Trump's ‘Gold Standard' for Science Manufactures Doubt
Late last month, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy released a document detailing its vision for scientific integrity. Its nine tenets, first laid out in President Donald Trump's executive order for 'Restoring Gold Standard Science,' seem anodyne enough: They include calls for federal and federally supported science to be reproducible and transparent, communicative of error and uncertainty, and subject to unbiased peer review. Some of the tenets might be difficult to apply in practice—one can't simply reproduce the results of studies on the health effects of climate disasters, for example, and funding is rarely available to replicate expensive studies. But these unremarkable principles hide a dramatic shift in the relationship between science and government.
Trump's executive order promises to ensure that 'federal decisions are informed by the most credible, reliable, and impartial scientific evidence available.' In practice, however, it gives political appointees—most of whom are not scientists—the authority to define scientific integrity and then decide which evidence counts and how it should be interpreted. The president has said that these measures are necessary to restore trust in the nation's scientific enterprise—which has indeed eroded since the last time he was in office. But these changes will likely only undermine trust further. Political officials no longer need to rigorously disprove existing findings; they can cast doubt on inconvenient evidence, or demand unattainable levels of certainty, to make those conclusions appear unsettled or unreliable.
In this way, the executive order opens the door to reshaping science to fit policy goals rather than allowing policy to be guided by the best available evidence. Its tactics echo the 'doubt science' pioneered by the tobacco industry, which enabled cigarette manufacturers to market a deadly product for decades. But the tobacco industry could only have dreamed of having the immense power of the federal government. Applied to government, these tactics are ushering this country into a new era of doubt in science and enabling political appointees to block any regulatory action they want to, whether it's approving a new drug or limiting harmful pollutants.
Historically, political appointees generally—though not always—deferred to career government scientists when assessing and reporting on the scientific evidence underlying policy decisions. But during Trump's first term, these norms began to break down, and political officials asserted far greater control over all facets of science-intensive policy making, particularly in contentious areas such as climate science. In response, the Biden administration invested considerable effort in restoring scientific integrity and independence, building new procedures and frameworks to bolster the role of career scientists in federal decision making. Trump's new executive order not only rescinds these Joe Biden–era reforms but also reconceptualizes the meaning of scientific integrity. Under the Biden-era framework, for example, the definition of scientific integrity focused on 'professional practices, ethical behavior, and the principles of honesty and objectivity when conducting, managing, using the results of, and communicating about science and scientific activities.' The framework also emphasized transparency, and political appointees and career staff were both required to uphold these scientific standards. Now the Trump administration has scrapped that process, and appointees enjoy full control over what scientific integrity means and how agencies review and synthesize scientific literature necessary to support and shape policy decisions.
Although not perfect, the Biden framework also included a way for scientists to appeal decisions by their supervisors. By contrast, Trump's executive order creates a mechanism by which career scientists who publicly dissent from the pronouncements of political appointees can be charged with 'scientific misconduct' and be subject to disciplinary action. The order says such misconduct does not include differences of opinion, but gives political appointees the power to determine what counts, while providing employees no route for appeal. This dovetails with other proposals by the administration to make it easier to fire career employees who express inconvenient scientific judgments.
When reached for comment, White House spokesperson Kush Desai argued that 'public perception of scientific integrity completely eroded during the COVID era, when Democrats and the Biden administration consistently invoked an unimpeachable 'the science' to justify and shut down any reasonable questioning of unscientific lockdowns, school shutdowns, and various intrusive mandates' and that the administration is now 'rectifying the American people's complete lack of trust of this politicized scientific establishment.'
But the reality is that, armed with this new executive order, officials can now fill the administrative record with caveats, uncertainties, and methodological limitations—regardless of their relevance or significance, and often regardless of whether they could ever realistically be resolved. This strategy is especially powerful against standards enacted under a statute that takes a precautionary approach in the face of limited scientific evidence.
Some of our most important protections have been implemented while acknowledging scientific uncertainty. In 1978, although industry groups objected that uncertainty was still too high to justify regulations, several agencies banned the use of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) as propellants in aerosol spray cans, based on modeling that predicted CFCs were destroying the ozone layer. The results of the modeling were eventually confirmed, and the scientists who did the work were awarded the 1995 Nobel Prize in Chemistry.
Elevating scientific uncertainty above other values gives political appointees a new tool to roll back public-health and environmental standards and to justify regulatory inaction. The result is a scientific record created less to inform sound decision making than to delay it—giving priority to what we don't know over what we do. Certainly, probing weaknesses in scientific findings is central to the scientific enterprise, and good science should look squarely at ways in which accepted truths might be wrong. But manufacturing and magnifying doubt undercuts science's ability to describe reality with precision and fealty, and undermines legislation that directs agencies to err on the side of protecting health and the environment. In this way, the Trump administration can effectively violate statutory requirements by stealth, undermining Congress's mandate for precaution by manipulating the scientific record to appear more uncertain than scientists believe it is.
An example helps bring these dynamics into sharper focus. In recent years, numerous studies have linked PFAS compounds—known as 'forever chemicals' because they break down extremely slowly, if at all, in the environment and in human bodies—to a range of health problems, including immunologic and reproductive effects; developmental effects or delays in children, including low birth weight, accelerated puberty, and behavioral changes; and increased risk of prostate, kidney, and testicular cancers.
