In a recent discussion on Fox News, Greg Gutfeld and his panel addressed the controversial comparisons made between former President Donald Trump and Adolf Hitler. This conversation was sparked by remarks from Robert Kuttner, a professor at Brandeis University, who criticized Trump’s decision to cut spending at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and drew parallels to historical figures known for their oppressive regimes.
Kuttner’s comments came during a segment where he highlighted Trump’s proposed $9 billion reduction in overhead costs for NIH grants, which he argued could jeopardize vital research across the nation. He controversially stated, "Even Hitler knew to support German science," suggesting that Trump’s approach to funding research was more damaging than that of the Nazi leader, who, while promoting eugenics and military advancements, also fostered significant scientific achievements in Germany.
The discussion intensified as Kuttner warned that the new Trump administration directive, which caps indirect costs for NIH grants at 15%, would hinder scientific progress. Historically, these overhead costs have been significantly higher, often exceeding 27%. This directive has drawn criticism from various academic institutions, including Brandeis University, which has joined a federal lawsuit against the NIH guidelines.
Gutfeld’s panel defended Trump, pushing back against the accusations that likened him to Hitler. The panelists argued that such comparisons are exaggerated and politically motivated, especially in the context of the upcoming 2024 election. They emphasized the importance of focusing on the policies rather than invoking historical figures associated with tyranny.
This debate reflects a broader trend among Democratic strategists who have increasingly compared Trump to Hitler in their political rhetoric, particularly as the election approaches. Former Vice President Kamala Harris has also made similar claims, labeling Trump a "fascist" who admires authoritarian leaders.
As the dialogue continues, it raises questions about the implications of such comparisons in political discourse and the potential impact on public perception leading into the next election cycle. The conversation not only highlights divisions between political parties but also underscores the significance of funding for scientific research in the U.S.