The Trump Executive Order That Could Kill American Science? Part II: Political Interference With Science in Trump’s Second Term

September 25, 2025

III: Political Interference in Science in Trump’s Second Term

Trump’s Executive Order specifies that political appointees to head government science agencies, chosen for their loyalty to Trump rather than their scientific knowledge, should be able to overrule recommendations made by the scientific community.  The statement is that all science coming from government agencies must “be aligned with the administration’s policies.”  This has the possibility to alter or suppress any research that challenges the administration’s policies. The situation is even more dire because Donald Trump is jaw-droppingly ignorant of science (remember his suggestion in April, 2020 that COVID could be attacked by inserting bleach into the body?  Or his statement that “If we stopped testing for COVID, there would be no pandemic”), but is also supremely confident that he understands science at a deep level (e.g., his claim at a Sept. 23, 2025 meeting of the UN General Assembly that “I have been right about everything”).  In addition, Trump is attempting to force his biases upon the American public, among them a visceral prejudice against wind farms. His own preferences are furthermore strongly influenced by rewarding the two industries that donate billions of dollars to his reelection campaign: Big Tech and Big Oil. Add to that his determination to undo virtually every project that was introduced by his predecessor Joe Biden, and his eagerness to profit personally from projects undertaken by American and global businesses — his advocacy of cryptocurrency is directly connected to profiteering by his family’s business projects in this area — and you have what could be a disaster scenario for American science. 

Promising science research could be sidelined while the pet projects of Donald Trump or Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. or the Republican party would be approved.   No wonder Adam Brown called the Trump policy manifesto The Executive Order That Could Cripple Science.   The headline from Brown’s August 2025 article in Medpage Today is shown in Fig. III.1. 

Figure III.1: The headline of Adam Brown’s August 12, 2025 article in Medpage Today that outlined the potential dangers of Donald Trump’s Executive Order “Improving Oversight of Federal Grantmaking.”

Science agencies did not wait for Trump’s Executive Order in order to begin political interference into the government’s research agenda.  We see the effects of politics interfering with science at all levels of the Trump administration.  To show the extent of political interference into scientific research and policy, we will review two agencies, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Health and Human Services. You just need to extrapolate the experience of these two agencies to realize the disastrous effect on American science if these actions spread across the entire spectrum of U.S. science agencies.   

III.I: The Environmental Protection Agency

The current administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is Lee Zeldin, who is shown in Figure III.I.1.  From 2015 to 2023, Zeldin was a Republican member of the House of Representatives, where he represented New York’s 1st Congressional District.  In 2014, Zeldin expressed reservations about the severity of global climate change.  This opened him up to charges that he was denying the scientific consensus on climate change.  In 2018, Zeldin announced his opposition to the Paris Agreement.  He based his opposition on the argument that major polluting countries were not being required to curb their emissions under the Paris Agreement.  However, during his confirmation hearings for EPA chief, Zeldin stated that climate change was a real issue and needed to be addressed.  Let’s see how Zeldin is abiding by those statements since being confirmed as the EPA administrator. 

Figure III.I.1: Lee Zeldin, the current administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

In March 2025, Zeldin held a press conference to present what he called “the largest deregulatory announcement in U.S. history.”  In that press conference, he said that the regulations that were being rolled back would “drive down cost of living for American families, unleash American energy, bring auto jobs back to the U.S. and more.”  This was a curious speech from the head of the EPA, since it did not discuss measures to clean up or protect the environment or to improve public health, but instead described the mission of the EPA entirely in terms of lowering the cost of living for Americans and bringing manufacturing jobs to the United States.  Zeldin’s description of the role of the EPA was exactly the opposite of how the EPA was described by William Ruckelshaus, a Republican who was the first EPA administrator.  Ruckelshaus said the agency has “no obligation to promote agriculture or commerce; only the critical obligation to protect and enhance the environment.”  Ruckelshaus further stated that the EPA focus would be on “research, as well as five areas of standards and enforcements: air and water pollution, pesticides, waste disposal and radiation.” 

Specifically, Zeldin stated that the EPA would “reconsider” regulations such as limits on emissions from gas, oil and coal-fired power plants that were linked to respiratory issues and premature deaths, along with the “good neighbor” provision from the Clean Air Act that required states to clean up emissions from their power plants when pollution wafted into neighboring states.  Zeldin also stated that the EPA would no longer consider the costs of storms, wildfires, droughts or other disasters that might be worsened by greenhouse gas pollution created by various industries.  Moreover, the EPA would cease regulations that would prioritize the health of communities that had predominantly poor and/or minority populations. 

Finally, Zeldin announced that the EPA would revisit the 2009 “Endangerment Finding” from the Obama administration.  The Endangerment Finding was the statement that “the EPA found that current and projected concentrations of six greenhouse gases threatened the public health and welfare of current and future generations.” The suite of Zeldin’s proposals would give free reign to polluting industries which could enhance their bottom lines at the expense of Americans’ health and welfare, and with disregard to dealing with the reality of natural processes.

The EPA recommendation to drop the Endangerment Finding came about in the following way.  In early 2025, Department of Energy head Chris Wright formed a remarkably unbalanced group composed of four climate-change skeptics and an economist.  That group was tasked to produce a critique of the consensus of climate change science.  One member of the group was physicist Steven Koonin, who authored the 2021 book Unsettled, which argued that climate change impacts were too uncertain to warrant any government actions to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions.  We have posted a blog criticizing Koonin’s arguments here.  Two other members were University of Alabama at Huntsville climate scientists John Christy and Roy Spencer.  Christy and Spencer were involved in early satellite measurements of climate parameters; we have critiqued Christy’s climate science denial efforts here. 

Another member of this committee was Judith Curry, a climatologist and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech.  Until about 2010, Curry was involved in measurements of climate change, and she participated in many review panels on climate change.  Curry then decided that the uncertainties in climate change were much larger than were revealed, and she now suggests that it may be pointless to attempt to reduce emissions.  The fifth member of Wright’s committee is Ross McKitrick, an economist from Guelph University in Canada.  McKittrick claims that the graphs of global temperature rise in the past 100 years were motivated by climate scientists deliberately skewing the data to get the result they wanted.  Perhaps McKittrick should look at the temperature graphs from Berkeley Earth.  That organization was founded in 2010 because lead scientists Richard and Elizabeth Muller were highly skeptical about the “hockey stick” graph showing temperatures rapidly rising.  They were also skeptical about climate models and the reliability of temperature measuring stations.  However, Berkeley Earth has now carried out exhaustive analyses that yield global temperature rise numbers that verify previous results from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 

Wright’s Climate Working Group produced a report issued on July 29, 2025.  It disagreed with the scientific consensus on climate change, a consensus based on research from thousands of scientists, in contrast to the five skeptics on Wright’s committee.  Based on that report (and with no citations other than those in the Climate Working Group report), the EPA proposed on August 1 rescinding their own 2009 Endangerment Finding, which stated that global warming was increasing primarily due to greenhouse gas emissions, that this was an existential issue involving our planet, and recommended curbing emissions from various sources.  The EPA invited public comment regarding their new recommendation. 

The DOE and EPA certainly received public comment on this issue.  A group of over 85 climate scientists led by Andrew Dessler of Texas A&M University, wrote a 439-page rebuttal of the DOE climate report.  Dessler stated that “The DOE Climate Working Group report was an absolute disaster from the get-go.  It ignored 99% of the scientific literature while employing selective data presentation and misrepresentation of scientific studies,” among many other flaws.  The Dressler rebuttal labeled the DOE climate report as “a mockery of science,” finding it “biased, full of errors, and not fit to inform policymaking.” The organization Concerned Scientists at Indiana University (CSIU) also wrote a detailed critique of the EPA proposal to rescind the Endangerment Finding.  That critique, authored by Steve Vigdor, appears on our blog site here.  That was one of  more than 340,000 comments submitted to the EPA, which has chosen to post for public access only 0.3% (1,050) of the comments as of Sept. 25. The CSIU comment is not one of the posted ones.

