The Assault on Science: A Crisis of Truth in American Governance.
The Assault on Science: A Crisis of Truth in American Governance
Over the past decade, American public life has grown increasingly polarized—not only over values and policies but over facts themselves. One of the most alarming manifestations of this crisis has been the Trump administration’s treatment of science. This goes beyond mere skepticism toward expert opinion or policy disagreements with scientists. It represents a sustained and systemic assault on science itself: the processes, institutions, and norms by which society determines what is real.
From my perspective, this attack poses a fundamental threat to democratic governance, threatens the sustainable development of American urban areas, and betrays our obligations to future generations. When scientific inquiry is suppressed or distorted, the long-term costs extend beyond environmental or medical consequences—they undermine civic and moral foundations.
Understanding the Gravity of the Crisis
To grasp the severity of this crisis, we must first define what science is. Contrary to common misconceptions, science is not an infallible collection of facts or a priesthood of experts. Rather, it is a method—a disciplined, collective process for identifying and correcting errors. Its credibility stems from transparency, replicability, and open critique, not from authority. Science thrives on being challenged, revised, and improved.
Attacking science, therefore, is not merely disagreeing with individual scientists. It erodes the very infrastructure that allows society to resolve factual disputes and make rational decisions.
Science is also inherently democratic. Its ethos demands that claims be justified and defended publicly through blind peer review, on the basis of careful observation and reason, not accepted by decree or the authority of those who make the claims. In this sense, the assault on science aligns with a broader authoritarian tendency: replacing justification with assertion, argument with loyalty, and truth with power. When leaders declare something true simply because they say so, science becomes not just inconvenient but dangerous.
The First Trump Administration’s Assaults on Science
The first Trump administration (2017–2021) provided a chilling blueprint for how political power can undermine science. This assault took multiple forms.
Federal scientists at agencies like the CDC, EPA, and NOAA were routinely silenced, reassigned, or ignored. Scientific reports were altered to fit political messaging. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the administration downplayed risks, promoted unproven treatments, and sidelined public health experts. Even weather forecasting was politicized when Trump presented an altered hurricane map to defend an inaccurate statement.
Climate change, one of the greatest scientific and moral challenges of our time, was dismissed as a hoax. References to climate science were scrubbed from government websites, and regulations were rolled back despite overwhelming scientific consensus. The administration’s approach to environmental policy reflected not caution but willful ignorance.
Advisory panels were disbanded or reconstituted with appointees chosen for ideological loyalty rather than substantive expertise—a departure from longstanding norms of staffing such roles with professionals whose qualifications are grounded in peer-reviewed research, field experience, and a demonstrable commitment to evidence-based judgment.
Meanwhile, research funding priorities shifted away from critical areas like renewable energy and public health, further marginalizing data-driven decision-making. The resulting exodus of career scientists—many of whom had spent decades honing institutional knowledge—left agencies hollowed out, impairing their ability to fulfill their missions with rigor and independence.
These and similar actions effectively attacking science were not isolated missteps. They reflected a worldview in which truth is subordinate to power and expertise is a threat to authority. The resulting culture of fear and distortion continues to ripple through federal agencies today.[i]
Historical Context
To be sure, assaults on science are not unique to the Trump administration. Past presidents from both parties have, at times, subordinated scientific evidence to political goals.
During the Cold War, scientific research was often steered by military and geopolitical priorities.
In the 1970s, President Nixon created the Environmental Protection Agency but also suppressed public health data on issues like air pollution and lead. President Carter invested in renewable energy research and created the Department of Energy, but critics noted his selective support for politically favored technologies like synthetic fuels, sometimes at odds with scientific recommendations.
The Reagan administration infamously delayed its response to the AIDS epidemic, ignoring early public health warnings.
Under George W. Bush, climate reports were edited to downplay global warming, references to abortion and condoms were scrubbed from CDC materials, and embryonic stem cell research faced religiously motivated restrictions.
Even the Obama administration, though generally science-positive, was criticized for slow regulation of biotech crops and for overstating certainty in climate projections. These episodes show a recurring tension between scientific integrity and political interests.
However, the Trump administration stands apart for the breadth and intensity of its efforts. While past governments selectively distorted science for strategic ends, the Trump era exhibited a foundational hostility to the scientific method itself.
Evidence of a Continuing Assault
As the second Trump administration unfolds, growing evidence suggests the patterns of the first term are not only recurring but intensifying. Key developments include:
· Ideological appointments: Leadership roles in science-driven agencies have been filled with individuals whose qualifications are primarily political. For example, climate change deniers or vaccine mandate skeptics now hold leadership positions in the EPA and HHS.