Yet despite promises from EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin to better protect the public from PFAS compounds, efforts to weaken current protections are already under way. The president has installed in a key position at the EPA a former chemical-industry executive who, in the first Trump administration, helped make regulating PFAS compounds more difficult. After industry objected to rules issued by the Biden administration, Trump's EPA announced that it is delaying enforcement of drinking-water standards for two of the PFAS forever chemicals until 2031 and rescinding the standards for four others. But Zeldin faces a major hurdle in accomplishing this feat: The existing PFAS standards are backed by the best currently available scientific evidence linking these specific chemicals to a range of adverse health effects.
Here, the executive order provides exactly the tools needed to rewrite the scientific basis for such a decision. First, political officials can redefine what counts as valid science by establishing their own version of the 'gold standard.' Appointees can instruct government scientists to comb through the revised body of evidence and highlight every disagreement or limitation—regardless of its relevance or scientific weight. They can cherry-pick the data, giving greater weight to studies that support a favored result. Emphasizing uncertainty biases the government toward inaction: The evidence no longer justifies regulating these exposures.
This 'doubt science' strategy is further enabled by industry's long-standing refusal to test many of its own PFAS compounds—of which there are more than 12,000, only a fraction of which have been tested—creating large evidence gaps. The administration can claim that regulation is premature until more 'gold standard' research is conducted. But who will conduct that research? Industry has little incentive to investigate the risks of its own products, and the Trump administration has shown no interest in requiring it to do so. Furthermore, the government controls the flow of federal research funding and can restrict public science at its source. In fact, the EPA under Trump has already canceled millions of dollars in PFAS research, asserting that the work is 'no longer consistent with EPA funding priorities.'
In a broader context, the 'gold standard' executive order is just one part of the administration's larger effort to weaken the nation's scientific infrastructure. Rather than restore 'the scientific enterprise and institutions that create and apply scientific knowledge in service of the public good,' as the executive order promises, Elon Musk and his DOGE crew fired hundreds, if not thousands, of career scientists and abruptly terminated billions of dollars of ongoing research. To ensure that federal research support remains low, Trump's recently proposed budget slashes the research budgets of virtually every government research agency, including the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and the EPA.
Following the hollowing-out of the nation's scientific infrastructure through deep funding cuts and the firing of federal scientists, the executive order is an attempt to rewrite the rules of how our expert bureaucracy operates. It marks a fundamental shift: The already weakened expert agencies will no longer be tasked with producing scientific findings that are reliable by professional standards and insulated from political pressure. Instead, political officials get to intervene at any point to elevate studies that support their agenda and, when necessary, are able to direct agency staff—under threat of insubordination—to scour the record for every conceivable uncertainty or point of disagreement. The result is a system in which science, rather than informing policy, is shaped to serve it.
Article originally published at The Atlantic
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Judge rejects Trump administration effort to unseal Epstein grand jury records
A US judge has rejected a Trump administration request to unseal transcripts from grand jury investigations of Jeffrey Epstein years ago in Florida. A similar records request is pending in New York. District judge Robin Rosenberg in West Palm Beach, Florida said the request to release grand jury documents from 2005 and 2007 did not meet any of the extraordinary exceptions under US law that could make them public. The Justice Department last week asked the judge to release records to quell a storm among supporters of US President Donald Trump who believe there was a conspiracy to protect Epstein's clients, conceal videos of crimes being committed and other evidence. In 2008, Epstein cut a deal with prosecutors in Florida that allowed him to escape more severe federal charges and instead plead guilty to state charges of procuring a person under 18 for prostitution and solicitation of prostitution. The wealthy financier was later arrested in 2019 on federal sex trafficking charges. His former girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell, was charged with helping him abuse teenage girls. Epstein was found dead in his cell at a jail in New York City about a month after he was arrested. Investigators concluded he killed himself. Maxwell later was convicted at trial and sentenced to 20 years in prison. The case attracted attention because of Epstein and Maxwell's links to famous people, including royals, presidents and billionaires. It also led to some of the biggest conspiracy theories animating Mr Trump's base.