Regarding these announcements, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-Rhode Island) stated “Today is the day Trump’s Big Oil megadonors paid for.”  He was referring to Donald Trump’s solicitation of campaign funds from coal, oil and gas producers during the 2024 election campaign.  Trump promised that he would “take care of” the fossil fuel industries if they gave him the $1 billion in campaign funds that he had requested from them.  In any case, Zeldin’s announcement was a shocking abandonment of America’s commitment to protection of the environment and the health and welfare of Americans, which began in 1970 with the formation of the Environmental Protection Agency under Richard Nixon.  At that time the U.S. Senate voted 100-0 to establish the EPA. 

In addition to relying on the deeply flawed scientific arguments from the DOE report, the EPA proposal offers legal reasons why EPA does not have the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions (in particular, from motor vehicles and vehicle engines). As we explain in our post on the Endangerment Finding, the legal arguments are also deeply flawed. Perhaps the most critical flaw is that the EPA proposal simply ignores the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act, which remains the law of the land. In Title VI of that Act, the U.S. Congress explicitly defined greenhouse gases as air pollutants that jeopardize Americans’ health and welfare, thereby codifying the Endangerment Finding into law. Title VI furthermore explicitly delegated to the EPA the authority and responsibility to move the U.S. vehicle fleet toward zero-emission vehicles by setting standards for greenhouse gas emissions and disbursing appropriated funds to help states to meet those standards. The EPA proposal thus displays the Trump administration’s arrogance in ignoring not only the science it doesn’t like but also the laws it doesn’t like.

In addition to a recommendation that the EPA should rescind the 2009 Endangerment Finding, here are some of the policy changes promised by EPA administrator Lee Zeldin:

  • Removing restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions from power plants.  At present, existing coal-fired plants and new gas plants built in the US are required by the EPA to cut their greenhouse gas emissions by 90% by 2039.  Reducing emissions of CO2, as well as of small particulate matter, sulfur dioxide and nitrous oxide, has immediate effects on improving American health and lives.  The risk of premature death is immediately lowered, and fine particulate matter is linked to increased occurrence of heart attacks, strokes, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). 

In the long term, reducing power plant emissions lowers the rate of harmful co-pollutants that enter the atmosphere.  It lessens the health hazards associated with transportation and storage of fossil fuel waste like coal ash.  Robust emission controls will also accelerate the adoption of cleaner and more efficient energy sources.  As EPA administrator Zeldin has been chipping away at various protections mandated by versions of the Clean Air Acte. Here, we review some of the successes of those statutes.  One of the crazier things about Lee Zeldin’s attempt to eviscerate EPA regulations is that to date, they have been incredibly cost-effective.  Figure III.I.2 shows the benefits of the 1990 US Clean Air Act Amendments (dark blue squares) vs. the costs of those amendments, over the years 2000 – 2020.  The costs represent the cost of air pollution abatement to the economy, while the benefits mainly arise from the effect of air quality improvement on reduced mortality.  The data are from a study by Olivier Deschenes, an IZA – World of Labor researcher.  The benefits exceed the costs by roughly a factor of 30. 

Figure III.I.2: Benefits of the 1990 US Clean Air Act Amendments (dark blue squares) vs. costs (light blue diamonds) from 2000 – 2020.  The costs represent the costs of air pollution abatement, while the dominant contribution to the benefits is reduced mortality due to improvements in air quality.  The benefits are roughly 30 times the costs.

Younger readers of this blog may not remember the poor air quality in US cities in 1970, the year the EPA was founded.  The left side of Fig. III.I.3 shows smog in the city of Los Angeles in 1969.  At that time, a major factor in air pollution was from ozone created by emissions from vehicle tailpipes.  This was exacerbated by the fact that gasoline contained lead, which was removed from auto fuel in the early 1990s.  At that time, air quality in major cities was bad in many towns, but terrible in Los Angeles.  The right side of the figure shows the air quality in April 2020.  Although the air quality at this time was unusually good because it was the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic and vehicle traffic was greatly decreased, nevertheless the air quality in Los Angeles is now better than almost every other major US city.  The major reason for this improvement is due to several of the environmental measures enacted through the Clean Air Act. 

Figure III.I.3: Air quality in Los Angeles.  Left photo: 1969, before the Clean Air Act and other environmental measures.  Right photo: April 2020.  The air quality at that time was exceptionally good because it was the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, and many fewer cars than usual were on the road.  Nevertheless, after the pandemic air quality in LA is better than in almost every other major US city.

Acid rain is a term given to precipitation that contains acidic components such as sulfuric or nitric acid.  Major sources of acid rain are vehicle exhaust, factories and power plants.  Many power plants have very tall smokestacks; this reduces local effects of acid rain, but emissions from these smokestacks can travel over large distances and produce acid rain effects far from the source of pollution. In 1991 Canada and the U.S. signed an Air Quality Agreement to combat long-range air pollution.  Figure III.I.4 shows sulfur dioxide (SO2) concentrations in the Eastern US in 1989 – 91 and 2000 -2002.  It is apparent that the regulations on SO2 had a major effect on decreasing long-range transmission of acid rain.   Government and independent analyses have concluded that the benefits of the acid rain program far outweigh the costs, as detailed in the U.S. government’s National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program (NAPAP) 2011 Report to Congress (pdf).

Figure III.I.4: Concentrations of annual SO2 in the Eastern U.S. before (left) and after (right) the 1991 US – Canada Air Quality Agreement, that placed limits on sulfur dioxide emissions from power plants.  This pact produced radically lower SO2 concentrations in the rural US.

The Air Quality Agreement had notable beneficial effects on acidic particles in the environment.  In addition, this agreement had significant implications for human health.  There were reductions in respiratory illnesses and cardiovascular disease that led to improved life expectancy and reduced healthcare costs for both the US and Canada. 

  • Rolling back tailpipe pollution standards for cars and trucks.  These were designed to encourage the transition to electric or hybrid cars and trucks.  Reduced emissions of pollutants from cars and trucks leads to lower rates of respiratory disease and cardiovascular problems.  Reducing pollutants would increase the life expectancy for Americans.  The EPA and the American Lung Association estimate that a complete transition to non-polluting vehicles could save thousands of lives and cut health costs by trillions.  Air pollutants from vehicle exhaust are associated with neurological damage.  At high concentrations, CO2 interferes with the ability of the blood to carry oxygen to the brain.  Previously reducing lead in vehicle emissions had major effects in reducing neurological problems in children.  Figure III.I.5 shows volatile organic compounds (VOC) emitted by automobiles, in grams VOC per mile (blue line, right axis) against vehicle miles traveled in the US, (bar graphs, left axis) in trillions of miles.  The graph runs from 1970 to 2015, with estimates extrapolated up to 2030.  During this period, while annual vehicle miles traveled increased by a factor of more than 4, volatile organic compounds released per mile decreased by a factor of about 50.  This impressive reduction has dramatic positive effects on human health. 

Figure III.I.5: Bar graphs and left axis: annual vehicle miles traveled in the US, in trillions of vehicle miles, from 1970 to 2020, and extrapolated to 2030.  Solid blue curve and right axis: volatile organic compounds (VOC) released by autos, in grams per mile traveled.  During this period, miles traveled increases by a factor greater than 4, while VOC decreases by a factor of 50.  This shows the effect of Clean Air Act regulations on vehicle emissions. 

