Six Nobel laureates speak out against Trump: ‘The closest analogy is with the Hitler regime’

In recent weeks, EL PAÍS contacted most of the Nobel Prize winners in Physics, Chemistry, and Medicine from the United States over the past 20 years with a questionnaire about Donald Trump’s policies on science, research, and health. The vast majority are established researchers — some even retired — who should not fear retaliation; but only a handful of them agreed to respond.

“Why am I sad?” writes Roald Hoffmann, winner of the 1981 Nobel Prize in Chemistry. “We came to the U.S. when I was 11. Even as my parents could not work making full use of their training and talents, the country gave their child, me (and my sister, born here), a chance to get an education and to do wonderful research with talented coworkers from all over the world. If the Trump policies are carried through, the full flow of what I experienced will be very unlikely in the generation of my scientific grandchildren.”

Hoffmann was born in Poland in 1937 and bears the surname of his stepfather. His father, Hillel Safran, was a Polish Jew murdered by the Nazis in 1943 for organizing a rebellion in the concentration camp where he was imprisoned. Most of his family also perished in the Holocaust. In 1949, after several years living in refugee camps in Austria and Germany, Hoffmann, his mother and stepfather managed to emigrate to the United States.

This theoretical chemist won the Nobel Prize for clarifying how chemical reactions take place while he was a researcher at Cornell University, which, along with Harvard and other Ivy League institutions, is now facing Trump’s multimillion-dollar cuts. “Aside from the effect on science,” explains Hoffmann, “we are seeing democracy attacked from the top down, but more importantly, a general endorsement of bullying, incivility, and illegal action. Also, an erosion of many steady years of encouragement for minority populations and immigrants that we all valued.”

Joachim Frank says one of his earliest memories is seeing his house burn down after being bombed by the Allies in Siegen, the hub of steel production in Nazi Germany. Frank moved to the United States in the 1970s. In 2017, he won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for developing cryo-electron microscopy, a breakthrough for studying the function of molecules essential to life.

At 85, now retired, he writes: “I have not seen such a situation in my life, but the closest analogy is with the Hitler regime, which forced many scientists to leave the country because of its racial policies. It marked the end of scientific world leadership by Germany,” he warns. “Having been born in Germany during World War II, I feel absolutely terrible to see my life being bookended by two fascist regimes”

Rich Roberts, born 81 years ago in the United Kingdom, spent much of his scientific career in the United States. He won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1993 when he was a director of New England Biolabs, based in Massachusetts.

The biochemist warns of the economic impact of Trump’s attacks. “I work at a company that sells reagents to molecular biologists and a variety of companies that depend on enzymes for the work. This is already reducing our sales and can be expected to do so going forward, although we are likely to continue being a solid company because of both overseas trade and also the number of companies who buy reagents from us.”

Roberts believes that not only is science in danger, but also healthcare, the biotech industry “and every other profession that relies on scientific knowledge and the students who pursue it.”

Roberts confesses: “I feel terrible that the science which I have pursued and loved for the last 60 years is being threatened by politicians who know little or nothing about what is entailed in performing science. They don’t even seem to appreciate the great benefits to society in general that have come as a result of basic research, which is what they fund mainly. The companies that benefit the general economy rarely do a lot of research themselves and they depend on the basic research that leads to discoveries like the ones that I and my colleagues have made. If this stops, then the companies themselves will likely underperform or go out of business.”

Hoffman, Frank, and Roberts are not the only immigrant scholars to have won a Nobel Prize. Thirty-five percent of all academic Nobel Prizes in the United States since 1901 have been won by immigrants, according to George Mason University.

A recent study estimated that if even Trump’s proposed cuts are imposed in a reduced version, the U.S. gross domestic product will fall by 3.8% over the long term, a figure similar to what was seen in the 2009 recession. Major research and health promotion agencies are facing the most drastic cuts since World War II, as well as thousands of layoffs.

The scientific community in the U.S. has responded with several manifestos signed by hundreds of researchers, including those who contributed to this article, but it has been rare to see prominent individuals openly take a stand, due to the likely reprisals that the Trump administration could impose on them, their teams, or their research centers.

Barry Barish, winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2017 for the discovery of gravitational waves, speaks of a complete rift between the White House and universities. “A very large reduction in direct support is proposed for LIGO, my research project [for which he won the Nobel Prize], and one of the most successful programs at the National Science Foundation,” he explains.

“The traditional partnership with universities, including mine, are threatened by the proposed reduction in overhead from 60% of grant, to 15%. This arrangement has been in place since soon after WWII,” he says. “The U.S. research enterprise has thrived for decades through this model and has led the world in many areas of research and attracted top scientists around the world. This partnership is coming to an end!”

Barish believes that the U.S. is facing the end of an era. “We have been living in a golden age of science, both fundamental discovery science and advancing practical applications. I believe that this will continue, but not with the U.S. leading the way. China and, to some extent, Europe, will emerge as the leaders of basic science and applications,” he predicts.

Trump’s policies to eliminate equality programs will prevent low-income Americans from receiving a decent education, or even from engaging in top-level scientific research, they warn. The new administration’s immigration policies are also jeopardizing the careers of thousands of young people from other countries who come to the United States to pursue a career.

“In addition to the short-term effects of decreased funding,” writes Harold Varmus, winner of the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 1989, “there are the terrible long-term effects on the previously favorable view of the U.S. as a place to be trained and to perform scientific work. It could take decades to recover.”

Most of the laureates interviewed are hopeful that Congress will push back against the cuts. Trump’s 2026 budget is currently under debate, and they say it’s likely that some of his massive proposed cuts will be watered down. “If this budget is approved, it will be a catastrophe,” says Carl Wieman, professor emeritus at Stanford University and winner of the 2001 Nobel Prize in Physics. “In the past, including in the first Trump presidency, large cuts for science were proposed, but Congress never went along with them. That could still happen.”

The budget debate ends on September 30.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition