To Fund or Not to Fund? Examining Relationships Between Support for Scientific Research Across Political Ideologies and Science-Related Populist Beliefs

Abstract

This study examined how political ideology and science-related populism (SciPop) relate to both trust in federal science agencies and support for scientific funding in the United States. Using regression models, we analyzed perceptions of CDC, NIH, NSF, and EPA, as well as attitudes toward taxpayer-funded research and early 2025 proposed budget cuts. Both conservatism and SciPop predicted lower trust and reduced support for science funding, with SciPop emerging as the stronger predictor. This highlights the importance of understanding how anti-elite sentiment shapes public attitudes toward science, offering insights for science communication amid growing polarization and declining trust in scientific institutions.

Keywords

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alvarez

R. M.

Debnath

Ebanks

(2023). Why don’t Americans trust university researchers and why it matters for climate change. PLOS Climate, 2(9), Article e0000147. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000147

Berinsky

A. J.

(2009). In time of war: Understanding American public opinion from World War II to Iraq. University of Chicago Press.

Bimber

Guston

D. H.

(1995). Politics by the same means: Government and science in the United States. In Jasanoff

Markle

Petersen

Pinch

(Eds.), Handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 554–571). Sage.

Bush

Holt

R. D.

(2021). Science, the endless frontier. Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv15r5879

Carmines

E. G.

Kuklinski

J. H.

(1990). Incentives, opportunities, and the logic of public opinion in American political representation. In Ferejohn

J. A.

Kuklinski

J. H.

(Eds.), Information and democratic processes. University of Illinois Press.

Cologna

Mede

N. G.

Berger

Besley

Brick

Joubert

Maibach

E. W.

Mihelj

Oreskes

Schäfer

M. S.

Van der Linden

Abdul Aziz

N. I.

Abdulsalam

Abu Shamsi

Aczel

Adinugroho

Alabrese

Aldoh

Alfano

. . .Zwann

R. A.

(2025). Trust in scientists and their role in society across 68 countries. Nature Human Behavior, 9, 713–730. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-02090-5

Dixon

Hubner

(2018). Neutralizing the effect of political worldviews by communicating scientific agreement: A thought-listing study. Science Communication, 40(3), 393–415. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547018769907

Eberl

J. M.

Huber

R. A.

Greussing

(2021). From populism to the “plandemic”: Why populists believe in COVID-19 conspiracies. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 31(Suppl. 1), 272–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/17457289.2021.1924730

Eberl

J. M.

Huber

R. A.

Mede

N. G.

Greussing

(2023). Populist attitudes towards politics and science: How do they differ? Political Research Exchange, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2474736X.2022.2159847

10.

Evans

J. H.

Hargittai

(2020). Who doesn’t trust Fauci? The public’s belief in the expertise and shared values of scientists in the COVID-19 pandemic. Socius, 6. https://doi.org/10.1177/2378023120947337

11.

Exec. Order No. 14173, 3 C.F.R. 8633 (2025). https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2025-01-31/pdf/2025-02097.pdf

12.

Fiorino

D. J.

(2022). Climate change and right-wing populism in the United States. Environmental Politics, 31(5), 801–819. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2021.2018854

13.

Fischer

Schäfer

M. S.

Schmid-Petri

(2025). Comparing science communication ecosystems: Towards a conceptual framework for cross-national research on science communication. Journal of Science Communication, 24(5), A02. https://doi.org/10.22323/148320250924054927

14.

Friedman

Plumer

(2020, April 28). Trump’s response to virus reflects a long disregard for science. The New York Times, pp. 1–2. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/28/climate/trump-coronavirus-climate-science.html

15.

Gardenswartz

(2025, February 21). President Trump’s first 30 days: Rapid government changes and controversial actions. Scripps News. https://www.scrippsnews.com/politics/president-trumps-first-100-days/president-trumps-first-30-days-rapid-government-changes-and-controversial-actions

16.

Gilens

Murakawa

(2002). Elite cues and political decision-making. Research in Micropolitics, 6(1), 15–49.

17.

Hameleers

Van der Meer

T. G.

(2021). The scientists have betrayed us! The effects of anti-science communication on negative perceptions toward the scientific community. International Journal of Communication, 15, 25. https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/17179/3589

18.

Hamilton

L. C.

Hartter

Saito

(2015). Trust in scientists on climate change and vaccines. Sage Open, 5(3), 2158244015602752. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244015602752

19.

Hamilton

L. C.

Safford

T. G.

(2021). Elite cues and the rapid decline in trust in science agencies on COVID-19. Sociological Perspectives, 64(5), 988–1011. https://doi.org/10.1177/07311214211022391

20.

Hartmann

(2004). The sociology of elites. Routledge.

21.