  • Rolling back limits on mercury emissions:  Methylmercury is a potent neurotoxin.  The greatest danger is that mercury gets into the food chain and becomes ingested by fish.  When a pregnant woman eats fish contaminated with methylmercury, the chemical can harm the brain of the fetus.  Mercury exposure for babies is linked to decreases in IQ and deficits in motor control skills.  For adults, exposure to methylmercury leads to a higher risk of heart attacks, impaired neurological function, and lower worker productivity.  Studies by Harvard and the (pre-Trump) EPA estimate that benefits from emission reductions in fossil fuel plants are worth billions of dollars annually.  Figure III.I.6 (top graph) estimates the wellness benefits arising from the Mercury and Air Toxics (MATS) Rule from 2010 extrapolated to 2050, in 2005 US dollars.  The red curve uses the MATS (US) standard for mercury releases, while the blue curve shows effects if the global (Minamata) mercury standards were used.  The bottom curve shows lifetime wellness benefits from mercury reduction using either the MATS (purple) or Minamata (green) mercury limits.  These cost-benefit analyses show that the benefits of strong emissions requirements from fossil-fuel plants far outweigh the costs of imposing these requirements.

Figure III.I.6: Wellness benefits of mercury reduction.  Top curve: benefits to the economy in billions of 2005 US dollars from 2005 extrapolated to 2050.  Red curve: benefits using the US MATS mercury limits; blue curve: benefits using the global (Minamata) mercury limits.  Bottom curve: lifetime wellness benefits in billions of 2005 US dollars.  The graphs show that the benefits greatly outweigh the costs of mercury reduction in emissions.

Finally, Figure III.I.7 shows the contributions to six pollutants from different sectors of the economy.  The six pollutants are sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers in diameter (PM2.5), carbon monoxide (CO), volatile organic compounds, and ammonia.  Dark blue shows contributions from combustion of various fuels, light blue shows contributions from industry, green shows contributions from the transport sector, yellow shows contributions from buildings, purple shows contributions from the fuel supply (extraction, storage and transport of fuels), and gray shows contributions from agriculture, solvents and waste.  For example, carbon monoxide in the atmosphere arises roughly 40% from buildings, 30% from transport, 20% from industry and 10% from the non-energy sector. 

Figure III.I.7 Contributions to six atmospheric pollutants (SO2, NOx PM2.5, CO, volatile organic compounds, and ammonia) from different sectors of the economy.  Dark blue:  contributions from combustion of various fuels; light blue: contributions from industry; green: contributions from the transport sector; yellow: contributions from buildings; purple: contributions from fuel supply; gray: contributions from agriculture, solvents and waste.

  • Proposal to Eliminate the EPA’s Office of Research and Development:    Lee Zeldin also announced plans to eliminate the scientific research arm of the EPA.  Well over 1,000 scientists would lose their jobs under this reduction in force.  Zeldin announced his intention to shrink the EPA budget by 65%.  The EPA’s current research office provides independent research that forms the basis for nearly all of that agency’s policies.  EPA spokesperson Molly Vaseliou claimed that “we are committed to enhancing our ability to deliver clean air, water and land for all Americans.” She also stated that the agency was committed to “increase efficiency and ensure the EPA is as up to date and effective as ever.”  Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-California), the top Democrat on the House Science Committee, stated correctly that “Every decision EPA makes must be in furtherance of protecting human health and the environment, and that just can’t happen if you gut EPA science.”  Lofgren also claimed that because the EPA was created by Congressional statute, dissolving it would be illegal. 

In summary, Zeldin’s proposals for the Environmental Protection Agency represent a giant step backwards for the protection of our environment, ignoring science to favor polluting industries.  Since its founding 55 years ago, the EPA has had an enviable record of accomplishments.  The Clean Air Act has led to enormous strides in cleaning our atmosphere.  Back in 1970, large American cities were plagued with terrible air quality – Fig. III.I.3 shows the situation in Los Angeles, but similar photos could be taken of many large US cities.  The country was riddled with sites of severe environmental contamination, subsequently designated as Superfund sites by a 1980 law, as can be seen from Fig. III.I.8, which shows the 11,989 different Superfund sites.  Since the founding of the EPA, many of those sites have been cleaned up.  The U.S. has also enforced limits on emissions of toxic products such as mercury and lead.  Cost-benefit analyses have shown that the health benefits achieved through these regulations vastly outweigh the costs of those regulations. 

Figure III.I.8  A map of the 11,989 Superfund sites in the U.S.  The various colors show the status of the sites, whether they are on the current National Priorities List (NPL), have been deleted from the NPL, or are not on the NPL.

But today, scores of these regulations are being abandoned.  The Trump administration argues that rolling back these regulations will mean a financial windfall for the average citizen.  However, what it really means is that Americans, particularly those with low or medium incomes, will experience greater health challenges, will be sicker, and their life expectancy may very well decrease. Trump’s administrators seem to hope that the huge costs of the health problems caused by their deregulation efforts will be a problem for future administrations. To make matters worse, the EPA now proposes to close its Office of Research and Development.  The research done by that office makes cost-benefit analyses to justify the regulations that they propose.  As Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren stated, one can’t protect human health and the environment “if you gut EPA science.”  Extrapolating from the EPA proposal to rescind the Endangerment Finding, we expect that the EPA proposals to abandon all these other protections will be based on similarly flawed and debunked science. Apparently, gutting EPA science is exactly what Lee Zeldin is attempting to accomplish. 

III.II: Health & Human Services Under Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. was confirmed as Secretary of Health & Human Services (HHS) on Feb. 13, 2025.  Before that, for many years he was founder and chairman of Children’s Health Defense, an organization that specialized in spreading unfounded claims about the (imagined) dangers of vaccination.  Since becoming Secretary of HHS, it seems that nearly every day RFK Jr. issues mis-statements or absolutely false claims about the health of Americans. We have covered this in several of our blog posts, most recently here, here, here and here.  We refer the reader to these posts for more detailed information on Kennedy’s many controversial actions since taking over as HHS Secretary.  Figure III.II.1 shows Kennedy at a Senate Finance Committee hearing on September 4, 2025.  At that meeting, Kennedy made a number of false statements regarding the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), its officers and CDC health policies. 

Figure III.II.1: HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. appeared before the Senate Finance Committee on Sept. 4, 2025.  At this hearing, RFK Jr. repeated a number of lies and misstatements regarding the CDC, its officers, and its health policies.

Secretary Kennedy was grilled by participants at a Senate Finance Committee hearing on Sept. 4, 2025.  At that time, and through his subsequent actions, RFK Jr. made it clear that he intends to demolish the scientific and medical expertise at Health and Human Services, and at the Centers for Disease Control, and replace brilliant, committed scientists with his anti-scientific cronies at Children’s Health Defense and other anti-vaccination organizations.  Here are a number of steps that Kennedy has taken, just since our most recent post about his lies, that will prevent these agencies from providing the expertise and research that have long characterized these gems of American science. 

  • Kennedy announced that he had fired Susan Monarez, who had been confirmed as CDC Director less than a month previously.  Monarez, who is shown in Fig. III.II.2, had served as acting Director of the CDC from January to March 2025; she was nominated by Donald Trump and confirmed by the US Senate.  She had previously served as Assistant Director for National Health Security and International Affairs in the Office of Science Technology and Policy.  RFK Jr., in his Senate hearing, claimed that he had fired Monarez because she admitted to him that she was “untrustworthy.”  Monarez herself appeared before the Senate Health Committee on Sept. 17, 2025.  She stated that she was fired for “holding the line on scientific integrity.”  She testified that RFK Jr. had demanded that she pre-approve vaccine recommendations from members of the vaccine advisory panel that Kennedy had recently packed with anti-vaccine advocates.  Monarez also testified that Kennedy had ordered her to fire senior staff without cause and that she had refused to do so. 

Figure III.II.2: Dr. Susan Monarez.  She was confirmed as CDC Director on July 29, 2025.  Less than a month later, Monarez was fired as CDC Director.  Monarez claimed that she was fired after refusing to pre-approve suggestions made by Kennedy’s hand-picked vaccine advisory panel and refusing to fire several senior CDC staff without cause.

