender" are to receive no funding – even if such restrictions contradict existing law. Particularly alarming: research at children's hospitals could also come under pressure, because their "indirect costs" are often high and therefore do not fit into Trump's funding logic.

The method is not new. It follows the political playbook of systematically weakening independent institutions, a playbook long studied in European party headquarters. The AfD in Germany, Viktor Orbán in Hungary – they all demonstrate how funding can be used as a political weapon. But even in the bourgeois-conservative camp, for example in parts of the CDU/CSU, proposals are repeatedly made to more centrally control research and cultural funding – wrapped in pleasant-sounding terms such as "efficiency improvement" or "coordination." The pattern is identical: research that is inconvenient is financially starved, while the own agenda is lavishly financed. At the same time, the U.S. Department of Energy under Trump is escalating its attacks on climate research. A report written by five well-known climate change skeptics claims that the economic consequences of global warming are "less severe than assumed" and questions the legal basis of climate policy since 2009. Scientists worldwide react with outrage: they accuse the authors of ignoring entire branches of research, misquoting studies, and twisting established facts into their opposite. The obvious goal is to overturn the so-called "Endangerment Finding" of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency – the ruling that classifies greenhouse gases as a danger to public health and forms the legal basis for climate protection measures.

If this attack is successful, the Supreme Court – now clearly conservative-dominated – could create a precedent that would have consequences not only in the U.S. but also in Europe. It would pave the way for governments to dismiss scientific findings at political will and to weaken their institutional defense. Trump's political playbook is therefore more than an American domestic affair. It is an export model for control – a toolbox that authoritarian forces worldwide are studying. Anyone who believes that stable institutions in Germany automatically protect against such access is mistaken. The lesson from Washington is clear: the shutdown of scientific independence rarely begins with an open ban, but with creeping influence, seemingly technocratic reforms, and the abuse of funding criteria. Anyone who wants to protect Europe must recognize this pattern – and fight it before it takes root here. Because what is decided in the U.S. today can be on the table tomorrow as a template in Brussels, Berlin, or Warsaw. And then it will become clear whether we have learned from the warning signs in time – or whether we will blindly adopt the playbook.

Investigative journalism requires courage, conviction – and your support.