Trumpism Is Linked To Anti-Science Beliefs On Climate Change And COVID

In an age marked by unprecedented access to information, public trust in science should, in theory, be at an all-time high. Yet in the United States, belief in well-established scientific facts—ranging from the human role in climate change to the efficacy of vaccines—has become increasingly fractured along political lines. At the heart of this divide lies a powerful cultural and ideological force: Trumpism.

Rooted in populist conservatism and sustained by deep skepticism toward institutional authority, Trumpism has redefined not only political discourse but also the way large swaths of the American public interpret scientific consensus. A growing body of research, including a notable study by sociologist Lawrence Hamilton, suggests that support for former President Donald Trump is a strong predictor of science rejection—especially concerning climate change and COVID-19.

The Rise of Anti-Science Sentiment in American Conservatism

In recent years, the relationship between political ideology and trust in science has taken an increasingly polarized turn in the United States. Nowhere is this more evident than in the overlap between support for former President Donald Trump and widespread skepticism toward scientific consensus on issues like climate change and COVID-19. A 2021 study led by Professor Lawrence Hamilton, a sociologist at the University of New Hampshire, reveals a statistically significant link between “Trumpism” and the rejection of scientific findings in these critical domains.

The study, based on responses from over 1,100 U.S. adults in the POLES 2021 survey, found that approval of Trump was a major predictor of science denial—not just in the context of COVID-19 and climate change, but across a spectrum of topics. Those identifying with Trump’s brand of populist conservatism showed higher agreement with conspiracy theories such as flat Earth beliefs, skepticism about the Moon landing, and misinformation around vaccines, including the baseless claim that they implant tracking microchips.

This trend is not merely a reflection of conservative politics broadly, but of a more recent populist surge that has harnessed and amplified distrust in institutional authority. As Hamilton notes, conservative ideologies have traditionally been skeptical of large-scale government interventions. However, under Trump, this skepticism evolved into overt antagonism toward scientific institutions and experts, often portrayed as part of an untrustworthy “establishment.”

The ramifications of this ideological shift extend beyond theoretical disagreements—they manifest in public health outcomes and environmental policy resistance. The study also found that these anti-science attitudes were more common among those with lower levels of education and income, though specific patterns varied by issue: for example, vaccine rejection was more prevalent among women and low-income respondents, while climate change denial increased with age but was not linked to income.

By drawing a clear connection between political allegiance and science rejection, the study underscores how deeply personal and ideological identity can influence one’s interpretation—or outright denial—of empirical evidence. Even as Trump’s political future remains uncertain, the cultural currents he stirred continue to shape American discourse, raising concerns about the long-term implications for scientific literacy and public trust.

Populist Politics and the Weaponization of Distrust

Populism thrives on an “us versus them” narrative, and in the case of Trumpism, this dichotomy has often been drawn between everyday Americans and so-called elites—including scientists, academics, and public health officials. The study by Professor Hamilton highlights how preexisting conservative skepticism toward government regulation and expert institutions has been strategically amplified by political leaders for electoral and ideological gain.

Trump’s rhetoric, especially during his presidency, frequently cast doubt on scientific findings and framed expert consensus as politically motivated. During the COVID-19 pandemic, this manifested in the downplaying of the virus’s severity, resistance to lockdowns and mask mandates, and repeated undermining of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO). Similarly, on climate change, the Trump administration rolled back environmental protections and withdrew the U.S. from the Paris Agreement, signaling a broader rejection of global scientific cooperation.

These actions were not merely policy decisions—they functioned as signals that validated and reinforced distrust among Trump’s base. The study notes that anti-science messaging became deeply intertwined with political identity, aided by media ecosystems that echoed and amplified skepticism. In this framework, belief in scientific findings on climate change or COVID-19 became less about facts and more about allegiance.

Importantly, the study emphasizes that this weaponized distrust did not emerge in a vacuum. It draws on a historical foundation of conservative resistance to government overreach, but has been intensified through modern tools: social media algorithms that favor polarizing content, partisan news outlets that question expert consensus, and political campaigns that frame science as a partisan tool.

The consequences of this politicization are profound. By aligning scientific rejection with ideological loyalty, the space for objective discourse narrows. Policies aimed at public health or environmental protection are increasingly dismissed not on merit, but because they are associated with political adversaries. This shift challenges the very function of science in a democratic society—its role as a neutral, evidence-based guide for policy and progress.

Demographics and the Complexity of Science Rejection

While political allegiance, particularly support for Trump, emerged as a strong predictor of science denial, the study also revealed a more complex demographic landscape that shapes public attitudes toward climate change and COVID-19. These nuances underscore that science skepticism is not monolithic and can vary widely based on gender, education, income, and age.