  • At the same time that Dr. Monarez was fired, three top officials at the CDC resigned.  They expressed frustration over the politicization of science issues under RFK Jr.’s leadership at HHS, and they cited specific HHS policies as causing them to leave their positions.  Debra Houry was the Chief Medical Officer at CDC, Demetre Daskalakis was the Director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, and Daniel Jernigan was Director of the National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases.  Obviously, losing these three top officials plus Director Monarez leaves the CDC with a tremendous shortage of medical expertise and administrative skills. 

Now that Monarez has been pushed out and three of her top administrators have resigned in protest, the new top leadership at the CDC is stunningly weak in expertise in science and research in human health and disease control. The high-ranking CDC officials are not being replaced with top medical experts, but with cronies of Kennedy, many of whom are vaccine skeptics or conspiracy theorists. Here are some examples of people now holding high positions at CDC. 

  • The Trump administration has named Jim O’Neill as acting director of the CDC.  O’Neill was a speechwriter for HHS under George W. Bush, and he also worked with Peter Thiel as a biotech investor in Silicon Valley.  He is the first Director or Acting Director of CDC without a background in either medicine or science.  Figure III.II.3 shows the New York Times headline announcing O’Neill’s appointment.  Wendy Armstrong, MD, vice president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, said “It’s a significant departure from the norm.  The fact that the entire leadership now lacks expertise in public health and in science is an enormous problem.”   And Lauren Smith of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, commented on “What seems to be a philosophical and ideological stance that knowledge in these particular subject areas isn’t necessary to make good decisions.  I’m just stunned that we are expected to tolerate that.”  

Figure III.II.3: Headline of New York Times article announcing the appointment of Jim O’Neill as acting Director of the CDC.  O’Neill is the first person to lead the CDC who does not have either a medical degree or scientific training.

  • Matthew Buzzelli is the chief of staff at CDC.  He was previously a Justice Department lawyer and has also held positions in private equity and with the founder of Interstate Batteries.  Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, said that “Having someone who has a law degree is great, but if they don’t know public health, they don’t have a lot of usefulness.  They’re going to make mistakes.”   
  • David Geier is a senior data analyst.  He and his father Mark Geier published a series of papers claiming to find a link between vaccines and autism.  His research was contradicted by scores of massive studies that showed no such connection.  A research project the Geiers conducted relied on a “sham” Institutional Review Board (members of their family were listed as IRB members); scientists who have reviewed the Geiers’ papers have deemed the work useless.  The Geiers also ran a business where they “treated” autistic children with dangerous medications, and David Geier, who does not have a medical degree, was disciplined by a Maryland medical board for practicing medicine without a license.  Despite Geier’s dismal record, Kennedy appointed him to head a team to re-visit the issue of whether vaccines cause autism.  This has alarmed legitimate scientists who fear that Geier will almost certainly announce some bogus “link” between vaccines and autism. 
  • Lyn Redwood is a registered nurse who was the former president of Children’s Health Defense.  That organization, founded by RFK Jr., is famous for spreading misinformation about vaccines.  Ms. Redwood addressed the June meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), now reconstituted after RFK Jr. fired all 17 members of that committee because of his false claim that nearly all those members had severe conflicts of interest.  Kennedy replaced the committee with 7 new members, several of whom had participated in anti-vaccination efforts or had served as an expert witness alleging injuries from vaccines in jury trials. (He recently added five new members, again including vaccine skeptics.)  Redwood claimed that thimerosal, a preservative that once appeared in some vaccines, caused neurodevelopmental harm associated with autism.  Despite the fact that almost no vaccines in the US now include thimerosal, and that robust clinical studies had debunked her assertion, the new ACIP committee voted 5-1 with one abstention to recommend that Americans get only thimerosal-free flu vaccines.  Figure III.II.4 shows the book Thimerosal: Let the Science Speak.  This book, edited by RFK Jr., makes a number of claims regarding the harm allegedly caused by thimerosal in vaccines.  However, the book fails to cite any of the many studies showing that thimerosal in vaccines is not associated with any harm. 

Figure III.II.4: The book Thimerosal: Let the Science Speak, edited by RFK Jr.  The book makes a number of claims about harm from vaccines containing thimerosal, but does not cite the many robust studies that show no such harm.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) chose not to send a liaison to either of  ACIP meetings held to date, contrary to their current practice.  AAP liaison Dr. Sean O’Leary called Redwood’s talk “A highly biased presentation full of cherry-picked data and junk science.  The vast majority of it wasn’t actually relevant to thimerosal in vaccines.”  O’Leary stated that “This meeting showcased an ACIP that has drifted so far from its long-standing focus on science, evidence and public health.  When that focus returns, we will, too.”   And oh, by the way, a key reference that Redwood said confirmed her thimerosal-autism claims turned out not to exist – apparently she had used AI to generate references for her talk and this one was non-existent. 

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is currently producing chaos at HHS and the CDC.  There is now substantial confusion as to who can obtain COVID booster vaccines.  Although Kennedy insisted at his Senate hearing that “Anyone can get the booster,” his statement was misleading and premature.  Under current guidance (subject to change), healthy people over 65 years may need a doctor’s prescription to get the booster.  And even if they are successful in obtaining a prescription (roughly one third of Americans don’t have a primary care provider), they may still need to pay out of pocket for the shot.  The situation is sufficiently chaotic that this September, a trio of Western states has banded together to create their own vaccine recommendations.  They cited the chaos at the CDC, and the politicization of the ACIP, as reasons for developing their own immunization guidelines.  Figure III.II.5 shows the headline of a Sept. 6, 2025 PBS story noting that the states of California, Oregon and Washington have joined together to make their own vaccine recommendations.  This arose because various agencies under the direction of HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. had changed existing vaccine policies, or Kennedy had made controversial false statements regarding the oversight of agencies such as CDC and FDA.  He also accused agency scientists of being complicit in a conspiracy with major pharmaceutical firms to issue false statements downplaying the dangers of vaccines. 

Figure III.II.5: Headline of PBS story on Sept. 6, 2025, announcing that the states of California, Oregon and Washington had formed a consortium that would make their own vaccine recommendations.  This group was formed after various agencies in HHS had changed their vaccine recommendations or had released confusing statements regarding the efficacy of vaccines.

In a shocking result in early September 2025, Florida surgeon general Joseph Ladapo announced that the state would remove or repeal all requirements for any vaccine, including those for childhood diseases such as measles, mumps and rubella, which at the present time are written into Florida state law.  Figure III.II.6 shows the headline of a New York Times story announcing Ladapo’s statement; and Figure III.II.7 shows a photo of Dr. Ladapo at that press conference.  Dr. Ladapo became a public figure during the COVID-19 pandemic.  During that period, he made a number of false or misleading statements about the efficacy of the COVID vaccines, and he extended that to criticisms of vaccines in general. 

Figure III.II.6: Headline of New York Times story reporting on the press conference where Florida surgeon general Joseph Ladapo announced that the state would remove all requirements for any vaccine, including the childhood vaccines for measles, mumps and rubella.

Figure III.II.7: Florida surgeon general Joseph Ladapo at a press conference where he announced that the state would repeal any requirements for any vaccines.  Florida governor Ron DeSantis is shown to the right of Dr. Ladapo. 

At his September 2025 press conference, Ladapo stated that vaccine requirements were tantamount to “slavery,” as they denied bodily autonomy to individuals.  When asked by CNN reporters what would be the effect on public health of cancelling vaccine requirements, Ladapo stated that he didn’t need any data analysis to advocate for this change.  Of course, an impact statement would undoubtedly reveal that such a move would ensure outbreaks of deadly childhood diseases that had been essentially eliminated from America because widespread vaccination of children had achieved herd immunity levels for those diseases. Requiring children to be vaccinated is a public safety measure like requiring vehicle drivers to be tested and licensed. Neither is remotely close to slavery and Ladapo violates his Hippocratic Oath by suggesting so.

