2019 State of the Union

The State of the Union speech is typically described as an opportunity for the President to present their administrations priorities for the year. This usually means a discussion of the status of the country, typically a positive statement even if far from true. There is a sizable chunk of the speech devoted to foreign policy and administration policies. The last major part of most State of the Union speeches is an enumeration and often times discussion of additional funding requests that the President will have in his budget. This portion of the speech typically has the potential for the most impact on technology and more specifically the intersection of technology and government policy. I will focus on those items that were brought up by the President in his State of the Union speech.
President Trump proudly stated that the United States is a net exporter of energy. The President supported this statement by stating that the U.S. has the most oil and gas production in 65 years. I will not take the time to fact check whether this claim is true, but it should be taken with a grain of salt. The growth of the oil and gas industry in the U.S. to its current state has been fueled by hydraulic fracturing. Hydraulic fracturing is the use of pressurized water, sand, and chemicals to open cracks in shale to allow trapped natural gas and oil to be released. Hydraulic fracturing has been combined with horizontal drilling to achieve significant oil and gas production in areas like the Bakken and Marcelius shale. The complex advanced technology used to procure unconventional oil and gas deposits have been developed with support from the U.S. government research laboratories. In addition to the subsidies provided directly to the oil and gas industry the research and development done at national research laboratories has supported the countries increased oil and gas production. This is a very clear case of policy directly supporting a specific industry.
Notable absent from the President's speech was any reference to Climate Change. This would seem amazing as just last December the IPCC report in time for the COP 24 climate conference. The analysis was grim in regards to meeting the stated goal of the Paris Agreement. In addition there was the additional report released by climate scientists that stated that in order to avoid a two degree Celsius increase in global average temperature the World needed to reduce CO2 emissions by 45% eleven years.Oil, coal, and gas have relied on direct subsidies to producers in addition to federal funding of research and development activities at national research laboratories. In the face of the obvious looming disaster it would seem that the President would want to present solutions that would lead the United States to a safe and sustainable future. To not mention or tackle climate change would be professional malpractice in my opinion. The President unfortunately continues to act as if climate change is unfounded science or denies the impact of humans on the climate. Climate change may not have been directly mentioned during the state of the Union there were some thinly veiled comments made in regard to it by President Trump's ardent defense of capitalism and attack on socialism. This is probably due to the fear of the Green New Deal becoming popular.
Infrastructure investments seem to be a very popular topic for politicians to discuss in the last few years.  The ASCE, American Society of Civil Engineers, has rated in its 2017 report card the state of American infrastructure a D+ so this topic is definitely worthy of action by politicians. President Trump took time to mention that he wants to work on an infrastructure bill. Unfortunately he didn't propose an amount that he envisioned being appropriated and the goals of any such bill should be. I would think that with the number of times the Trump administration has declared that it is infrastructure week there would be an extremely detailed plan to upgrade the deteriorating American infrastructure. It appears that President Trump threw out a line about infrastructure to check off a box rather than to give America, and the citizens listening, a direction to improving our society. This was a great topic which was thin on substance and is normal for the Trump administration.
President Trump followed up his brief remarks on infrastructure by stating that the government is making investments in cutting edge technologies. Unfortunately this was not followed up by any substantive support. As is the Trump administration's motus operandi a big announcement followed by very little to no detail. It is really difficult to understand why this line was even in the State of the Union as it can be easily argued that the Trump administration is not interested in cutting edge technologies based on its regulatory decisions. The FCC repealed net neutrality rules thereby allowing Interent Service Providers, ISPs, to slow down internet data speeds. This action essentially has allowed the ISPs to pick the winners and losers in the battles for users between rival internet based application technology. It can be argued that the repeal of these rules are a major barrier to the development of new technologies. The administration's fervent support for coal, oil, and gas has defined its decisions on regulatory issues. Rolling back the planned increases in vehicle fuel efficiency standards will slow down the development of new fuel efficiency technologies. Technology is typically developed based on a need by the customer or supplier to meet certain requirements. If the fuel efficiency requirements are stalled or slowed down then more efficient engines and electrification of cars will be delayed. The electricity generation sector is still primarily powered by fossil fuels. There has been a significant reduction on coal usage due to the lower price and cleaner emissions of natural gas. The new clean energy technology will be slowed down by the reversal of Obama era policies such as the Clean Power Plan. If as mentioned previously we are going to reduce CO2 emissions to avoid achieving dangerous levels of global temperature rise then a key cog will be new technology that has not been developed or scaled up at this time. Time will only tell if the Trump administration will help spurn new technologies to be developed or continue to support archaic technologies developed in the 19th and early 20th century.