One notable finding is the gender disparity in vaccine skepticism: women were more likely than men to reject COVID-19 vaccines. This trend has been observed in other research as well, often linked to concerns about vaccine safety, especially in relation to reproductive health, and a historical mistrust of the medical establishment among certain communities of women. However, when it comes to climate change denial, the study found no significant difference between men and women, suggesting that the gender dynamic may be issue-specific rather than indicative of broader anti-science tendencies.

Education emerged as a significant buffer against science rejection. Individuals with higher levels of education were generally less likely to deny scientific consensus on both COVID-19 and climate change. This aligns with broader sociological patterns: education tends to enhance critical thinking skills and increase access to reliable sources of information, making individuals less susceptible to misinformation or conspiratorial thinking.

Income levels showed a different kind of divide. Vaccine rejection was more common among lower-income households, a trend likely tied to structural inequities such as access to healthcare, exposure to targeted misinformation, and longstanding institutional distrust. Interestingly, views on climate change did not appear to be influenced by income, suggesting that environmental skepticism is more ideologically than economically driven.

Age also played a divergent role. Older individuals were more likely to deny climate change but less likely to reject COVID-19 vaccines. This paradox highlights how issue framing and risk perception vary across age groups. For instance, older adults—who are more vulnerable to severe COVID-19 outcomes—may be more inclined to trust health interventions like vaccines. Meanwhile, they may view climate change as a more abstract or politicized issue, thus downplaying its urgency.

The Enduring Legacy of Trumpism and Its Implications for the Future of Science Trust

Although Donald Trump left office in 2021, the political and cultural forces he galvanized show little sign of waning. As the study by Professor Hamilton concludes, the movement known as Trumpism has left a lasting imprint on American society—particularly in how certain segments of the population perceive science and expertise. Even if Trump himself fades from the political spotlight, the populist sentiments and conspiracy-driven thinking that defined his base are likely to persist, or even evolve under new leadership.

This enduring influence is part of a broader trend: the entrenchment of distrust in institutions, which includes not only scientists but also the media, higher education, and governmental agencies. Trumpism did not invent this skepticism, but it did mainstream and amplify it through deliberate messaging that framed scientific voices as extensions of political or globalist agendas. As a result, belief systems that were once relegated to the fringes—such as flat Earth theory or anti-vaccine conspiracies—have gained traction in more mainstream circles.

The study notes that such beliefs are now often bundled together, creating a worldview that resists correction even in the face of overwhelming evidence. In this environment, denial of climate science or pandemic severity becomes part of a broader identity—a means of signaling political loyalty and defiance of elite authority.

This cultural shift presents a significant challenge for scientists, educators, and policymakers. Efforts to communicate science in an accessible and nonpartisan manner face growing resistance from individuals who view such messaging through a political lens. Moreover, the risk is not confined to discourse alone; it affects real-world outcomes such as vaccine uptake, environmental regulation, and public health policy implementation.

Looking ahead, there is concern that future political figures may adopt or adapt the playbook Trump helped write: one that leverages misinformation, encourages distrust of expertise, and builds loyalty by attacking commonly accepted truths. In doing so, they could inherit not only his base but also the dynamics of science rejection that accompany it.

This scenario underscores the need for a strategic, long-term approach to rebuilding public trust in science—one that acknowledges the sociopolitical undercurrents driving disbelief and responds with empathetic, evidence-based communication. Without such efforts, the politicization of science may continue to deepen, placing both democratic dialogue and public well-being at risk.

Rebuilding Trust in Science in a Post-Trump Era

The intersection of Trumpism and anti-science sentiment marks a pivotal moment in American political and cultural life—one that extends far beyond the legacy of a single leader. The data from Professor Lawrence Hamilton’s study highlights a troubling reality: that scientific truth, once a foundation for bipartisan progress, has become a casualty in the battle for ideological dominance.

As populist rhetoric continues to shape public perception, particularly among groups aligned with Trump’s worldview, the stakes extend well beyond academic debate. Denial of climate change threatens urgent environmental action. Vaccine skepticism undermines collective health. And a deepening distrust in scientific institutions corrodes the social fabric required for a functioning democracy.

Yet even amid these challenges, there is room for cautious optimism. Understanding the demographic, ideological, and psychological roots of science rejection offers a roadmap for moving forward. Rebuilding trust will require more than fact sheets and press conferences. It demands a concerted effort from scientists, communicators, educators, and policymakers to engage the public with transparency, empathy, and cultural awareness.

Crucially, science must be framed not as an edict from above but as a shared pursuit of truth that serves the public good. This includes highlighting stories of how science improves daily life, inviting diverse voices into scientific conversations, and protecting the integrity of information in media and education. It also means recognizing that trust, once broken, cannot be restored through data alone—it must be earned through consistent, values-based engagement.

As the 2024 U.S. election cycle unfolds and Trump continues to exert influence, the nation faces a critical test: whether it can distinguish political identity from empirical reality, and whether it can build a future in which science is once again viewed as a common ground rather than a battleground.