Figure III.II.8 shows the number of measles deaths (A) and cases of measles (B) in the U.S. from 1960 until 2019.  The measles vaccine was released in 1963; immediately after that, deaths and cases from measles dropped sharply.  The inset in figure (A) shows a spike in measles deaths during the period 1989 – 1991.  In 1993 it was recommended that children have two doses of measles vaccine rather than one.  Once again, the number of measles dropped rapidly, and in 2000 it was declared that the U.S. was free of endemic cases of measles.  There had been no deaths from measles from 2014 to 2025.  Unfortunately, a rash of outbreaks across the country, especially in the West Texas region where vaccination rates were unusually low, has caused 3 measles deaths this year to date. 

Figure III.II.8: Measles deaths (A) and cases (B) in the U.S. between 1900 and 2019.  The measles vaccine was introduced in 1963.  Immediately after that, measles deaths in the U.S. dropped sharply.  The inset in (A) shows a spike in measles deaths during the period 1989 – 1991.  In 1993, it was recommended that children have two measles vaccine doses; immediately after that, measles deaths dropped to zero.  In 2000, it was announced that the U.S. was free of endemic measles cases.   

Kennedy has also cancelled $500 million in grants and contracts towards research in messenger RNA (mRNA) techniques to produce new vaccines.   Figure III.II.9 shows a headline from a Bloomberg article describing Kennedy’s announcement of the cancellation of these grants.  He claimed that the mRNA techniques were unproven, despite the fact that billions of people worldwide have received the COVID mRNA vaccines.  The 17 experts who were fired from the ACIP committee stated that RFK and the new ACIP panel had abandoned rigorous scientific review and open deliberation in favor of hypotheses that had been debunked or had no confirming data.  These experts recommended forming a new vaccine committee, independent of the federal government.  They advocated that “The alternatives must focus on limiting the damage to vaccination policy in the United States.”  It should be noted that the U.S. is the only country where there is widespread concern about the safety of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.  In virtually all other countries, these mRNA techniques are seen as a medical miracle that may well have applications in other areas such as cancer treatment, autoimmune disorders, genetic diseases and cardiovascular issues. 

Figure III.II.9: Bloomberg headline describing the negative effects of the cancellation of $500 million in research contracts for mRNA vaccines.

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, the current Director of the National Institutes of Health, attempted in an op-ed to justify Kennedy’s termination of mRNA grants by arguing that the vaccines had “failed to earn the public’s trust.” The argument is not only wrong on the facts but it also suggests that public polling should determine which cutting-edge research to fund, a recipe for gutting America’s legacy of scientific innovation driving economic growth.

Another issue that will almost certainly have disastrous consequences for the health of Americans and around the globe is HIV/AIDS.  Since the early 1980s when HIV was first recognized by health authorities, this virus spread widely in the U.S. and around the world.  In the U.S., the HIV virus was imported from Africa or Haiti.  Initially in the US, HIV was primarily associated with gay men and was often transmitted through sexual contact.  Another source of HIV infection was through needles shared by drug users.  In a great many cases, HIV progressed to AIDS which was generally fatal.  Because of the long latency period (generally a decade or longer) before HIV progressed to AIDS, there was a substantial period of time while researchers argued whether HIV caused AIDS. 

First, populations of intravenous drug users and sexually active gay men did not always have access to medical practitioners; second, it took quite a while for scientists to understand the relationship of HIV to AIDS; and third, the Reagan administration took the position that the “gay plague” was a result of immorality and did not require any government intervention.  Ronald Reagan never mentioned AIDS until 1985, four years after the first cases were reported, and he never made a major speech on this disease until 1987 when 40,000 Americans had already died of AIDS.  Inaction by the Reagan administration may also have been part of a political strategy to appease fundamentalist religious groups who believed that AIDS was a response by God to punish homosexuals for their behavior. 

As time progressed, scientists isolated the HIV virus and can now show without a doubt that HIV causes AIDS.  While there is not yet a vaccine against HIV, scientists have developed antiretroviral cocktails that slow the course of the disease.  One of the most recent antiretroviral treatments is called Highly Active Anti-Retroviral Treatment or HAART.  This is a combination of different medications taken by people with HIV.  Figure III.II.10 shows the results after HAART was introduced in 1995 (vertical line in that figure).  The red line and right axis show the number of Americans living with HIV infection, while the blue line and left axis show deaths from AIDS.  Immediately after 1995, AIDS deaths plummeted, while the number of people living with HIV dramatically increased. 

Figure III.II.10: The effects of treatment of HIV with Highly Active Anti-Retroviral Treatment (HAART).  Red curve and right axis: number of people living with HIV (in thousands) as a function of time; blue curve and left axis: number of deaths from AIDS.  The vertical line occurs at 1995, the year that HAART was introduced.  Obviously, HAART has a dramatic positive effect: the number of AIDS deaths plummeted after it was released, while the number of people living with HIV has steadily increased.

The antiretroviral cocktails have proved to be something of a medical miracle.  People with HIV who take the medications are able to drive their HIV strength down to a level where it is undetectable.  Although the people still have HIV, it never develops to AIDS, they are unable to transmit HIV to another person (also, mothers with HIV almost never pass the virus to their children), and they are able to live relatively normal lives.  HAART has saved the lives of millions of people around the globe. 

There are currently two different treatment options available to people at risk of HIV infection. Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis or PrEP is for people who are HIV-negative but at high risk of exposure to HIV.  It is recommended for people who have unprotected sex with multiple partners, drug users who share needles with others, or who have an HIV-positive partner.  The medication should be taken as long as people are at risk of getting HIV.  People on this regimen should get an HIV test 4-6 weeks after completing the medication course and should be tested for HIV every 3-6 months. 

Post-Exposure Prophylaxis, or PEP, is an emergency medication for people who have just been potentially exposed to HIV.  It should be started within 72 hours of an event such as sharing of needles, condom failure or sexual assault.  A combination of two or three antiretroviral drugs is taken over a 28-day period.  PEP is for emergency use only; people who are regularly at risk of exposure to HIV should take a course of PrEP medication.  Both of these regimens have proved highly effective.  However, NIH grants for research into areas that affect the LGBTQ community have been slashed by the Trump administration.  In the first few months of 2025, the NIH had canceled 669 grants and nearly 50% of those were in areas of research that was related to LGBTQ people.  These grants were earmarked for over $800 million in funding.  Figure III.II.11 discusses criticism from House Oversight Committee Democrats over Kennedy’s elimination of HIV programs that save nearly a million American lives. 

Figure III.II.11: Press release from Democrats on the House Oversight Committee, demanding answers from HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. regarding his elimination of HIV programs that are currently saving the lives of nearly a million Americans.

Many scientists receiving grant termination letters were told that their work “no longer effectuates agency priorities;” others were told that their research was based on “radical gender ideology” that gave rise to “unscientific” results.  Like so many other Trump administration policies, these actions come straight out of Project 2025.  Among many other topics, that Heritage Foundation document calls for the term “sexual orientation” to be removed from “every federal rule, agency regulation, contract, grant, regulation, and piece of legislation that exists.”  Project 2025 recommends removing the Affordable Care Act’s protections against sex discrimination.  Then they would remove discrimination protections for LGBTQ citizens.  Finally, they label any research or treatment specifically aimed at health issues for this group as “radical gender ideology.” 

In June 2025, a federal judge in Boston ordered approximately 900 NIH grants to be restored, on the grounds that the terminations “represent racial discrimination, and discrimination against America’s LGBTQ community.”   However, the Department of Justice has appealed the decision, and some researchers whose grants were restored were told they were owed “zero,” on the grounds that the fiscal year had ended on June 30, and their budgets had disappeared.  Other scientists receiving funds had to sign statements that their work complied with “Presidential Order 14168, Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.” 

