Here Are All the Ways Trump Tried to Shut Down Science This Year

The war on science will have a lasting impact.

Asiseeit/Getty

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

There were a dizzying series of attacks on science in 2018. President Trump seemingly went out of his way to publicly question and misrepresent accepted science, using his signature all-caps tweeting to make his point:

But the Administration’s crusade to undermine science goes much deeper than late-night tweets calling climate change a hoax. Behind-the-scenes changes rolling back science-based policies and research, suppressing politically-charged topics, and cutting agency staffing and funding might not grab as many headlines, but they have lasting and consequential effects.

It’s not unusual for an administration to try to block science that gets in the way of policy goals, and the strategies used today are a continuation of tactics used under previous presidents, according to Jacob Carter, a researcher at the Union of Concerned Scientists who in September published an analysis in the Journal of Science Policy & Governance looking at attacks on science going back to the Eisenhower Administration. However, the frequency with which science is attacked today is unprecedented, Carter says.

Here are a just a few examples of the tactics used by the federal government to crack down on science over the last year. 

Suppressed Data and Speech

Federal agencies ramped up efforts to downplay and even censor unwelcome and politically contentious scientific research. According to an early 2018 survey of more than 60,000 scientific experts working for the federal government, for example, 50 percent of respondents said that political influence interfered with their ability to make science-based decisions. And nearly 20 percent of all survey respondents, including 47 percent of respondents from the National Park Service, reported being told to omit the phrase “climate change” from their work.

That trend continued through the year. In May, Reuters reported the Environmental Protection Agency had, under pressure from the chemical industry, blocked the release of a report detailing the cancer risk associated with the widely-used chemical formaldehyde. The following month, the Los Angeles Times revealed that the Trump Administration instructed United States Geological Survey scientists to obtain permission from leadership before accepting press interview requests.

Other suppression tactics were subtler, like the EPA’s proposed “secret science” rule, which would limit the kind of data used in decision-making to only that which is publicly available. The rule, which has been put on hold, was billed as a step towards greater transparency, but critics say it would prevent the use of important scientific research that relies on private information, like medical records to inform policies critical to human and environmental health.

Closures

As part of a total reorganization, the EPA in February confirmed the planned dissolution of the National Center for Environmental Research, which studies the effects of chemicals on children’s health, among other things. It also said it plans to shutter the Office of the Science Advisor, which leads “science policy development and implementation” for the agency. (House Democrats wrote to Acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler to protest the closure, saying it would “undermine scientific integrity, jeopardize bedrock public health and environmental standards, and endanger the EPA’s ability to fulfill its mission.”) In September, the EPA’s Office of Children’s Health was left off the agency’s organizational chart, and the Office’s director was put on administrative leave.

And it wasn’t just the EPA. In January, the DOI’s Park Service Advisory Board essentially disbanded, when three-quarters of the members quit because soon-to-be former Secretary Ryan Zinke hadn’t met with them for a year.

Funding Cuts

President Trump’s proposed 2019 budget, released in February, suggested drastic funding cuts to research for a number of agencies, including reducing the Department of Energy’s renewable energy and energy efficiency laboratory budgets by more than 75 percent in some cases. In July, the Department of Health and Human Services retired the National Guidelines Clearinghouse, a massive and vital database relied on by medical professionals for the last 20 years. HHS secretary Alex Azar also announced plans in September to reallocate tens of millions of dollars in research funding towards the Unaccompanied Alien Children program.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate