To me it's too early to say Trump is anti science. The problem they will run into very quick, and they surely know this, if they are truly anti science, is that they will start to delete science which underpins technology, the same technology they might depend on for "Defence". Where does the line between science and technology get drawn, if they want to keep any form of physical defence whilst they delete science?
So I am inclined to think they might just be anti "climate science", rather than anti science.
I have warned in Medium previously how climate science is / was always on a sticky wicket, by the climate problem being not a problem in itself, but a symptom of a scientific problem that science appears to not know much about, which is actually the global energy problem, which, despite at least my own PhD started research being published in Medium for eight years now, has never been acknowledged by mainstream science. We literally can't tell mainstream science anything it didn't come up with itself, and it doesn't seem to be moving onto understanding it's a profit related energy problem causing the global warming, not a climate problem per se.
I've warned that this is a gaping hole in science, lack of detailed analysis of the energy problem, failure to even mathematically sign energy according to enable direction of energy flow to be identified, whilst insisting warming is down to greenhouse gases unprovable in an adiabatic atmosphere. People insisting on applying terms like "renewable" to energy and energy resources, and becoming obsessed by "carbon mitigation", when there can be technically no such thing as renewable energy, there is just energy, which gets moved around, and it has to be mathematically signed to follow and audit its movements, like we have to do in engines and systems we created, and which nature creates, to see how and where our own grand engine might or might not fit into the even grander engine of nature.
Currently it doesn't, but I show what needs to be done to make it fit, and if / when we do that, there will no longer be any existential problem, there will be nothing for climate scientists to work on, and maybe this, whilst the themselves are dependent on profit/extracted energy to exist, is a massive conflict of interest, which of course Trump et al can and will jump on with maximum force, because it's a valid scientific complaint, about science.
I warned he could do this, but again it doesn't seem to have made any difference, the vulnerability of science to that attack has been left wide open.