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
DOJ told Trump that his name is among others in the Epstein files: report
Justice Department officials told President Donald Trump earlier this year that his name, among others, appeared in the Jeffrey Epstein documents, according to a report. Attorney General Pam Bondi informed the president in May that his name appeared in the documents, senior officials told the Wall Street Journal. His name was one of many high-profile figures in the files, the outlet reported. However, a mention in the file does not mean there was wrongdoing. One official told the outlet that hundreds of names are in the documents. 'This is another fake news story, just like the previous story by The Wall Street Journal,' White House communications director Steven Cheung told the paper. Last week, the Journal published a report claiming that Trump gave Epstein a 50th birthday card containing a sexually suggestive drawing and a message suggesting the men shared 'secrets.' The president vehemently denied the claims and even sued the paper and its owners for $10 billion. During the May meeting, Trump was told that DOJ officials didn't plan to release any more documents related to investigation because the material contained child pornography and victims' personal information, the outlet reported. The president then said he would defer to the Justice Department's decision against making any further disclosures. The revelation comes as the president tries to distance himself from the late financier and the fanfare surrounding the case. Attention around the case has bubbled up since the DOJ released a July 6 memo that said the department would make no further disclosures in the case. Even MAGA and prominent Republicans have since called for increased transparency around the handling of the case. The July 6 memo stung to some, including Trump's MAGA following, who had been anticipating more revelations in the case ever since Trump promised on the campaign trail to declassify the files. Earlier this year, Bondi said she had a 'truckload' of files to review from the FBI. In February, she even said the 'client list' of high-profile associates linked to the sex offender's trafficking scheme was sitting on her desk. That month, she also released 'Phase 1' of the files, a tranche of documents that included mostly publicly available information. Amid mounting public pressure, the president asked Bondi to make public any 'pertinent' grand jury transcripts. Bondi then asked the judges overseeing the cases of Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, the financier's former girlfriend who is now serving 20 years behind bars for her role in a scheme to abuse girls with Epstein. Experts have noted that releasing the transcripts would only account for a small portion of the files at play. On Wednesday, a federal judge in Florida rejected a request from the Trump administration to unseal the grand jury transcripts related to an investigation into Epstein in the state in the mid-2000s. Justice Department officials are planning to meet with Maxwell 'in the coming days,' Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche announced Tuesday. Later that day, the House Oversight Committee approved a subpoena for Maxwell. Trump said that the subpoena for Maxwell "sounds appropriate" during questions from reporters at the White House. Trump has been trying to keep an arm's length from the case, but his frustration has shown through. The president reportedly hung up on a reporter after 30-seconds on the phone Tuesday after he asked about unearthed archived photos showing Epstein attending the president's 1993 to Marla Maples. 'You've got to be kidding me,' Trump said before hanging up, CNN reported. Trump has also claimed the Epstein files were a 'hoax' cooked up by the Democrats. Last week, he went so far as to attack his 'past supporters' in a Truth Social post for buying into 'this 'bulls***,' hook, line and sinker.' He slammed: 'Let these weaklings continue forward and do the Democrats' work, don't even think about talking of our incredible and unprecedented success, because I don't want their support anymore!'
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
New bill introduced into Congress would allow TKO to create UFC structure in boxing
Dana White's biggest play in boxing yet is starting to take shape. UFC CEO White, who founded TKO Boxing alongside Saudi Arabian boxing financier Turki Alalshikh and WWE President Nick Khan, will promote the Sept. 13 battle of pound-for-pound greats between Saul "Canelo" Alvarez and Terence "Bud" Crawford — but a move perhaps more important for TKO in the long run was presented in the United States Congress on Wednesday. A new bipartisan bill, the Muhammad Ali American Boxing Revival Act, has been introduced by two members of Congress — Georgia Republication Brian Jack and Kansas Democrat (and former MMA fighter) Sharice Davids — to amend the Professional Boxing Safety Act. The bill would allow for the creation of alternative systems called Unified Boxing Organizations (UBOs). At the present time, boxing operates within a four-belt system whereby boxers work their way up through the rankings of the sport's four major sanctioning bodies — the WBA, WBC, WBO and IBF — until they can eventually fight for a world title with one of them. UBOs would not replace the current structure of boxing; it would instead create a separate, parallel system that runs alongside it, offering boxers the choice between the traditional sanctioning body model or the UBO model. UBOs would be allowed to run rankings systems, award UBO titles and organize events. In essence, promoters would be able to promote fights for titles and rankings, which they also control — a stark contrast to how the pugilistic art is currently run. The biggest benefactor of these changes is, without a doubt, TKO Boxing. With the bill's passing, TKO Boxing would be allowed to form a UBO of its own and operate a UFC-type "league" model within it. The sport of boxing has long been criticized for having too many belts, making it difficult for fans to be aware of who the best in the division is or what the universal rankings for those divisions actually look like. Furthermore, sanctioning bodies have a clear conflict of interest, as they charge a percentage fee for championship matches and therefore benefit from the most popular fighters being successful within their system, or from extra, unnecessary titles — such as regular, gold, and franchise titles — being created and used on a regular basis. UBOs, however, would not be allowed to charge boxers any fees for placement in the rankings or the right to participate in championship matches. Additionally, the bill sets to enact a national minimum payment for all professional boxers at $150 per round. While this appears insignificant, six states have minimums below $150, and most states have no minimum payments at all. This rule would help prevent up-and-coming fighters from being exploited, as it is common knowledge that fighters on club shows sometimes pay to fight or fight for no money. The legislation, if it passes, would also create a national minimum of $25,000 for coverage for injuries sustained during a fight, higher than current minimums in 43 states. UBO boxers would benefit from additional health and safety protections, including enhanced comprehensive medical exams, more licensed physicians and ambulance units present at each event, and health coverage for injuries sustained during training for a bout. UBOs would have comprehensive anti-doping testing programs and strict anti-betting policies. This legislation is endorsed by the Association of Boxing Commissions and Lonnie Ali, wife of the late boxing legend Muhammad Ali.