Exploring the high-stakes relationship between presidential decisions and scientific integrity in policy-making
I want to end the politics and follow the science. With those words, President Joe Biden vowed to fundamentally reshape the relationship between the Oval Office and the scientific community 5 . He was immediately criticized by then-President Donald Trump, who cast "listen[ing] to the scientists" as something only a fool would do, warning it would result in economic disaster 5 .
This stark contrast reveals a high-stakes relationship between presidential decisions and scientific processes that affects everything from pandemic responses to climate policy.
When different administrations implement dramatically different approaches to science, they essentially perform large-scale experiments on how evidence informs national policy.
This article explores what happens when the immense power of the presidency meets the rigorous, but fragile, world of scientific research.
Recent presidential actions have centered on defining and implementing what some call "Gold Standard Science." This isn't a specific scientific breakthrough, but rather a framework for how the federal government should produce and use scientific information. In 2025, this concept was formally defined through an executive order that outlined nine key principles, including reproducibility, transparency, communication of error and uncertainty, and structured falsifiability of hypotheses 1 .
These principles emerged as a direct response to what the current administration describes as a "crisis of confidence" in science.
A majority of researchers in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics now believe science is facing a significant reproducibility crisis 1 .
High-profile retractions of federally funded research due to data falsification further eroding public trust 1 .
| Administration | Stated Science Policy | Key Actions | Documented Outcomes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trump Administration | Prioritized economic interests and reducing regulatory burdens 5 | Suppressed, downplayed, or ignored scientific research demonstrating need for regulation; removed scientists from advisory committees 5 | 346 documented federal anti-science actions; 72% involved climate change information suppression; significant decline in EPA scientists feeling safe to express opinions 5 |
| Biden Administration | "Follow the science" with commitment to restore scientific integrity 5 | Implemented "Gold Standard Science" order requiring data transparency, acknowledgment of uncertainties, and weight-of-evidence approach 1 | Reversal of many Trump-era policies; new requirements for public data access and transparent modeling; ongoing efforts to rebuild scientific workforce 1 |
What happens when you dramatically change the composition of scientific advisory committees? A natural experiment occurred during the Trump administration, providing a case study in how personnel decisions can affect scientific oversight.
Researchers at Columbia Law School's Sabin Center for Climate Change Law and the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund documented this process through their Silencing Science Tracker, an online database recording government attempts to restrict scientific research, education, or discussion 5 .
In June 2019, President Trump issued an Executive Order directing each federal agency to eliminate at least one-third of its scientific advisory committees 5 .
At least nine advisory committees across the Department of Commerce, Department of Energy, DOI, and EPA were terminated 5 .
Remaining committees saw independent scientists replaced by industry representatives, some lacking appropriate expertise for their roles 5 .
Many advisory committees were unofficially suspended without formal termination 5 .
Documented Federal Anti-Science Actions
Involved Climate Change Information Suppression
| Agency | Committee Changes | Expertise Impact | Specific Consequences |
|---|---|---|---|
| Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) | Multiple committees terminated or suspended; membership overhaul 5 | New appointees lacked appropriate expertise; members warned they lacked necessary knowledge 5 | Inadequate review of particulate matter pollution controls; flawed regulations later struck down by courts 5 |
| Department of the Interior | Advisory committees terminated or suspended 5 | Loss of independent scientific oversight on environmental and resource issues | Reduced capacity for science-based policy on public lands and wildlife |
| Government-wide | Loss of hundreds of expert positions across multiple agencies 5 | Systematic replacement of academic scientists with industry representatives | Diminished external review of scientific bases for deregulatory actions |
Without robust expert review, regulations were more vulnerable to legal challenges. Many Trump administration deregulatory actions were subsequently struck down by courts because they weren't supported by available evidence 5 .
Disbanding committees like the Advisory Committee for the Sustained National Climate Assessment while it was actively working restricted both government and public access to crucial climate information 5 .
The widespread removal of scientific experts resulted in a significant depletion of institutional scientific capacity that takes years to rebuild.
Just as laboratories require specific tools and reagents to conduct experiments, the relationship between science and policy depends on specific institutional mechanisms.
| Policy Tool/Reagent | Function | Real-World Application |
|---|---|---|
| Scientific Integrity Policies | Protect government scientists from political interference and prevent manipulation of findings 1 | The 2025 executive order requires agencies to update scientific integrity policies within 60 days of guidance issuance 1 |
| Data Transparency Requirements | Ensure public access to data, models, and analyses behind influential scientific information 1 | Agencies must make data publicly available unless prohibited by law; cannot use FOIA exemptions to hide models without authorization 1 |
| Scientific Advisory Committees | Provide independent expert review of agency science and regulations 5 | Committees like EPA's particulate matter review panel offer critical oversight of environmental regulations |
| Weight of Scientific Evidence Approach | Systematically evaluate each piece of evidence based on quality and relevance before integration 1 | Requires consideration of study design, replicability, peer review, and data reliability in evaluations 1 |
| Scenario Transparency | Ensure realistic modeling by requiring disclosure of assumptions and likelihood of scenarios used 1 | Prevents overreliance on "worst-case scenarios" like the criticized use of RCP 8.5 climate model 1 |
The relationship between presidential leadership and scientific integrity remains one of America's most consequential ongoing experiments. The laboratory of democracy continues to test different approaches to incorporating evidence into policy, with each administration bringing its own hypothesis about the proper role of science in governance.
Recent efforts to institutionalize "Gold Standard Science" principles represent a potentially significant development, attempting to create safeguards that might endure beyond any single administration 1 . Yet the very implementation of these principles remains subject to the political pressures they seek to manage.
The scientific process itself—with its demands for transparency, skepticism, and course-correction—offers a model for how this relationship might evolve. What remains clear is that the outcomes of this ongoing experiment will profoundly affect not just the health of America's scientific enterprise, but the health and well-being of its people for generations to come.
This article is based on analysis of government documents, peer-reviewed research on science policy, and data from the Silencing Science Tracker. For those interested in exploring further, the Silencing Science Tracker provides continuously updated information on government actions affecting scientific research and communication.