In September 2025, the House of Representatives is considering funding bills for the coming fiscal year.  A number of Republican-sponsored appropriation bills zeroed out all funding for research into areas of interest for the LGBTQ community.  The Trump administration moves are designed to satisfy the Christian Nationalist wing of the MAGA movement.  However, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. is also hostile to research or treatment for people with HIV or at risk for AIDS, for very different reasons.  In his 2021 book, The Real Anthony Fauci, RFK Jr. spends over 100 pages disseminating falsehoods about HIV and AIDS.  Kennedy criticizes the “theology that HIV is the sole cause of AIDS.”  Well, this is not theology, it is established science.  But a very disturbing aspect of Kennedy’s statements is his attitude regarding the HIV/AIDS retroviral cocktails.  As is shown in Figure III.II.10, these medications now allow millions of people with HIV to live relatively normal lives. 

Although the antiretroviral cocktails do not “cure” HIV, they prevent it from developing into AIDS.  Furthermore, they can drive the levels of HIV so low that they are undetectable.  At that level, they cannot transmit HIV to others, and women with HIV will almost never transmit it to their children (less than 1% of the time).  If taken as directed, the meds also always guarantee that HIV does not develop into AIDS.  One of the chemicals used in antiretroviral therapy (ART) has been Zidovudine or AZT.  At high doses, AZT is toxic, but at very low doses it functions as a nucleoside reverse transcription inhibitor, halting the ability of HIV to replicate.  But since RFK Jr. does not understand that substances that are toxic in high doses can be helpful in very small doses, Kennedy insists that AZT is a deadly toxin.  In The Real Anthony Fauci, Kennedy has a section titled “Is AZT Mass Murder?”  As HHS Secretary, it is quite possible that RFK Jr. will cancel research on HIV/AIDS medications, and he may even attempt to stop distribution of current ART medications.  If this happens, it could imperil the health of the 800,000 Americans who are now on antiretroviral therapy for HIV.  This is yet another reason why Kennedy’s “Make America Healthy Again” initiative is likely to be disastrous for millions of Americans. 

Unfortunately, it is now clear that RFK Jr.’s plan is to smash HHS and CDC.  He intends to remove experts who rely on evidence-driven science, and to replace them with amateurs like Lyn Redwood or charlatans like David Geier.  His method is to fire people at the top, trigger resignations from the best scientists in agencies like HHS, CDC and FDA, until he is left with either a staff that believes in his debunked conspiracy theories, or that fears reprisals if they oppose his crackpot notions. 

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. at HHS has many characteristics in common with Trofim Lysenko’s reign of terror in Russian biology.  To be sure, dissenting American researchers are not at present being jailed or executed, as they were in Stalinist Russia.  Nevertheless, we see many similarities in the two cases.  Like Lysenko, Kennedy has many beliefs about science that have been thoroughly debunked.  RFK Jr. maintains, with little evidence, that vaccines kill more people than they cure.  He even states some disagreement with the germ theory of disease.  Kennedy publicizes “research” that appears to agree with his prejudices – this includes research that was retracted, or shown to be unreliable or even fraudulent, by researchers who have been sanctioned for shoddy research techniques, or who espouse wild conspiracy theories.  At the same time, he refuses to acknowledge robust clinical trials with thousands of times the number of participants of the studies he cites. 

Another similarity between the present administration and Stalinist Russia is that both autocratic leaders (Joseph Stalin in Russia and Donald Trump in the U.S.) were ignorant of science but were convinced that they were highly intelligent.  Lysenko would never have gained control of Russian agriculture without strong support from Stalin; likewise, by now it is evident that RFK Jr.’s policies will be disastrous for the health of Americans.  However, as long as Kennedy has the support of Trump, Republican legislators such as physician senator Bill Cassidy are afraid to attempt to remove him as HHS secretary. 

Kennedy subscribes to a massive conspiracy theory where virtually all vaccine experts have been bought off by Big Pharma, and where US science agencies like HHS and CDC are engaged in a conspiracy to prevent Americans from learning of the harms of vaccines.  RFK Jr. extends his conspiracy theory to HIV/AIDS research and treatment.  Over the past 30 years, scientists have developed antiretroviral therapies against HIV that have proved exceptionally beneficial.  The idea that one would abandon these exceptionally effective therapies boggles the mind. But Kennedy follows the playbook of conspiracy true believers: anyone who provides solid evidence debunking his crackpot ideas is immediately labeled as part of the Big Pharma conspiracy.

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and his supporters have adopted a slogan to “Make America Healthy Again.”  This implies that Americans have shifted from a society where its citizens were healthy, to the present era where U.S. citizens are riddled with disease. So when was America previously healthy?  Since RFK Jr. maintains that medications often kill more people than they save, presumably we need to go back to days before antibiotics were introduced.  Let’s go back a century to 1925 as a time when Americans were “healthy.”  We can look at the statistics to compare public health in the U.S. in 1925 vs. that in 2024. Here are various health statistics for 1925: Life expectancy was a little over 58 years; infant mortality was 70 deaths for every 1,000 births; maternal mortality was 643 deaths per 100,000 live births. If we compare this with statistics for 2024, life expectancy was 78.4 years; infant mortality was 5.5 deaths for every 1,000 births; maternal mortality was 19 deaths per 100,000 live births (still much higher than in most other advanced countries).  So, in what sense were Americans “healthy” in 1925? 

One thing appears certain: if Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. remains head of Health and Human Services in this country, we are rapidly moving towards a society where infectious childhood diseases such as measles, mumps, rubella, chickenpox, whooping cough and polio may well see a resurgence.  Every U.S. death from these diseases is preventable, provided that Americans maintain high levels of vaccination.  If the U.S. refuses to continue research on applications of mRNA techniques in fighting disease, we will most likely see amazing new products using mRNA methods being developed in China and Europe.  U.S. research into products to fight HIV infection is likely to be halted, through a combination of prejudice from Trump and Republican congresspersons, and from RFK Jr.’s false assertions that antiretroviral therapies for HIV kill more people than they help.  In a truly ironic turn of events, Kennedy’s “Make America Healthy Again” campaign would almost certainly do great harm to the health of Americans.   

Finally, on Sept. 22, 2025 we got a clear indication of what will replace rigorous science in the Trump Administration. Trump, with backing from RFK, Jr., announced a link between the occurrence of autism and the use of Tylenol (acetominaphen) during pregnancy. The most robust epidemiological studies into such linkage, involving 2.5 million children, find no credible evidence that the link exists. But that doesn’t affect Trump or Kennedy. How does Trump know that this is the case? Because “I always had very strong feelings about autism…[which is] among the most alarming public health developments in history.” For the record, much of the rise in reported autism cases this century has been fueled by changes in diagnostic criteria and practices. But Trump’s statement makes it clear what takes over when governments suppress science: the “feelings” of the autocrat.

IV: Summary

It is clear that Donald Trump’s August 7, 2025 Executive Order titled “Improving Oversight of Federal Grantmaking” will have disastrous consequences for U.S. science research.  The stated purpose of the Executive Order was to “improve the process of Federal grantmaking while ending offensive waste of tax dollars.”  However, the order sets up a system where political appointees at the top of government science agencies have the power to review and reject proposed grants and awards from those agencies.  In the second Trump administration, the heads of these agencies are politicians whose main quality is loyalty to the President and who have little first-hand understanding of science.  If allowed to stand, this Executive Order will have catastrophic effects on U.S. scientific research.  The order potentially nullifies the principle of peer review of research proposals.  It paves the way for entire fields of research to be shut down because of Donald Trump’s prejudices, or for areas to be funded based on political deals. 

Another likely result of this Executive Order is for federal research dollars to be funneled towards areas that would personally benefit Donald Trump and his family enterprises.  The most recent example of such self-dealing is a deal between the cryptocurrency firm World Liberty Financial founded by Donald Trump’s family and a technology investment firm, MGX, backed by the United Arab Emirates (UAE).  This cryptocurrency deal, which enriched both the Trump and Witkoff families, occurred just two weeks before the Trump administration approved the sale of hundreds of thousands of artificial intelligence chips to the UAE. 

