Abbott’s legacy, Trump’s playbook: Is the LNP planning science suppression 2.0?

Political campaigns against scientific and intellectual communities have been repeated throughout history, often with dire long-term consequences.

From Mao Zedong’s Cultural Revolution in China to recent policy choices in democratic nations like Australia and the United States, a common pattern emerges: science is undermined by ideology or short-sighted economic motives, with devastating effects on technological progress and economic competitiveness. 

The Cultural Revolution stalled China’s advancement for a generation, the Abbott government’s drastic cuts to Australia’s scientific institutions led to talent loss and missed innovations, and Trump’s latest assault on American science is already threatening to erode the country’s technological leadership. The damage inflicted on research and innovation reverberates through economies and societies, often for decades.

During China’s Cultural Revolution, the government launched an ideological crusade that devastated the country’s intellectual and scientific establishment. Academics and scientists were deemed politically unreliable and targeted for persecution.

Universities were shut down, scholars and experts were publicly humiliated, and seasoned professionals were replaced with ideologically driven loyalists who lacked expertise. Research and higher education ground to a halt, and established scientific knowledge was rejected if it conflicted with Maoist doctrine. The immediate turmoil uprooted China’s knowledge base and instilled a lasting climate of fear and anti-intellectualism.

The long-term consequences were severe. An entire generation of young people was denied a formal education, leaving a deep gap in expertise. With universities closed and research halted, China fell behind in technology and productivity, experiencing years of economic stagnation and bureaucratic paralysis as knowledgeable officials were purged.

It took decades for the country to recover. Only after reforms in the 1980s did China begin to rebuild its scientific community. Analysts note that it took over 30 years to overcome the intellectual stagnation caused by the Cultural Revolution and re-emerge as a global leader in science and technology.

Those lost decades represent a significant setback in China’s technological progress and economic development. The Cultural Revolution stands as a stark warning of how politicized attacks on knowledge can cripple a country’s innovation engine.

Australia witnessed a different kind of attack on science – one driven by fiscal policy under Prime Minister Tony Abbott’s government. In 2014, the Abbott administration sharply slashed funding for the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Australia’s premier national research agency, along with cuts to other scientific programs.

Over four years, the government cut approximately $111 million from CSIRO’s budget, forcing the organisation into an unprecedented round of layoffs that eliminated nearly 20 per cent of its workforce within two years. Around 700 jobs were lost in 2014-15 alone, with more to follow. Scientists across the country were left holding their breath to see where the axe would fall, as uncertainty gripped institutes and laboratories.

No area of research was truly spared. CSIRO shut down eight research sites, and critical programs were canceled, including initiatives in neuroscience, colorectal cancer, water safety, climate science, and advanced manufacturing.

The cuts were so severe that hundreds of scientists staged an unprecedented protest against the government’s decisions. The CSIRO Staff Association bluntly condemned the cuts as driven by ignorance and warned they would cause significant damage to Australia’s economy in the long run.

The economic and innovative fallout from these cuts became a growing concern. Research leaders noted that such funding withdrawals would negatively impact Australia’s innovation performance and international standing.

The country, traditionally strong in fields like environmental science and mining technology, risked losing its competitive edge as laboratories went quiet and top talent drifted away. Surveys found morale plummeting at CSIRO, with many scientists considering leaving for opportunities abroad, exacerbating a potential brain drain. 

Entire areas of inquiry – such as climate adaptation and certain medical research projects – saw years of work jeopardised or halted. The loss of expertise meant fewer mentors for the next generation of scientists and fewer innovations coming to market. Industries reliant on public research support faced a slowdown in innovation.

For example, policy uncertainty under Abbott also hit the clean energy sector: investment in Australian renewable energy projects dropped by 31 per cent during his tenure, as investors pulled back amid a lack of government support and clear targets. 

Such missed opportunities in emerging industries translated to real economic costs – lost jobs, lost patents, and lost time in the global race for new technologies.

Australia’s experience under Abbott vividly illustrates how quickly scientific capacity can be eroded, and how that erosion can undermine a nation’s future economic prospects. What takes decades to build in scientific infrastructure and expertise can be dismantled in a fraction of that time, with recovery proving slow and difficult.

Trump’s return to the White House in 2025 has ushered in a new era of hostility toward science in the United States, with aggressive budget cuts and a coordinated suppression of federal research. In just the first month of his second term, the administration has launched a sweeping assault on research funding, environmental policy, and scientific institutions. 

The White House has directed agencies like the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health to prepare for drastic reductions, with reports indicating that the NSF may see its funding slashed by more than half. The NIH terminated approximately 1,200 probationary employees, accounting for about 10% of its workforce.