Hawkins

Chinn

(2024). Populist views of science: How social media, political affiliation, and Alt-Right support affect scientific attitudes in the United States. Information, Communication & Society, 27(3), 520–537. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2023.2219724

22.

Huber

R. A.

(2020). The role of populist attitudes in explaining climate change skepticism and support for environmental protection. Environmental Politics, 29(6), 959–982. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2019.1708186

23.

Huber

R. A.

Greussing

Eberl

J. M.

(2020). Populist attitudes and climate scepticism: It’s all about science and political institutions. Zugriff Am, 18, 2020.

24.

Huber

R. A.

Greussing

Eberl

J. M.

(2022). From populism to climate scepticism: The role of institutional trust and attitudes towards science. Environmental Politics, 31(7), 1115–1138. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2021.1978200

25.

Huber

R. A.

Maltby

Szulecki

Ćetković

(2021). Is populism a challenge to European energy and climate policy? Empirical evidence across varieties of populism. Journal of European Public Policy, 28(7), 998–1017.

26.

Jones

B. F.

Summers

L. H.

(2022). A calculation of the social returns to innovation. In Goolsbee

Jones

(Eds.), Innovation and public policy (pp. 13–59). University of Chicago Press. https://www.nber.org/books-and-chapters/innovation-and-public-policy/calculation-social-returns-innovation

27.

Khalid

(2025, March 24). China displaces U.S. as global leader in research. Foreign Policy in Focus. https://fpif.org/china-displaces-u-s-as-global-leader-in-research/

28.

Killough

(2014, October 7). Bill Maher: I had drinks with Rand Paul. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2014/10/07/politics/bill-maher-rand-paul/

29.

Kinnard

(2025, February 21). A comprehensive look at DOGE’s firings and layoffs so far. Associated Press. https://apnews.com/article/doge-firings-layoffs-federal-government-workers-musk-d33cdd7872d64d2bdd8fe70c28652654

30.

Kohler

Koinig

(2023). The effect of science-related populism on vaccination attitudes and decisions. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 46(1–2), 229–238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10865-022-00333-2

31.

Kossowska

Szwed

Czarnek

(2021). Ideology shapes trust in scientists and attitudes towards vaccines during the COVID-19 pandemic. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 24(5), 720–737. https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302211001946

32.

Krange

Kaltenborn

B. P.

Hultman

(2021). “Don’t confuse me with facts”—how right wing populism affects trust in agencies advocating anthropogenic climate change as a reality. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 8(1), 255. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00930-7

33.

Lacatus

(2019). Explaining institutional strength: The case of national human rights institutions in Europe and its neighbourhood. Journal of European Public Policy, 26(11), 1657–1677. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2018.1545795

34.

Latkin

C. A.

Dayton

Strickland

J. C.

Colon

Rimal

Boodram

(2020). An assessment of the rapid decline of trust in US sources of public information about COVID-19. Journal of Health Communication, 25(10), 764–773. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2020.1865487

35.

Lello

Bertuzzi

(2025). From Big Farms to Big Pharma? Problematizing science-related populism. Public Understanding of Science, 34(4), 495–510. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625251316727

36.

Lerner

Hubner

A. Y.

Shulman

H. C.

(2025). Science populism impacts perceptions of credibility across scientific professions. Scientific Reports, 15(1), 28465.

37.

Lockwood

(2018). Right-wing populism and the climate change agenda: Exploring the linkages. Environmental Politics, 27(4), 712–732. https://doi.org/10.1080/09644016.2018.1458411

38.

Madanay

McDevitt

R. C.

Ubel

P. A.

(2022). Hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19: Variation in regional political preferences predicted new prescriptions after President Trump’s endorsement. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 47(4), 429–451. https://doi.org/10.1215/03616878-9716698

39.

Mann

Schleifer

(2020). Love the science, hate the scientists: Conservative identity protects belief in science and undermines trust in scientists. Social Forces, 99(1), 305–332. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soz156

40.

Mede

N. G.

Schäfer

M. S.

(2020). Science-related populism: Conceptualizing populist demands toward science. Public Understanding of Science, 29(5), 473–491. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662520924259

41.

Mede

N. G.

Schäfer

M. S.

Füchslin

(2021). The SciPop Scale for measuring science-related populist attitudes in surveys: Development, test, and validation. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 33(2), 273–293. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edaa026

42.

Mede

N. G.

Schäfer

M. S.

Metag

Klinger

(2022). Who supports science-related populism? A nationally representative survey on the prevalence and explanatory factors of populist attitudes toward science in Switzerland. PLOS ONE, 17(8), Article e0271204. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0271204

43.

Mervis

(2025, February 5). Trump orders cause chaos at science agencies: Wild week of canceled meetings, program changes, and data purges creates high anxiety. Science, 387(6734), 564–565. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.zsvh1ah

44.

