We’ve truly never seen anything like it before. Since my last summary released on March 12th, we have counted 117 potential attacks on scientists, their work, and science-based policies in the federal government. This means we have counted a grand total of 219 actions, decisions, or policies where science may have been sidelined or threatened since the Trump administration’s return to the White House. It’s striking and disturbing, even compared to the unprecedented pace and scale of attacks on science in President Trump’s first term. Here’s a broad overview of what we’ve seen in just the past few weeks, and why the pattern is so dangerous.
Cutting experts out of the regulatory process
Federal advisory committees (FACs) consist of experts from different fields (including academia, non-profits, and local governments) who provide recommendations to policymakers in the federal government. FACs help ensure that federal agency policies and regulations are created or amended with the best available science in mind. On his first day back in office, President Trump reinstated an Executive Order (EO) from his first term that seeks to reduce the number of FACs across the government by one-third. Political appointees across the Trump Administration were busy the past few weeks trying to meet that quota and dismissed members, canceled meetings, and disbanded some committees altogether. These actions effectively limit the expertise that government officials can consult in their decision and policymaking.
In the last few weeks, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum terminated six advisory panels who provided recommendations on public lands use and conservation, climate adaptation, culturally appropriate names for landmarks, and scientific integrity. The Federal Advisory Committee for Science Quality and Integrity was created in response to reports of scientific integrity violations at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) concerning data quality and reporting. USGS conducts research on a lot of highly impactful areas of governance, including natural hazards and water use/availability. Eliminating this committee leaves a lot of questions as to how USGS will prevent future scientific integrity violations, leaving these far-reaching topic areas open to unethical data changes and misrepresentation.
Other notable changes with FACs over the past few weeks include the Department of Agriculture eliminating two committees charged with reducing public health threats borne from poor food safety, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention threatening to cut nine advisory committees on topics including occupational safety and infectious diseases, and both the Department of Commerce and Labor each terminating two committees that helped encourage the quality and maintenance of the government’s economic data. The General Services Administration also terminated the Open Government Federal Advisory Committee. Its experts gave recommendations to encourage public participation and access to data, and to help make government records more accessible. Eliminating a panel of experts invited to help make governmental information more accessible puts the lie to the administration’s claimed goal of promoting “radical transparency.”
Targeting the Census Bureau means compromising equal representation
The US Census Bureau (USCB) has been the target of impactful attacks over the past few weeks. The USCB collects and analyzes massive volumes of data from people around the country, with the goal of creating a holistic picture of different areas’ characteristics, including demography, housing availability, and healthcare coverage. The most well-known program of the USCB is the decennial census, which informs how seats in the House of Representatives are distributed across states (and as a result, how many Electoral College votes each state has in presidential elections), as well as how much federal funding (such as for Medicare and highway maintenance) is allocated for different geographic areas. Correctly collecting and representing demographic data at this scale and for this purpose is vital for our economy and our democracy.
Despite this, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick disbanded three different advisory committees within the USCB. All three committees were comprised of experts and advocates in data representation and analysis. Their recommendations were critical for ensuring that all people are counted and correctly represented in the 2030 Census, that the USCB was up to date on the best types of data collection and analysis for the Census and other programs, and that USCB can effectively collect data from historically underrepresented populations like Indigenous and rural communities. With these experts no longer involved for the foreseeable future, there are a lot of questions that go unanswered. How confident can people be that their populations are proportionately and appropriately represented in the results of the 2030 Census? And can its (potentially) questionable quality accurately inform congressional representation and federal funding needs?
In other data representation news, the USCB also requested permission from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to delete questions on gender identity from their Household Trends and Outlook Pulse Survey (HTOPS). Specifically, they aim to remove any questions that acknowledge the existence of differences between sex and gender, such as questions that allow respondents to identify themselves as transgender or nonbinary, and only include questions about biological sex. According to the HTOPS website, it collects information on “food and nutrition, transportation, employment, and education.” This request follows a troubling pattern of USCB removing survey questions on gender identity and deprioritizing agency efforts to include gender-inclusive questions on their surveys to align with President Trump’s anti-trans Executive Order.
These changes are alarming because gender non-conforming people (or those whose gender identity doesn’t align with their biological sex, such as transgender and nonbinary people) are disproportionately discriminated against in many areas of public life. As a result–and, most relevant to HTOPS–they experience more barriers to staying stably employed and safely using public transportation and education facilities. Removing gender identity questions bars gender non-conforming people from being represented in USCB’s products. But it also stagnates any effort to provide these groups with necessary assistance by simply erasing the evidence.
Stalling the scientific process is preventing future learning
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has also been targeted over the past few weeks. Although the Trump Administration allowed some grant review panels to resume after weeks of being frozen, it later ordered NIH to cut hundreds of grants to align with its priorities. NIH received similar guidance from the Trump Administration as all other federal agencies: don’t fund any research having to do with LGBTQ+ health, gender non-conforming populations, environmental justice, or diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). And in line with Health Secretary Kennedy’s anti-vax beliefs, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) also instructed NIH to cut funding for any research focused on how to encourage people to get vaccinated. Since most of NIH’s funding goes to researchers at more than 2,000 universities and other institutions—and much of the country’s health-related research is funded in some part by NIH—this isn’t just about a few grants being halted. It impacts researchers who study these issues, health professionals who implement them, and all of the rest of us who can live longer, healthier lives thanks to this publicly-funded medical innovation.
Something that I love about science is that it builds on itself—and it’s not just what we’ve learned already, but the possibility of learning more in the future. Each new research project expands the scientific community’s (and the world’s) understanding of different topic areas. Research on disproportionate health impacts on communities of color and gender non-conforming people, vaccine misinformation and uptake, and environmental justice has vastly increased our overall understanding of health and the environment—knowledge we could and should use to push for better outcomes for everyone. Refusing to fund additional research in these areas is stalling society’s ability to increase its knowledge and understanding of them.
NIH also rescinded its scientific integrity (SI) policy last week. SI policies in federal agencies help prevent political interference in the collection, analysis, and presentation of scientific data. Their purpose is to keep ideological and corporate vested interests out of the work that federal scientists conduct, which is critical for the health of people and the planet. Taking away this safeguard policy leaves scientists at the NIH without protections against the Trump administration’s rampant actions that politicize science and equity in the federal government.
Let’s continue to work together
Defending science in the federal government requires a concerted effort. Here are a couple of things you can do if you’re looking for ways to help:
- Urge your members of Congress to cosponsor the SI Act. Passing the SI Act would protect the independence of science in the federal government and its agencies, regardless of whether individual policies are rescinded. There are already 10k other UCS supporters that have sent emails to their Congress Representatives about this.
- Do you know any federal scientists? Send them our list of resources to help them know their rights and protect themselves.
- Stay up to date on our Save Science Save Lives campaign.