2025: Trump, AI, Elections & The Decline of Science & Freedom?

The year 2025 has brought significant shifts on the global stage and within the Czech Republic. What developments do you consider most important?

From my perspective, the most crucial changes are those impacting the long-term stability of society and scientific advancement. Globally, the return of Donald Trump to the White House is dominating the geopolitical landscape and reshaping trade relations. Painstaking peace negotiations continue in Ukraine, a ceasefire holds in Gaza, and the rapid development of artificial intelligence presents both enormous opportunities and the risk of increased inequality.

Here in the Czech Republic, autumn parliamentary elections revealed widespread dissatisfaction with the previous government. The new administration has swiftly pursued its agenda with pragmatism, while some media outlets continue to uncritically defend the former cabinet and discredit the current one. This polarization unfortunately deepens societal divisions and influences perspectives on science, health, and freedom.

Following protests against Motordrive, Denník N questioned why these demonstrations failed to achieve their goals, noting they were well-organized and would receive a high rating if assessed as a film. As a scientist, what does this say about the modern world, where political and public events are evaluated using the criteria of the entertainment industry?

This accurately reflects how the world has transformed into a theatrical performance. We seem to have lost the ability to assess events based on their real-world impact, instead measuring them by “dramatic effect” or “virality,” as if they were a Netflix series. The protests against Motordrive were indeed well-organized, with hundreds of students demonstrating in Prague and Brno, and several dozen here in Hradec Králové, but they ultimately failed. They lacked broad public support, political leverage, and, crucially, prior electoral success.

Globally, people are weary of reality and the constant barrage of information, and therefore crave emotion over facts. Science is suffering similarly, as studies are valued based on citations and media attention, rather than truth and real-world impact. This is dangerous, as it leads to superficiality and a disregard for the genuine problems facing citizens.

Minister Macinka represents a segment of society that expressed a clear majority preference in the elections. This isn’t the result of a poll, but of a democratic process. A well-organized minority, such as young people on social media, cannot override the silent, but electorally successful, majority. That majority favored a pragmatic approach and common sense in the recent elections. Vice Premier Macinka is an educated individual with substantial life experience and a proven track record in politics. I believe he will be a very effective and pragmatic minister.

The new U.S. geopolitical strategy assesses the European Union as a region “in decline.” This sparked outrage in Brussels over perceived disruption of the traditional transatlantic alliance. However, is this assessment less an act of discourtesy and more a stark description of reality?

It is a harsh, but unfortunately accurate, assessment. The US National Security Strategy 2025 criticizes the EU for demographic decline, immigration challenges, censorship of free speech, and green ideologies that weaken the economy. Brussels views this as an attack on the Alliance, but I agree with the clear diagnosis.

Europe is grappling with declining birth rates, dependence on expensive energy imports that are crippling energy-intensive industries, and self-inflicted damage through the widespread implementation of the Green Deal. Furthermore, bureaucratic restrictions stifle innovation. It’s an aging continent, confined to a retirement home, with a worldview increasingly detached from the realities beyond its walls.

This isn’t discourtesy, but a warning. If the EU doesn’t change course, it will lose influence. Alliances should be based on economic strength, not sentiment. For Europe to succeed and partner with the U.S., it must be a free economic alliance of prosperous, independent nations. Free elections and a deregulated economy are essential foundations.

When discussing this with a colleague, an associate professor, the decline of Europe was linked to a decline in scientific research. He cited the diminishing prestige of journals like Nature and The Lancet, which have begun introducing personal criteria into the publication selection process, resulting in retractions previously unthinkable for publications of that caliber. Do you also perceive this “decline in scientific research”?

Yes, I see a real decline, not just in Europe, but globally. Both Nature and The Lancet retracted several significant articles in 2025 due to methodological flaws or ideological influences, including a study on the economic impact of climate change that was found to be exaggerated. The introduction of DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion) criteria into author selection by progressive elites who have taken positions within the journals has weakened the quality of publications and diminished their prestige. Science should be about data, not personal profiles.

In Europe, this decline is exacerbated by the bureaucracy of the European Commission, which funds projects based on political correctness rather than genuine merit. This has led to a worldwide increase in the number of articles retracted from journals (over 10,000 in 2023, and the trend continues). It’s concerning because it undermines trust in science as a whole.

It also involves the silencing of dissenting scientists who don’t share a minority progressive viewpoint. We saw this during COVID-19 with proponents of the Great Barrington Declaration, such as Professors Jay Bhattacharya and Martin Kulldorff.

Here in the Czech Republic, I was labeled a disinformation spreader on the official website of the Ministry of Health – as the only one of 54,000 doctors – because that’s what the software of a private company, Semantic Visions, s.r.o., determined. The software cannot know that I have the highest and best education in epidemiology in the Czech Republic, but a person approving information on a state institution’s website should. Behind all of this, globally, we find progressive leftist elites, known here as “better people,” whom former Senate President Jaroslav Kubera referred to with a term that cannot be written here.

Creating new editorial boards and ensuring high-quality peer review will help mitigate the influence of progressivism in academic journals.

Returning to the criticism from the U.S., one of the most criticized aspects of Europe this year has been the level of freedom. Vice President J.D. Vance and Elon Musk both spoke about this. Europeans point to press freedom rankings from journalistic institutions, where they consistently rank highly. However, EU legislation increasingly leans towards “protection from hate,” as it’s often called. How do you assess the state of free speech in Europe?

We are in a bad situation, because rankings like the World Press Freedom Index primarily measure media freedom, not individual freedom of speech. Both Vance and Musk are correct. Vice President Vance, in a speech at the Munich conference earlier in 2025, said that the world faces many threats, but he considered the greatest threat to Europe not to be Russia, but rather an “internal threat”: “I fear Europe’s retreat from some of its most fundamental values, values it shares with the United States of America.”

The European Commission recently fined X, Elon Musk’s network, $140 million under its Digital Services Act (DSA) for “hate speech” and a lack of transparency, which is, in effect, censorship. European progressive elites simply object to the existence of a global platform where anyone can freely express their feelings, thoughts, and opinions. People are being arrested and heavily fined for tweets or memes under the guise of “hate speech” – for example, over three thousand cases annually in the United Kingdom. This isn’t protection, but control. As a scientist, I see that it stifles open debate, which is key to progress.

However, we cannot overlook the vigorous debate surrounding academic research in the U.S. this year, as President Trump pushed some liberal-leaning universities to curtail their political activities. What is your view on this dispute?

I view this dispute through the lens of someone who has taught and conducted clinical research in a university setting for many years. I side more with President Trump. His administration is pressuring prestigious universities like Harvard and Columbia with the potential loss of federal funding due to DEI programs and political indoctrination. I agree with this approach, because universities should be places of objective research, not political agendas. The pressure to accredit and limit foreign students (max. 15%) is harsh, but necessary to ensure that only students with the academic aptitude study there. Critics see this as an attack on freedom, but I see it as a defense of science against ideology.

A dispute between the U.S. and Europe also arises in the area of healthcare, particularly due to the change in course regarding vaccination by U.S. Health Minister Robert Kennedy, presented in European media as an anti-vaccine charlatan. Do you believe this approach has the potential to shake up the “system”?

Yes, it has enormous potential to shake up the system, and in a positive way. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., as U.S. Health Minister, is re-evaluating the childhood immunization schedule, rescinded grants for groups supporting mandatory vaccinations, but hasn’t done anything else that isn’t common practice in Europe! He has proposed separating vaccinations against measles, mumps, and rubella from the chickenpox vaccine. This isn’t even mandatory in the Czech Republic. His goal is to ensure that vaccinations are administered at the optimal time to allow the body to develop an adequate immune response. Postponing the hepatitis B vaccine from birth to eight weeks simply mirrors common European practice. The fact that this will apply to children of mothers who are not infected with hepatitis B and do not come from minority groups with a high incidence of the disease is not anti-vaccination. Simply reviewing the presentation on this issue and the voting results (HERE) is sufficient.