Meyer

(2017, October 19). Has Trump drained the swamp in Washington? Politico. https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/19/trump-drain-swamp-promises-243924

45.

Motta

(2018). The dynamics and political implications of anti-intellectualism in the United States. American Politics Research, 46(3), 465–498. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X17719507

46.

Motta

Callaghan

Lunz Trujillo

(2023). “The CDC won’t let me be”: The opinion dynamics of support for CDC regulatory authority. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 48(6), 829–857. https://doi.org/10.1215/03616878-10852592

47.

Mudde

Rovira Kaltwasser

(2018). Studying populism in comparative perspective: Reflections on the contemporary and future research agenda. Comparative Political Studies, 51(13), 1667–1693. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414018789490

48.

National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. (2025). U.S. R&D totaled $892 billion in 2022; estimate for 2023 indicates further increase to $940 billion (NSF-25-327). National Science Foundation. https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf25327

49.

Norris

Inglehart

(2019). Cultural backlash: Trump, Brexit, and authoritarian populism. Cambridge University Press.

50.

Ognyanova

Lazer

Druckman

Baum

M. A.

Perlis

R. H.

Santillana

(2025, June). The Civic Health and Institutions Project: A 50-state survey. Report #115: American attitudes toward government interventions in science. https://www.chip50.org/reports/american-attitudes-toward-government-interventions-in-science

51.

Oliver

J. E.

Rahn

W. M.

(2016). Rise of the Trumpenvolk: Populism in the 2016 election. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 667(1), 189–206. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716216662639

52.

Orth

(2025, February 28). As Trump cuts federal funding, most Americans support increases. YouGov. https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/51707-as-trump-cuts-federal-funding-most-americans-support-increases

53.

Peresman

Larsen

L. T.

Mazepus

Petersen

M. B.

(2025). Do populists listen to expertise? A five-country study of authority, arguments, and expert sources. Political Studies. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/00323217251323402

54.

Petty

R.E.

Cacioppo

J.T.

(1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Psychology, 19, 123–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60214-2

55.

Rodriguez

O. R.

Chea

Seminera

(2025, February 8). Trump’s DEI order leaves academic researchers fearful of political influence over grants. Associated Press. https://apnews.com/article/trump-academic-research-funding-dei-5c8f89118da6c9604329120a576ba183

56.

Rooduijn

(2019). State of the field: How to study populism and adjacent topics? A plea for both more and less focus. European Journal of Political Research, 58(1), 362–372. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12314

57.

Sobel

(2025, February 11). How the Trump administration could end a century of American scientific dominance. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. https://thebulletin.org/2025/02/how-the-trump-administration-could-end-a-century-of-american-scientific-dominance/

58.

Tollefson

Kozlov

Witze

Garisto

, & Nature Magazine. (2025, February 20). Science under siege during Trump’s first 30 days: The Trump administration has acted fast to attack science with a range of funding and policy tactics. Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trump-administrations-attacks-on-science-in-first-30-days/

59.

Tyson

Kennedy

(2024, November 14). Public trust in scientists and views on their role in policymaking. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2024/11/14/public-trust-in-scientists-and-views-on-their-role-in-policymaking/

60.

Union of Concerned Scientists. (2022, March 17). Trump administration interfered with CDC’s public outreach on COVID-19. https://www.ucs.org/resources/attacks-on-science/trump-administration-interfered-cdcs-public-outreach-covid-19

61.

Union of Concerned Scientists. (2025, January 30). How science has fared in the first two weeks of the new Trump administration. https://blog.ucs.org/jules-barbati-dajches/how-science-has-fared-in-the-first-two-weeks-of-trump-2-0/

62.

Varmus

(2025, February 14). I used to run the N.I.H. Here’s what worries me [Editorial]. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/14/opinion/trump-public-health-funding-nih.html

63.

Waisbord

(2018). The elective affinity between post-truth communication and populist politics. Communication Research and Practice, 4(1), 17–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/22041451.2018.1428928

64.

Zaller

(1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge University Press.

65.

Zhu

Fitzpatrick

M. A.

Bowen

S. A.

(2024). Factors related to compliance with CDC COVID-19 guidelines: Media use, partisan identity, science knowledge, and risk assessment. Western Journal of Communication, 88(3), 567–594. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570314.2023.2219239

66.

Zillich

A. F.

Schlütz

Roehse

E. M.

Möhring

Link

(2024). Populism, research integrity, and trust. How science-related populist beliefs shape the relationship between ethical conduct and trust in scientists. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 36(3), edae038. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edae038

67.

Zulianello

Guasti

(2023). The demand and supply of pandemic populism: A global overview. Government and Opposition, 60(2), 560–579. https://doi.org/10.1017/gov.2023.35