Sign up for A Stronger Canada for The Trump Era to receive the latest analysis on Canada-U.S. relations from Policy Options, as soon as it’s published.

(Version française disponible ici)

Donald Trump’s aggressive rhetoric about Canada has triggered a crisis with profound economic and political repercussions. As political scientist Mark Blyth points out, this context of uncertainty may prompt decision-makers to consider major changes in public policy that previously seemed unthinkable.

Options such as increasing military spending, improving internal trade, diversifying our international trade and defence partnerships, and a possible rapprochement between Canada and the European Union have become much more salient issues than they were before Trump was sworn in on January 20, 2025.

Simultaneously, the normalization of lying to the public by Trump and his administration illustrates and reinforces a trend where scientific facts are challenged in the name of conspiracy theories or hyper-ideological propaganda. This trend is poisoning public debate. It is part of an era marked by the rejection of legitimate expertise. This attack on expertise is not new, but it has intensified since the COVID-19 pandemic. Today, it is evident in the budget cuts imposed under Donald Trump and growing threats to academic freedom in the United States.

Fighting misinformation to strengthen our democracy

Faced with this challenge, university researchers have an important role to play. By sharing their knowledge and research findings, they can set the record straight, while shedding light on the choices that need to be made to tackle the crisis. Political and social science researchers can counter misinformation and enrich a public debate too often distorted by ideologies and the manipulation of facts.

Yet many academics are reluctant to take part in public debates, whether in the traditional media, social media, the decision-making sphere, civil society, or the education system outside the halls of academia.

Overcome the fear of peer pressure

How can this situation be explained? There are three possible answers, although none of them seems entirely satisfactory. First, there is the judgment of peers. Participation in public debate is still frowned upon by some academics who scoff at any effort at simplification or popularization of knowledge. It is true that some in academia speak on all subjects regardless of expertise, and some associate any public intervention with that kind of behavior. But experience has taught us that such mockery is rare and easy to survive.

Second, the lack of preparation for public communication dampens the ardor of academics. Research training does not prepare us to write a 700-word article (one tenth the length of a typical scholarly article) or to give an interview on television. The pace of the media and public decision-making is fast, while research takes time. That’s why, in recent years, a number of initiatives have been set up to train researchers in public intervention. Outlets like The Conversation and Policy Options are bridges for disseminating knowledge from the academic world. Between the live interview and the informal discussion with a journalist, there are many ways of communicating that can be adapted to the skills and personalities of academics.

Finally, researchers have to manage busy schedules and respond to promotion criteria that place greater value on scientific publication, teaching and grant-seeking. In this context, they naturally prioritize their main tasks to the detriment of their public profile. While this choice is easy to understand at the start of a career, it becomes less justified once tenure has been achieved, as it protects us from the vagaries of job security and confers greater social responsibility.

Daring to express yourself despite imposter syndrome

In our opinion, there is a fourth reason for our colleagues’ hesitancy: researchers often refrain from intervening because they suffer from imposter syndrome when it comes to issues that seem a little remote from their main research subject. They fear being evaluated by people with more experience than they have. Can you talk about the Chinese economy if you’re a specialist in the Chinese Communist Party? The U.S. Constitution if you study democratic theories?

Unsurprisingly, imposter syndrome is particularly prevalent among women and members of minority groups, who are more likely to be harassed and challenged in the public arena. Hence the importance of resources such as Informed Opinions, a directory of female experts for journalists which also offers workshops in outreach and interview preparation. Initiatives such as these help build confidence and solidarity with those who share their expertise for the common good.

The real question is not: “Am I the ultimate expert on this subject?” Rather, it is: “Am I the best person available to inform public debate, here and now?”

Fulfilling your duty to take part in debate

We believe that, while the imperatives of public relations and the constraints imposed by funding agencies such as the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) are very real, professors and other researchers working in Canada’s public universities have a moral duty to participate in public debates.

This is particularly true in the context of the current conflictual relationship between Canada and the United States. The U.S. president’s threats touch many areas: trade, immigration, taxation, tourism, security and diplomacy. They are also upsetting the Canadian election campaign, which has been weakened by a wave of misinformation that threatens to influence the democratic process.

The best way to guard against misinformation is to provide accurate, accessible, and timely information. While this role is largely played by journalists, experts also have a duty to contribute to it, given their privileged position and ability to verify, analyze and disseminate facts. They are undeniably part of the ecosystem essential to transparency and public awareness of current issues.