We are already seeing the results of political interference in scientific agencies.  In this post we studied the examples of the Environmental Protection Agency and Health and Human Services.  Current EPA administrator Lee Zeldin recently announced that the goals of the EPA would be to “drive down cost of living for American families, unleash American energy, bring auto jobs back to the U.S. and more.”  Zeldin did not mention as EPA priorities to clean up or protect the environment or to improve public health, which had been precisely the goals of the EPA since its bipartisan founding in 1970.  The EPA has also attempted to cancel thousands of grants studying global climate change.  The fate of these grants is uncertain because of legal challenges to these actions. Zeldin has also attempted to close down the EPA’s Office of Research and Development.  Most recently, he is attempting to rescind the 2009 Endangerment Finding, which stated that increased greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, arising from human emissions, were a source of endangerment to Americans’ health and welfare.   

A second office that we reviewed was Health and Human Services, whose current Secretary is Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.  Although Kennedy insists that he is not anti-vaccine, that statement is false.  Since his appointment was confirmed by the U.S. Senate, Kennedy has gone to tremendous lengths to sow confusion about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines.  He fired all members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices and replaced them with people who have far less expertise about vaccines, with many new appointees being known as anti-vaccine agitators.  In his recent actions, Kennedy has now made it clear that he intends a major purge of expert scientists in agencies such as NIH and CDC.  He recently fired Dr. Susan Monarez less than a month after her Senate confirmation as head of the Centers for Disease Control.  Monarez has testified that she was fired after she refused to pre-approve vaccine recommendations from RFK Jr.’s new ACIP panel packed with anti-vaxxers.  She also refused to fire senior CDC staffers without cause. 

Recent political interference in science at the EPA and CDC is shocking.  However, one needs to envision entirely similar results at other science agencies, such as the National Air and Space Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency, Department of Agriculture, Department of Energy, National Science Foundation, and any other agency that sponsors scientific research.  The probable result is that America will rapidly lose its reputation for sponsoring the best scientific research on the planet.  Already, other countries are making offers to distinguished scientists who are losing their funding or have been fired from their jobs.  It is also possible that young scientists who are unable to find jobs in the U.S. will emigrate to areas such as China or Europe where their scientific expertise is valued.  After RFK Jr. has cancelled $500 million in research on messenger RNA (mRNA) techniques, other countries will surely mount research on applications of mRNA to produce new vaccines and also to combat cancer, coronary diseases, and autoimmune conditions. A couple of years ago, such outcomes would have been impossible to imagine.  But the speed of firings and cancellation of research in the U.S. government has been both breathtaking and tragic. 

Like the disastrous consequences of political interference in science that we detailed in Part I for Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia, it will likely take decades to reverse the damage that the Trump administration is inflicting on American science.  In fact, it may not be possible to undo the destruction that has already been accomplished.  Over the past 80 years, the accomplishments of American scientists have not only extended the boundaries of science, but these breakthroughs have opened up entirely new fields of industry.  The discovery of the transistor, lasers, and nano-materials have revolutionized American manufacturing.  Similarly, discoveries in medicine and genetics allow us to conquer diseases that would previously have been fatal.  The current administration has failed to absorb the historical lessons of the results of political interference on science.  Americans are now seeing the consequences of imposing political ideology on the scientific enterprise. It is not only scientists but also the American public who will suffer the consequences.

Source Material for Parts I and II:

White House Executive Order Aug. 7, 2025, “Improving Oversight of Federal Grantmaking,” https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/08/improving-oversight-of-federal-grantmaking/

Project 2025: Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, The Heritage Foundation, Aug. 2024 https://static.heritage.org/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf

Wikipedia, Vannevar Bush https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vannevar_Bush

Wikipedia, Manifesto of the Ninety-Three  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifesto_of_the_Ninety-Three

Wikipedia Allies of World War I  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allies_of_World_War_I

Wikipedia Rape of Belgium https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_Belgium

Wikipedia Treaty of Versailles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Versailles

Wikipedia Deutsche Physik https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsche_Physik

Wikipedia Nuremberg Laws  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Laws

Report, The Emergency Committee in Aid of Displaced German Scholars, 1936 https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Emergency_Committee_in_Aid_of_Displa/iD19PQAACAAJ?hl=en

Wikipedia Einstein-Szilard Letter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%E2%80%93Szilard_letter

Laura Fermi, Illustrious Immigrants: The Intellectual Migration From Europe, 1930 – 1941, University of Chicago Press, 1968  https://ia902305.us.archive.org/27/items/in.ernet.dli.2015.63845/2015.63845.Illustrious-Immigrants-Theintellectual-Migration-From-Europe-1930-41_text.pdf

William Broad, Saboteur or Savant of Nazi Drive for A-Bomb?  New York Times, Sept. 1, 1992  https://www.nytimes.com/1992/09/01/science/saboteur-or-savant-of-nazi-drive-for-a-bomb.html

Debunking Denial America’s Transition From Scientific Brain Gain to Brain Drain, https://debunkingdenial.com/portfolio/americas-transition-from-scientific-brain-gain-to-brain-drain/

Wikipedia Gregor Mendel  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel

Wikipedia Lamarckism  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism

Wikipedia August Weissmann https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_Weismann

Wikipedia Ivan Pavlov  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Pavlov

Wikipedia Ivan Michurin (biologist)  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Michurin_(biologist)

Wikipedia Nikolai Vavilov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Vavilov

Wikipedia Great Plan for the Transformation of Nature  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Plan_for_the_Transformation_of_Nature

Wikipedia Trofim Lysenko  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofim_Lysenko

Meredith McCraw and Sam Stein, It’s Been One Year Since Trump Suggested Ingesting Bleach.  We’ve Never Been the Same, Politico, April 23, 2021  https://www.politico.com/news/2021/04/23/trump-bleach-one-year-484399

Quint Forgey, ‘I Don’t Kid:’ Trump Says He Wasn’t Joking About Slowing Coronavirus Testing, Politico June 23, 2020  https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/23/trump-joking-slowing-coronavirus-testing-335459

Ella Nilsen, Trump Admin Sued by Developers and Two States Since Stopping Work on Nearly Complete Offshore Wind Farm Project, CNN Climate, Sept. 4, 2025  https://www.cnn.com/2025/09/04/climate/trump-lawsuit-revolution-offshore-wind

Aimee Picchi, New Crypto Token Boosts Trump’s Wealth by $5 Billion, CBS News, Sept. 2, 2025  https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-wlfi-world-liberty-financial-crypto-wealth/

Adam Brown, The Executive Order That Could Cripple Science, MedPage Today Aug. 12, 2025  https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/prescriptionsforabrokensystem/116961

Wikipedia Lee Zeldin  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Zeldin

Wikipedia Paris Agreement  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement

Wikipedia William Ruckelshaus  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Ruckelshaus

Wikipedia Clean Air Act (United States)  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Air_Act_(United_States)

US EPA  Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202 (a) of the Clean Air Act, https://www.epa.gov/climate-change/endangerment-and-cause-or-contribute-findings-greenhouse-gases-under-section-202a

Debunking Denial, Debunked?  A Review of Steven Koonin’s Book Unsettled, https://debunkingdenial.com/debunked-a-review-of-steven-koonins-book-unsettled/

Debunking Denial, John Christy, Climate Change Denier  https://debunkingdenial.com/john-christy-climate-change-denier-part-i/

Wikipedia Berkeley Earth  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth

Berkeley Earth  https://berkeleyearth.org/data/

Dept. of Energy Department of Energy Issues Report Evaluating Impact of Greenhouse Gases on US Climate, Invites Public Comment, July 29, 2025  https://www.energy.gov/articles/department-energy-issues-report-evaluating-impact-greenhouse-gasses-us-climate-invites

DOE Response Site, Climate Experts’ Review of the DOE Climate Working Group Report, https://sites.google.com/tamu.edu/doeresponse/home

Debunking Denial The Endangerment Finding  https://debunkingdenial.com/the-endangerment-finding/

