The conglomerate of visions and economic interests that drives Trumpism is very diverse. Today, the politically dominant line is the one that most directly resonates with Trump's personality and which I take the liberty of calling retro. It is the one that places tariff policy at the center, the one that – facilitated by the abundance of natural gas in the US – bets on the combustion engine and on an industrial policy of gas and oil, the one that disdains science and seeks to erode the independence of public research funders – the NSF and the NIH – while simultaneously starving them budgetarily, the one that denies climate change and is skeptical of vaccines. Even the spirit of the return-to-the-Moon program has an air of the past. If in our days we can think of obtaining significant scientific and economic returns from exploring the Solar System, it is because we have sufficiently advanced robotic technology. The justification for trying to have humans do what machines can do better can only be the spirit of sport (winning competitions), preparing for space tourism, or what I believe to be the case: following the tradition that to occupy territories and mark borders, humans are needed planting flags.
It is interesting to observe that in practically all the mentioned aspects – including space exploration – the US's great rival, China, has a more future-oriented policy. Perhaps helped by the fact that it does not have oil or gas, its bet on the electric car is very strong. The same goes for many other advanced technologies, such as robotics and biotechnology. The investment commitment to science is spectacular, and the results are accompanying it. If the governance of the US were as monolithic as that of China, we would have to anticipate that China will win this race. But it is not. The US has a great non-governmental asset: the technology industry, which has a character more like Xi's than Trump's. It drives the electric car and has been the protagonist of all the waves of digital innovation, culminating at the moment in the AI giant. Of course, it knows the value of science. Its companies are the US's great asset for not losing the race with China.
The business collective of this industry was largely pro-Obama and pro-Democrat. But today it is very aligned with retro Trumpism (a convergence that will not be stable). Let's ask ourselves why.
arose from universities? They know it, but they believe – may they be mistaken – that they no longer need them. They have, or can raise, a lot of money and do the research themselves. And in passing, avoid the danger of having to share it.
A complementary reason is greed: many of the super-rich that Silicon Valley has generated intensely dislike paying taxes. For them, Trump is a gift from heaven. They think their wealth is a product of talent, and they give no weight to having been in the right place at the right time. Among them, traditional philanthropy – the kind practiced by W. Buffett and B. Gates, the kind of super-rich who inspire my respect – is for insecure rich people.
Finally: why doesn't the industry mobilize in defense of open and publicly funded research? Don't they know that AI based on neural networks and machine learning emerged from universities? They know, but they believe – hopefully they are wrong – that they no longer need them. They have, or can raise, a lot of money and do the research themselves. And in passing, avoid the danger of having to share it.