President Trump proposed eliminating the HIV epidemic in the United States. This is a noble goal that I fully endorse, but once again like a broken record Trump was thin on substance. The efforts over the last 30 plus years has turned HIV from an uncontrolled epidemic with a death sentence prognosis to a disease that people can live full lives for decades. The great strides include the development of anti-retro viral medications that enable people to live and Prep. Prep is a medication that reduces dramatically the transmission of HIV when taken. For more information on the HIV epidemic check out this link on the history of HIV . The biotechnology that has developed these life saving medical treatments has not been cheap for the federal government. In this type of research and development typically there is partial funding from the government and private industry due to the risks associated with development of potential solutions. At this point there are currently treatments that are successful for people with HIV/AIDS and to reduce the risk of transmission in people at most risk.  It was particularly disappointing to hear the President not articulate a clear plan since from what I can gather we are at a point where the technology, medical treatments, have been developed and they need to implemented. President Trump could have used the bully pulpit of the Presidency to advance the effort.
There have been several different people who have written about what it would take to end the HIV epidemic so I won't repeat their statements again. The history of the Republican party in regards to the key ways to stop the spread of HIV is dubious at best. It is generally accepted that one vein of transmission is the use of dirty needles by illegal drug users. Needle exchange programs have routinely been on the funding cutting block with Republicans in charge. In fact, Vice President Mike Pence while governor of Indiana had an HIV epidemic in his state due to the lack of needle exchange programs. The other major vector for new HIV infections is unprotected sex, particularly in at risk populations. Republican politicians have usually been reticent to implement policies that would encourage protected sex. This is probably due to a fear that the religious right, which is a significant part of their base, would revolt at anything other than abstinence. This is one place where one could hope that President Trump, who is proud to talk about his supposed sexual prowess, could lead by mentioning its importance from the Presidential podium.  The two policies that historically Republicans have not backed wholeheartedly would have more impact on the HIV epidemic than any additionally investment in technology in the short run.
President also proposed spending 500 Billion dollars over the next ten years to fight childhood cancer. This line of the speech is very much in line with President Obama's moonshot on cancer. I appreciate the proposal to work on childhood cancer as they are more likely not to receive the publicity and charitable funding other cancers receive. We are in a period where medical research is fundamentally altering the way we treat cancer. This is a lofty statement from President Trump, but the devil will be in the details. I must admit there was an actual budget line value attached to this proposal in the State of the Union. It should be pointed out that human produced carcinogens and neurotoxins are still in our environment. They affect adults and children who ingest them in the food and water that they consume. In children the impacts maybe more acute than adults depending on the toxin. The Trump administration has continued to take a lax approach to environmental and chemical regulation. The fight against cancer in general, and in particular childhood cancer, should include a strong dose of mitigation by strongly enforcing our environmental regulations. This could lead to a boom in toxin removal technology that will provide enhanced benefits to society.
I listened to Stacy Abrams democratic response and she did not mention any items that had an implication on technology. This is understandable since her speech focused on values rather than direct economic or political proposals. She is also a private citizen and therefore not in a decision making role. In general President Trump's State of the Union was light on proposals that would impact technology, and missing substance when mentioned.