The fact that Professor M. Kulldorff, who was previously celebrated for his contribution to reporting adverse events following vaccination, chaired the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) in the U.S. for this issue, is correct. And the fact that the results of clinical trials with new vaccines will be assessed more and better is also correct, because it is good to read, for an objective opinion, what was misleading in the studies with COVID-19 vaccines (HERE). The author is again Professor Jay Bhattacharya, currently the director of NIH (National Institutes of Health), who has resources and scientific potential comparable to similar potential throughout Europe. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is labeled an “anti-vaxxer” by European media, but he calls for transparency and data, and is not against vaccines or immunization. Revising the approach to vaccination may force the system to better examine the risks associated with immunization, which were ignored during COVID-19. The system needs a shock to return to objective evidence rather than dogma.

Returning to the criticism from the U.S., one of the topics most criticized in Europe this year was the degree of freedom. Vice President J.D. Vance and Elon Musk both spoke about this. Europeans cite freedom of the press rankings from journalistic institutions, where they consistently rank highly. However, EU legislation increasingly leans towards “protection from hate,” as it’s often called. How do you assess the state of free speech in Europe?

We are in a poor position, because rankings like the World Press Freedom Index show the EU at the top, but they primarily measure media freedom, not individual freedom of speech. Vance and Musk are right. Vice President Vance said in his speech at the Munich conference earlier in 2025 that there are many threats in the world. However, he considered the greatest threat to Europe not to be Russia, but rather a “threat from within”: “I fear Europe’s retreat from some of its most fundamental values, values it shares with the United States of America.”

The European Commission recently fined X, Elon Musk’s network, $140 million under its Digital Services Act (DSA) for “hate speech” and a lack of transparency, which is, in effect, censorship. European progressive elites simply object to the existence of a global platform with worldwide reach where anyone who is a real person can freely express their feelings, thoughts, and opinions. People are being arrested and heavily fined for tweets or memes under the pretext of “hate speech” – for example, over three thousand cases annually in Great Britain. This isn’t protection, but control. As a scientist, I see that it stifles open debate, which is key to progress.

We cannot ignore the lively discussion surrounding academic research in the U.S. this year, as President Trump pushed some liberal-leaning universities to limit their political activities. What is your view on this dispute?

I view this dispute from the perspective of someone who has taught and conducted research in a university setting for many years. I am more on the side of President Trump. His administration is pressuring prestigious universities like Harvard and Columbia with the threat of losing federal funding due to DEI programs and political indoctrination. I agree with this approach, because universities should be places of objective research, not political agendas. The pressure to accredit and limit foreign students (max. 15%) is harsh, but necessary to ensure that only students with the academic prerequisites study there. Critics see this as an attack on freedom, but I see it as a defense of science against ideology.

A dispute between the U.S. and Europe also arises in the area of healthcare, particularly due to the change in course regarding vaccination by U.S. Health Minister Robert Kennedy, presented in European media as an anti-vaccine charlatan. Does this approach have the potential to shake up the “system”?

Yes, it has enormous potential to shake up the system, and positively. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., as U.S. Health Minister, is re-evaluating the childhood immunization schedule, rescinded grants for groups supporting mandatory vaccinations, but hasn’t done anything else that isn’t common practice in Europe! He proposed separating vaccinations against measles, mumps, and rubella from the chickenpox vaccine. This isn’t even mandatory in the Czech Republic. His goal is to ensure that vaccinations are administered at the optimal time to allow the body to develop an adequate immune response. Postponing the hepatitis B vaccine from birth to eight weeks simply mirrors common European practice. The fact that this will apply to children of mothers who are not infected with hepatitis B and do not come from minority groups with a high incidence of the disease is not anti-vaccination. Simply reviewing the presentation on this issue and the voting results (HERE) is sufficient.

This is also about eliminating uncomfortable scientists who do not share a minority progressive viewpoint. We saw this during COVID-19 with proponents of the Great Barrington Declaration, such as Professors Jay Bhattacharya and Martin Kulldorff.

Here, I was the only one of 54,000 doctors labeled a disinformation spreader on the official website of the Ministry of Health, because that’s what the software of a private company, Semantic Visions, s.r.o., determined. The software cannot know that I have the highest and best education in epidemiology in the Czech Republic, but a person approving information on a state institution’s website should. Behind all of this, globally, we find progressive leftist elites, known here as “better people,” whom former Senate President Jaroslav Kubera referred to with a term that cannot be written here.

Creating new editorial boards and ensuring high-quality peer review will help dilute the influence of progressivism in academic journals.

Returning to the criticism from the U.S., one of the topics most criticized in Europe this year was the level of freedom. Vice President J.D. Vance and Elon Musk both spoke about this. Europeans operate with freedom of the press rankings from journalistic institutions, where they consistently rank highly. However, it is clear that EU legislation leans much more towards “protection from hate,” as it’s called. How free is speech in Europe, in your opinion?

We are in a bad situation, because rankings like the World Press Freedom Index show the EU at the top, but they measure media freedom, not individual freedom of speech. Vance and Musk are right. Vice President Vance said in his speech at the Munich conference earlier in 2025 that there are many threats in the world. However, he considered the greatest threat to Europe not to be Russia, but rather an “internal threat”: “I fear Europe’s retreat from some of its most fundamental values, values it shares with the United States of America.”

The European Commission recently fined X, Elon Musk’s network, $140 million under its Digital Services Act (DSA) for “hate speech” and a lack of transparency, which is, in effect, censorship. European progressive elites simply object to the existence of a platform with worldwide reach where anyone can freely express their feelings, thoughts, and opinions. People are being arrested and heavily fined for tweets or memes under the pretext of “hate speech” – for example, over three thousand cases annually in Great Britain. This isn’t protection, but control. As a scientist, I see that it stifles open debate, which is key to progress.

We cannot overlook the lively discussion surrounding academic research this year in the U.S., when President Trump pushed some liberal-leaning universities to somewhat limit their political activities. How do you view this dispute?

I view this dispute through the lens of someone who has taught and conducted research in a university setting for many years. I am more on the side of President Trump. His administration is pressuring prestigious universities like Harvard and Columbia with the potential loss of federal funding due to DEI programs and political indoctrination. I agree with this approach, because universities should be places of objective research, not political agendas. The pressure to accredit and limit foreign students (max. 15%) is harsh, but necessary to ensure that only students with the academic aptitude study there. Critics see this as an attack on freedom, but I see it as a defense of science against ideology.

A dispute between the U.S. and Europe also arises in the area of healthcare, particularly due to the change in course regarding vaccination by U.S. Health Minister Robert Kennedy. He has been presented in European media as an anti-vaccine charlatan. Does this approach have the potential to shake up the “system”?

Yes, it has enormous potential to shake up the system, and in a positive way. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., as U.S. Health Minister, is re-evaluating the childhood immunization schedule, rescinded grants for groups supporting mandatory vaccinations, but has not yet done anything else that isn’t common practice in Europe! He proposed separating vaccinations against measles, mumps, and rubella from the chickenpox vaccine. This isn’t even mandatory in the Czech Republic. His goal is to ensure that vaccinations are administered at the optimal time to allow the body to develop an adequate immune response. Postponing the hepatitis B vaccine from birth to eight weeks simply mirrors common European practice. The fact that this will apply to children of mothers who are not infected with hepatitis B and do not come from minority groups with a high incidence of the disease is not anti-vaccination. Simply reviewing the presentation on this issue and the voting results (HERE) is sufficient.

This is also about eliminating uncomfortable scientists who do not share a minority progressive viewpoint. We saw this during COVID-19 with proponents of the Great Barrington Declaration, such as Professors Jay Bhattacharya and Martin Kulldorff.