Lisa Friedman and Hiroko Tabuchi, E.P.A. Targets Dozens of Environmental Rules as it Reframes Its Purpose, New York Times Mar. 12, 2025 https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/12/climate/epa-zeldin-rollbacks-pollution.html

Ben Lefebre, Trump Pressed Oil Executives to Give $1 Billion for his Campaign, People in Industry Say, May 9, 2024 Politico https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/09/trump-asks-oil-executives-campaign-finance-00157131

Lisa Friedman and Hiroko Tabuchi, The E.P.A. Shifts Its Mission, New York Times Mar. 13, 2025 https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/13/climate/the-epa-shifts-its-mission.html

Roberto Molar Candanosa, Reducing Emissions to Lessen Climate Change Would Yield Dramatic Health Benefits by 2030, NASA Global Climate Change https://climate.nasa.gov/news/3134/reducing-emissions-to-lessen-climate-change-would-yield-dramatic-health-benefits-by-2030/

Olivier Deschenes, Environmental Regulations and Labor Markets, IZA World of Labor https://wol.iza.org/articles/environmental-regulations-and-labor-markets/long

Wikipedia Acid Rain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_rain

National Acid Precipitation Assessment Report to Congress 2005   https://csl.noaa.gov/aqrsd/reports/napapreport05.pdf

Ernani F. Choma et al., Health Benefits of Decreases in On-Road Transportation Emissions in the United States From 2008 to 2017, NIH https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8713776/

Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Public Health Benefits Associated With Mercury Emissions Reductions From U.S. Power Plants, Apr. 11, 2022  https://hsph.harvard.edu/climate-health-c-change/news/public-health-benefits-associated-with-mercury-emissions-reductions-from-u-s-power-plants/

Children’s  Health Defense  https://childrenshealthdefense.org/

Debunking Denial Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.  Conspiracy Theorist https://debunkingdenial.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr-conspiracy-theorist/

Debunking Denial Will RFK Jr. “Make America Healthy Again”?  Not On Your Life!  https://debunkingdenial.com/will-rfk-j-make-america-healthy-again-not-on-your-life/

Debunking Denial  mRNA Vaccines: Promise and Demonization  https://debunkingdenial.com/mrna-vaccines-promise-and-demonization/

Debunking Denial  Scrutinizing Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.: What Do His Statements Mean?https://debunkingdenial.com/scrutinizing-robert-f-kennedy-jr-what-do-his-statements-mean/

Fired CDC Leader Susasn Monarez Told Senators About Pressure From RFK Jr., Washington Post Sept. 17, 2025 https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2025/09/17/cdc-susan-monarez-rfk-jr-senate-hearing/

Joedy McCreary, ‘This Will Get People Killed’: Experts Alarmed By CDC’s Sharp Political Turn, MedPage Today Sept. 9 2025,  https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/features/117378

Wikipedia Centers for Disease Control and Prevention  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centers_for_Disease_Control_and_Prevention

Judy George, Who is David Geier, the Man Leading Federal Autism-Vaccine Study? MedPage Today Mar. 27, 2025   https://www.medpagetoday.com/neurology/autism/114853

Alexander Tin, CDC to Hire Former Head of Anti-Vaccine Group Founded by RFK Jr., CBS News June 25, 2025 https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cdc-vaccine-safety-office-hire-former-head-anti-vaccine-group-founded-rfk-jr/

Liz Szabo, Vaccines Don’t Cause Autism.  What Does?  NBC News Nov. 22, 2024  https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/autism-vaccines-kennedy-cause-spectrum-rcna180837

Fact Checked: Extensive Research Shows Thimerosal is Safe, American Academy of Pediatrics June 2025  https://www.aap.org/en/news-room/fact-checked/fact-checked-extensive-research-shows-thimerosal-is-safe/

Aria Bendix and Erika Edwards, Anti-Vaccine Activist Presents Data to Kennedy’s Reshaped CDC Advisory Panel, NBC News June 26 2025  https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/anti-vaccine-activist-presents-data-rfk-jrs-reshaped-cdc-advisory-pane-rcna215201

John Yang, States Join Forces to Make Their Own Vaccine Recommendations Amid CDC Turmoil, PBS Sept. 6, 2025  https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/states-join-forces-to-make-their-own-vaccine-recommendations-amid-cdc-turmoil

Wikipedia Joseph Ladapo  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Ladapo

Amanda Seitz, RFK Jr. Pulls Funding for Vaccines Being Developed to Fight Respiratory Viruses, PBS Aug. 5, 2025 https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/rfk-jr-pulls-funding-for-vaccines-being-developed-to-fight-respiratory-viruses

Mike Stobbs, Ousted Vaccine Panel Members Say Rigorous Science is Being Abandoned Under RFK Jr., PBS July 30 2025 https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/ousted-vaccine-panel-members-say-rigorous-science-is-being-abandoned-under-rfk-jr

Jay Bhattacharya, Why the NIH Is Pivoting Away from mRNA Vaccines, Washington Post Aug. 12, 2025  https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/08/12/nih-mrna-vaccines-jay-bhattacharya/

Percentage of adults 65 years and older in the United States with at least one dose or were fully vaccinated against COVID-19 as of April 26, 2023  Statista.com Apr. 26 2023 https://www.statista.com/statistics/1254250/share-of-older-us-adults-fully-or-partially-vaccinated-against-covid/

Wikipedia History of HIV/AIDS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_HIV/AIDS

Wikipedia Ronald Reagan and AIDS  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan_and_AIDS

 MedLine Plus HIV: PrEP and PEP  https://medlineplus.gov/hivprepandpep.html

Benjamin Mueller, Trump Administration Slashes Research Into L.G.B.T.Q. Health, New York Times May 4, 2025 https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/04/health/trump-administration-slashes-research-into-lgbtq-health.html

House Committee on Oversight, Democrats, Why is RFK Jr. Eliminating Life-Saving HIV Programs?  Oversight Committee Democrats Demand Answers, July 17 2025 https://oversightdemocrats.house.gov/news/press-releases/why-rfk-jr-eliminating-life-saving-hiv-programs-oversight-committee-democrats

My’ayan Anafi, How Project 2025 Tries to Demonize LBGTQI+ People – and Why It’ll Fail, National Women’s Law Center, https://nwlc.org/how-project-2025-tries-to-demonize-lgbtqi-people-and-why-itll-fail/

Stephanie M. Lee, Their NIH Grants Are Back.  But Nothing is Back to Normal, Chronicle of Higher Education July 30, 2025 https://www.chronicle.com/article/their-nih-grants-are-back-but-nothing-is-back-to-normal

Wikipedia The Real Anthony Fauci https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Real_Anthony_Fauci

Wikipedia HIV/AIDS  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV/AIDS

Rob Stein, Ancient Miasma Theory May Help Explain Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Vaccine Moves, NPR June 14, 2025 https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/06/14/nx-s1-5429732/ancient-miasma-theory-may-help-explain-health-secretary-robert-f-kennedy-jr-s-vaccine-moves

Debunking Denial Conspiracy Theory ‘True Believers’   https://debunkingdenial.com/portfolio/conspiracy-theory-true-believers/

US Department of Commerce Mortality Statistics 1925  https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/vsushistorical/mortstatsh_1925.pdf

CDC National Center for Health Statistics  https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/index.html

Azeen, Ghorayshi, Trump Issues Warning Based on Unproven Link Between Tylenol and Autism, New York Times Sept. 22, 2025 https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/22/health/kennedy-autism-tylenol-trump.html

Sheryl Gay Stolberg, For Trump, Who Has ‘Strong Feelings’ About Autism, the Issue is Personal, New York Times Sept. 22, 2025 https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/22/us/politics/autism-vaccines-trump-personal.html

Eric Lipton, David Yaffe-Bellamy, Bradley Hope, Tripp Mickle and Paul Mozur, Five Takeaways From the Times’ Investigation Into 2 Giant Deals Involving Trump, New York Times Sept. 15 2020 https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/15/us/politics/trump-uae-chips-witkoff-world-liberty-takeaways.html