Trump’s science adviser picks signal increased focus on AI, policy direction of 2nd term

Key appointments and structure: Donald Trump has nominated three science advisers ahead of a potential second term, signaling increased attention to science and technology leadership.

• Michael Kratsios will lead the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) as science adviser, with the influential “assistant to the president” designation allowing direct access to Trump
• David Sacks has been tapped as “AI and crypto czar” and will chair the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST)
• Lynne Parker will serve in a new role supporting both Kratsios and Sacks

Strategic significance: The early appointments represent a shift from Trump’s first term, when the administration operated without a science adviser for nearly two years.

• The timing and seniority of appointments suggest science and technology policy may receive greater priority
• Artificial intelligence appears to be a central focus area for the advisory team
• The “assistant to the president” designation for Kratsios provides more direct influence than typical for the role

Expert perspectives: The scientific community has expressed measured optimism about the appointments, particularly regarding Kratsios.

• Researchers view Kratsios as a “bright spot” from Trump’s first term
• The appointments indicate potential for more structured science policy development
• Questions remain about how the advisers will shape policy beyond artificial intelligence

Policy implications: The eventual composition of PCAST will provide important signals about the administration’s broader science priorities.

• PCAST produces influential reports that help guide federal science policy
• The council’s makeup will indicate which scientific domains receive focus
• Uncertainty exists around how these advisers will influence policy across other scientific fields

Looking ahead: While the early appointments suggest increased emphasis on science and technology policy, particularly in artificial intelligence, the true impact of these advisers on U.S. scientific leadership remains to be seen as key questions about broader science policy priorities and PCAST’s ultimate composition are still unresolved.