Here, I was the only one of 54,000 doctors labeled a disinformation spreader on the official website of the Ministry of Health, because that’s what the software of a private company, Semantic Visions, s.r.o., determined. The software cannot know that I have the highest and best education in epidemiology in the Czech Republic, but a person approving information on a state institution’s website should. Behind all of this, globally, we find progressive leftist elites, who were referred to by former Senate President Jaroslav Kubera with a term that cannot be written here.

Creating new editorial boards and ensuring high-quality peer review will help dilute the influence of progressivism in academic journals.

Finally, returning to the criticism from the U.S., one of the topics most criticized in Europe this year was the degree of freedom. Vice President J.D. Vance and Elon Musk both spoke about this. Europeans point to freedom of the press rankings from journalistic institutions, where they consistently rank highly. However, it is clear that EU legislation increasingly leans towards “protection from hate,” as it’s often called. How free is speech in Europe, in your opinion?

We are in a bad situation, because rankings like the World Press Freedom Index show the EU at the top, but they measure media freedom, not individual freedom of speech. Vance and Musk are right. Vice President Vance said in his speech at the Munich conference earlier in 2025 that there are many threats in the world. However, he considered the greatest threat to Europe not to be Russia, but rather an “internal threat”: “I fear Europe’s retreat from some of its most fundamental values, values it shares with the United States of America.”

The European Commission recently fined X, Elon Musk’s network, $140 million under its Digital Services Act (DSA) for “hate speech” and a lack of transparency, which is, in effect, censorship. European progressive elites simply object to the existence of a global platform with worldwide reach where anyone can freely express their feelings, thoughts, and opinions. People are being arrested and heavily fined for tweets or memes under the pretext of “hate speech” – for example, over three thousand cases annually in Great Britain. This isn’t protection, but control. As a scientist, I see that it stifles open debate, which is key to progress.

Finally, when discussing this with a colleague, an associate professor, he linked the decline of Europe to a decline in scientific research. He cited the fall in prestige of journals like Nature and The Lancet, which have begun introducing personal criteria into the publication selection process, resulting in retractions previously unthinkable for publications of that caliber. Do you also perceive this “decline in scientific research”?

Yes, I perceive it as a real decline, not just in Europe, but globally. Both Nature and The Lancet retracted several significant articles in 2025 due to methodological flaws or ideological influences, including a study on the economic impact of climate change that was found to be exaggerated. Introducing DEI criteria into author selection by progressive elites who have taken positions within the journals has weakened the quality of publications and diminished their prestige. Science should be about data, not personal profiles.

In Europe, this decline is exacerbated by the bureaucracy of the European Commission, which funds projects based on political correctness rather than genuine merit. This has led to a worldwide increase in the number of articles retracted from journals (over 10,000 in 2023, and the trend continues). It’s concerning because it undermines trust in science as a whole.

It also involves the silencing of dissenting scientists who do not share a minority progressive viewpoint. We saw this during COVID-19 with proponents of the Great Barrington Declaration, such as Professors Jay Bhattacharya and Martin Kulldorff.

Here, I was the only one of 54,000 doctors labeled a disinformation spreader on the official website of the Ministry of Health, because that’s what the software of a private company, Semantic Visions, s.r.o., determined. The software cannot know that I have the highest and best education in epidemiology in the Czech Republic, but a person approving information on a state institution’s website should. Behind all of this, globally, we find progressive leftist elites, who were referred to by former Senate President Jaroslav Kubera with a term that cannot be written here.

Creating new editorial boards and ensuring high-quality peer review will help dilute the influence of progressivism in academic journals.

Finally, returning to the criticism from the U.S., one of the topics most criticized in Europe this year was the degree of freedom. Vice President J.D. Vance and Elon Musk both spoke about this. Europeans point to freedom of the press rankings from journalistic institutions, where they consistently rank highly. However, it is clear that EU legislation increasingly leans towards “protection from hate,” as it’s often called. How free is speech in Europe, in your opinion?