· Rollback of Advisory Functions: Independent advisory boards—vital for peer review and expert oversight—have been marginalized or dissolved. For example, since February of 2025, the administration has dismissed all members of the EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee and Science Advisory Board, and removed 38 of 43 experts from the NIH’s Boards of Scientific Counselors, which review internal research programs. It has also disbanded five panels advising the U.S. Census Bureau and other statistical agencies, terminated several HHS advisory committees on issues like long COVID and health equity, and indefinitely suspended meetings of the Health Information Technology Advisory Committee (HITAC), which helps set federal healthcare data standards. These moves reflect a broader erosion of scientific input in policymaking, reducing transparency and increasing the risk of regulatory capture.
· Suppression of Unfavorable Data: Government scientists report being discouraged from publishing findings on public health disparities, environmental degradation, and climate projections. This has been documented in a Wikipedia entry on the 2025 U.S. government online resource removals. The entry details how, under executive orders from President Trump’s second administration, over 8,000 web pages and 3,000 datasets were deleted or altered—mainly targeting diversity, public health, and environmental content. Key agencies affected included the CDC (which saw over 3,000 health-related pages altered), the Census Bureau, HHS, EPA, National Park Service and the Department of Education. Internal documents and credible investigations reveal edits to scientific reports that downplay public health risks, environmental damage, and the impacts of climate change, or omit inconvenient data for political purposes.
· Budgetary Hostility: Proposed budgets include severe cuts to agencies like the National Science Foundation, NOAA, and NIH. Funding has been redirected from basic research to politically aligned initiatives, such as bolstering fossil fuel production.
· Misinformation and disinformation: The administration continues to spread scientific falsehoods on climate change, vaccine efficacy, and reproductive health, fueling public confusion and eroding trust in science.
These actions suggest a systematic effort to neutralize the independence of scientific institutions and subordinate them to political expediency.
The Philosophical and Moral Stakes
The assault on science carries profound philosophical implications. It challenges whether society still values evidence-based belief and the idea that truth is not merely what the powerful declare it to be. Science embodies a moral commitment to fallibility, self-correction, and public justification—principles essential to democratic culture and inimical to authoritarianism.
When the norms of scientific method are abandoned, the damage extends beyond labs and policy papers. It poisons public discourse, fosters mistrust, and paves the way for authoritarianism, where disagreement becomes disloyalty and facts are negotiable.
Most tragically, this abandonment betrays future generations. Climate denial, for instance, is not just an intellectual failure but an ethical one. It ignores the reality that today’s actions shape the lives of those yet unborn, effectively stealing their stability, health, and habitable planet.
The Stakes for Urban Policy
The assault on science has profound implications for urban policy in the United States, particularly in areas like climate resilience, public health, and infrastructure planning. When scientific evidence is suppressed or distorted, towns and cities—which are on the front lines of these challenges—face greater risks.
For example, ignoring climate science undermines efforts to prepare for rising sea levels, extreme heat, and flooding, leaving urban populations vulnerable. Similarly, sidelining public health expertise hampers responses to crises like pandemics or air pollution, disproportionately affecting densely populated areas.
Without reliable data and independent research, urban policymakers are forced to make decisions based on political expediency rather than evidence, jeopardizing long-term sustainability and equity.
Moreover, the erosion of trust in science exacerbates polarization in local governance, making it harder to build consensus around solutions like green energy transitions or equitable housing policies.
When federal agencies prioritize ideology over facts, funding for critical urban research and innovation—such as smart city technologies or public transit—often dries up. This not only stalls progress but deepens disparities, as marginalized communities rely heavily on scientifically informed policies to address systemic inequities.
Ultimately, the crisis threatens to undo decades of urban progress, replacing data-driven planning with short-term, politically motivated fixes that fail to meet the complex needs of America’s towns and cities.
Conclusion
The Trump administration’s attack on science is more than a political dispute—it is a crisis of truth. It reflects an authoritarian mindset where power replaces justification and unquestioning loyalty trumps respect for scientific evidence. Failing to defend scientific norms risks not only poor policy but the degradation of democracy itself.
Supporting science is not about idolizing expertise but affirming the possibility of a shared reality. In an era of disinformation and division, this affirmation may be the most radical and necessary act of all.
Bill Bowen
[i] The following is a link to a March 31, 2025 article from Scientific American called, “Top U.S. Scientists Speak Out against ‘Climate of Fear’ Wrecking U.S. Research.” https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/top-u-s-researchers-warn-against-climate-of-fear-threatening-science/