The Trump Administration's Scientific Agenda: Transparency or Regulation?

The Trump Administration's Scientific Agenda: Transparency or Regulation?

The recent efforts by H. Christopher Frey, who has served at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and North Carolina State University, demonstrate the intersection of science, policy, and political influence in the United States. Frey, who received funding from the California Air Resources Board, has held key positions within the EPA, including serving as the Deputy Assistant Administrator of Science Policy and the Assistant Administrator of the Office of Research and Development.

During Trump's presidency, the EPA introduced a regulation known informally as the "science transparency" rule, which many called the "secret science" rule. While the term 'transparency' generally carries positive connotations, this regulation had the opposite effect—it restricted the EPA's ability to utilize some of the most valid scientific studies aimed at protecting human health. Specifically, it mandated that studies relying on confidential patient information be disregarded, limiting the agency's access to crucial epidemiologic data that supported connections between chemical exposure and health harm.

Though a U.S. District Court struck down the rule shortly after its issuance, the concept has resurfaced in Trump's executive order titled "Restoring Gold Standard Science," issued on May 23, 2025. This order revives and expands elements of the defunct rule to encompass all federal agencies. While it appears to advocate for transparency and reproducibility, the underlying implications raise significant concerns.

In scientific terms, 'transparency' involves presenting hypotheses, methods, results, and conclusions in detail, enabling other researchers to evaluate methodologies and conclusions. The expectation of 'data transparency' requires scientists to share all data so others can replicate studies—a process known as reproducibility. However, errors in original data or methods could yield consistent results without ensuring scientific credibility. Hence, 'replicability' becomes more crucial, indicating that diverse researchers can arrive at similar conclusions using varied methodologies.

This new executive order appears to echo previous attempts to limit the EPA's ability to consider valid epidemiological studies, including research on the dangers of secondhand smoke and particulate matter (PM2.5), which is closely linked to poor air quality.

The focus on uncertainty in the Trump administration’s strategy also raises alarms. The administration often spotlighted uncertainties associated with scientific studies, which could skew policy decisions related to air quality standards. The EPA is mandated by its scientific integrity policy to avoid misrepresenting, exaggerating, or downplaying scientific uncertainty, yet certain findings, like those concerning PM2.5, were disregarded, underscoring inconsistencies in scientific assessments.

This executive order further necessitates a critical lens toward scientific findings, promoting a skeptical view instead of an evidence-based approach. The risk here is that it can facilitate the politicization of scientific processes and decision-making, as a political appointee may determine what constitutes a 'violation' of the order and what scientific information is deemed accurate. This politicized dynamic can inadvertently threaten the integrity of scientific inquiry across federal agencies.

The far-reaching implications of these regulatory adjustments affect not just domestic policies but also international collaborations and America's standing in the scientific community. Proposed budget cuts targeting prominent science projects, including significant reductions for CERN—an acclaimed research facility that has been pivotal for US science—are setting alarm bells ringing globally. The Trump administration's plans to slash funds for foundational research and development projects could hinder the United States' contributions to essential scientific knowledge.

American physicist Bill Foster has estimated total proposed cuts exceeding $25 billion for fundamental research, questioning whether the US can be viewed as a reliable partner in international scientific endeavors. Such shifts raise questions about America's future contributions to global science, innovation, and research partnerships.

In a landscape characterized by slashed budgets and diminished support for scientific research, the erosion of trust in scientific authorities could mean dire consequences for both public health and international scientific progress. As discussions regarding the 2026 budget unfold in Congress, the voice of the scientific community remains vitally important. Policymakers must prioritize bipartisan support for evidence-based science to ensure robust safeguards for public health and maintain the integrity of scientific research in the United States.