We are in a bad situation, because rankings like the World Press Freedom Index show the EU at the top, but they measure media freedom, not individual freedom of speech. Vance and Musk are right. Vice President Vance said in his speech at the Munich conference earlier in 2025 that there are many threats in the world. However, he considered the greatest threat to Europe not to be Russia, but rather an “internal threat”: “I fear Europe’s retreat from some of its most fundamental values, values it shares with the United States of America.”

The European Commission recently fined X, Elon Musk’s network, $140 million under its Digital Services Act (DSA) for “hate speech” and a lack of transparency, which is, in effect, censorship. European progressive elites simply object to the existence of a platform with worldwide reach where anyone can freely express their feelings, thoughts, and opinions. People are being arrested and heavily fined for tweets or memes under the pretext of “hate speech” – for example, over three thousand cases annually in Great Britain. This isn’t protection, but control. As a scientist, I see that it stifles open debate, which is key to progress.

Finally, when discussing this with a colleague, an associate professor, he linked the decline of Europe to a decline in scientific research. He cited the fall in prestige of journals like Nature and The Lancet, which have begun introducing personal criteria into the publication selection process, resulting in retractions previously unthinkable for publications of that caliber. Do you also perceive this “decline in scientific research”?

Yes, I perceive it as a real decline, not just in Europe, but globally. Both Nature and The Lancet retracted several significant articles in 2025 due to methodological flaws or ideological influences, including a study on the economic impact of climate change that was found to be exaggerated. Introducing DEI criteria into author selection by progressive elites who have taken positions within the journals has weakened the quality of publications and diminished their prestige. Science should be about data, not personal profiles.

In Europe, this decline is exacerbated by the bureaucracy of the European Commission, which funds projects based on political correctness rather than genuine merit. This has led to a worldwide increase in the number of articles retracted from journals (over 10,000 in 2023, and the trend continues). It’s concerning because it undermines trust in science as a whole.

It also involves the silencing of dissenting scientists who do not share a minority progressive viewpoint. We saw this during COVID-19 with proponents of the Great Barrington Declaration, such as Professors Jay Bhattacharya and Martin Kulldorff.

Here, I was the only one of 54,000 doctors labeled a disinformation spreader on the official website of the Ministry of Health, because that’s what the software of a private company, Semantic Visions, s.r.o., determined. The software cannot know that I have the highest and best education in epidemiology in the Czech Republic, but a person approving information on a state institution’s website should. Behind all of this, globally, we find progressive leftist elites, who were referred to by former Senate President Jaroslav Kubera with a term that cannot be written here.

Creating new editorial boards and ensuring high-quality peer review will help dilute the influence of progressivism in academic journals.

Finally, returning to the criticism from the U.S., one of the topics most criticized in Europe this year was the degree of freedom. Vice President J.D. Vance and Elon Musk both spoke about this. Europeans point to freedom of the press rankings from journalistic institutions, where they consistently rank highly. However, it is clear that EU legislation increasingly leans towards “protection from hate,” as it’s often called. How free is speech in Europe, in your opinion?

We are in a bad situation, because rankings like the World Press Freedom Index show the EU at the top, but they measure media freedom, not individual freedom of speech. Vance and Musk are right. Vice President Vance said in his speech at the Munich conference earlier in 2025 that there are many threats in the world. However, he considered the greatest threat to Europe not to be Russia, but rather an “internal threat”: “I fear Europe’s retreat from some of its most fundamental values, values it shares with the United States of America.”

The European Commission recently fined X, Elon Musk’s network, $140 million under its Digital Services Act (DSA) for “hate speech” and a lack of transparency, which is, in effect, censorship. European progressive elites simply object to the existence of a global platform with worldwide reach where anyone can freely express their feelings, thoughts, and opinions. People are being arrested and heavily fined for tweets or memes under the pretext of “hate speech” – for example, over three thousand cases annually in Great Britain. This isn’t protection, but control. As a scientist, I see that it stifles open debate, which is key to progress.