More than 170 NSF employees have already been dismissed, with the HR director indicating that work force reductions of 50% were expected. Nearly 400 staff members at the Environmental Protection Agency have lost their jobs as part of an aggressive push to downsize with Administration assertions varying between 65% of staff or 65% of budget cut.

Scientific grants have been frozen, leaving researchers unable to access funding that had already been approved. The Department of Energy has halted disbursements for clean energy research programs, while legal maneuvers are reportedly being explored to block the spending of funds Congress had allocated for science.

Trump has also issued a flurry of executive orders dismantling environmental regulations and clean energy programs. The United States has once again withdrawn from the Paris Climate Agreement, and agencies have been directed to fast-track oil and gas leasing on public lands while suspending renewable energy permits.

The EPA is reviewing the possibility of reversing key emissions regulations, including carbon limits on power plants and fuel efficiency standards for vehicles. Clean energy incentives created under the previous administration have been frozen, causing uncertainty in the solar, wind, and electric vehicle industries.

A planned $5 billion program for EV charging infrastructure has been put on indefinite hold, and new tariffs are being considered for imported clean technology components, disrupting supply chains and causing a slowdown in investment announcements.

Beyond budget cuts and deregulation, the administration is taking direct steps to suppress scientific discourse within federal agencies. Scientists have been instructed to remove references to climate change, diversity, and environmental justice from grant applications and public materials.

Researchers are delaying or altering the language of their studies to avoid political backlash. Advisory committees that provide independent scientific guidance to agencies like NASA and NOAA have been suspended or dissolved.

The administration has also targeted data transparency, with reports that certain climate and social science databases may be removed from federal websites. The chilling effect is palpable, with scientists fearful of speaking publicly or publishing research that contradicts the administration’s political narrative.

In Australia, the Liberal Party has been positioning itself as a pro-innovation force ahead of the 2025 election, making broad promises to support emerging scientific and engineering fields.

Their platform vows to back Australian businesses in advanced manufacturing, medical research, artificial intelligence, blockchain, and space technology, turning innovation into high-paying jobs and global opportunities. Such rhetoric suggests a recognition that research and development are critical for national competitiveness. 

However, the Coalition has a track record of resisting stronger climate policies since Abbott’s cuts to CSIRO and other research, prioritizing fossil fuel development, and cutting funding for climate research.

While the Coalition committed Australia to the Paris Agreement under Malcolm Turnbull in 2015, successive leaders have downplayed the urgency of climate action. Under Scott Morrison, the government pledged net zero by 2050 but refused to increase 2030 emissions targets and continued expanding coal and gas projects. 

Morrison’s government later defunded key renewable energy agencies, including ARENA and the Clean Energy Finance Corporation, while approving new coal mine expansions.

The Coalition’s approach to climate disasters also faced criticism, particularly Morrison’s slow response to the Black Summer bushfires, during which he initially refused to acknowledge the role of climate change.

Under current leader Peter Dutton, the Coalition has signaled a shift toward nuclear energy while questioning Labor’s renewable energy targets and hinting at revising Australia’s climate commitments. Dutton has argued for a continued role for fossil fuels, and the Coalition has promised to repeal environmental regulations that could slow new mining and energy projects. 

Much like the US rhetoric around DEI, both Morrison and Dutton have accused universities of fostering “left-wing activism” in environmental studies, particularly in programs advocating for fossil fuel divestment and climate protest movements.

With an election approaching, the Coalition appears set to continue its long-standing reluctance to embrace stronger climate policies, leaving Australia at risk of falling behind in the global transition to clean energy.

Their broader policy directions still emphasise fiscal restraint and eliminating wasteful spending, raising concerns that certain scientific programs—particularly in climate research – could again be on the chopping block. The question remains whether the Liberals have truly learned from the damage inflicted under Abbott, or if their science-friendly language is merely a strategic rebrand.

The lessons from history are clear. Undermining scientific institutions and expertise yields profound long-term costs. China’s Cultural Revolution left the country technologically crippled until reforms reversed course over two decades later.

Australia’s short-term budget savings under Abbott came at the price of lost talent and slowed innovation. Now, the United States faces similar risks, as the systematic rollback of science funding and climate policy threatens to weaken its global leadership in research. The parallels are undeniable, and the consequences are predictable. 

The test for Australian policymakers will be whether they recognise these lessons and choose to prioritise knowledge, research, and innovation before the damage becomes irreversible.

The test for Australian voters is whether they pay attention to what is happening in the United States and recognise the damage similar actions by Abbott caused as they go to the polls.