On Saturday, May 23rd, it had been a year since President Trump enacted an executive order (EO) aimed at reinstating “gold standard science.” While the order’s language and title initially appeared promising, for those well-versed in science policy, the EO and the actions taken to enforce it raise concerns.
To be clear: this executive order and its ensuing initiative have undermined scientific integrity (SI) policies and safeguards across the federal government. SI policies are crucial for enabling scientists to operate independently and communicate their findings honestly. These policies prevent political appointees from altering, suppressing, or concealing research to meet political, financial, or personal objectives. The intention of SI policies is to provide policymakers with unfiltered, comprehensive information for crafting effective, evidence-based policies that protect both people and the environment.
Reflecting on the vast knowledge gained from scientific research—such as curing life-threatening diseases, safeguarding against pollution and toxic chemicals, and preparing for extreme weather—it is essential that scientists work without political interference.
There is little reason to celebrate a year under the Trump administration’s misleading “gold standard science” initiative. Instead, it is important to acknowledge the losses suffered due to the administration’s disregard for genuine science and its practitioners, as well as the erosion of vital, evidence-based protections designed to shield federal science from political meddling. It is crucial to recognize that this situation need not be accepted—and there are ways to contribute to change.
Pay attention to what’s behind the curtain
The EO and its directives are best regarded as a facade. The order employs terms like “transparent,” “reproducible,” and “falsifiable,” familiar and respected within the scientific community, to suggest the administration’s commitment to science. However, this rhetoric obscures the reality of the administration’s actions that undermine science.
- Since the EO’s signing, against a backdrop of escalating scientific attacks, these attacks have only increased. At that time, researchers at UCS had documented 327 instances of political interference in scientific work. Nearly a year later, the administration has added 247 more, reaching a total of 574 attacks on science by April 30th, 2026.
- While ostensibly promoting data transparency, the EO instructed agency leaders to publicly share data, models, and source code related to scientific information used in policymaking (with exceptions for protected information). However, this language has been exploited by industries, such as tobacco and fossil fuels, opposed to public health regulations. In practice, this approach increases the cost, time, and inefficiency of producing scientific information, suggesting that analyses cannot inform policy without public data disclosure. This was central to an Environmental Protection Agency rule from the first Trump administration, which restricted using the best science for setting pollution standards. Though a court overturned the rule, setting a precedent for public dataset expectations could enable future similar regulations.
- The EO heightens the risk of political interference under the guise of preventing it. Previously, SI policies were overseen by scientific integrity officers (SIOs), employees whose roles were not politically tied. The new EO allows political appointees or HR representatives to manage this process, evaluating alleged violations based on the administration’s agenda rather than scientific validity. This alarms scientists, who fear their work could be targeted if it does not align with the administration’s priorities.
- The EO directed federal agencies to revert their SI policies—crafted by experts to prevent political interference—to their pre-Trump term versions. Without a deadline, the order also instructed agencies to update their policies to align with the administration’s questionable definition of “gold standard science.”
Despite the EO’s nod to scientific principles, reverting policies to their January 2021 state has weakened or even removed protective measures against politicization. With no deadline for agencies to implement new SI policies, the duration of adherence to these weakened versions is uncertain. The extent to which revised policies will reflect expert guidance remains unclear. Thus far, the President’s and appointees’ actions have been discouraging.
What’s been lost
Federal SI policies represent a hard-won achievement, stemming from extensive efforts within and outside government.
Many agencies developed their initial SI policies during the Obama administration.
Under the Biden administration, the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) convened SI experts to provide evidence-based recommendations for strengthening these policies. This group also sought public input to create a framework for agencies to develop new SI policies. The collaboration between the public, experts, and the government resulted in stronger policies adopted by more agencies during the Biden administration.
Erasing the last four years of this work, informed by dedicated research and public input, poses significant risks to federal science. We face losing crucial safeguards recommended by these experts in 2023, including clear definitions of scientific integrity and criteria for agencies to assess and improve their policies. Some agencies have been asked to eliminate their first SI policy.
A review of agencies’ policies
By examining federal agency websites, I have tracked the history and evolution of these policies. I maintain records of the URLs where SI policies have been historically located and regularly check them for changes or removals. I also use the Internet Archive to verify when changes occur and compare policies across administrations.
One of the most beneficial changes informed by OSTP’s 2023 recommendations is the creation of the SIO role. When policies reverted to their pre-January 2021 state, several agencies removed any reference to SIO positions, which had been responsible for enforcing SI, resolving violations, and professionalizing SI within agencies through training and development.
For example, in the current (pre-2021) policies of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Institute of Standards and Technology, there are vague details about SI enforcement oversight. Even between these agencies, the individuals appointed differ, and the current (pre-2021) National Science Foundation policy lacks any mention of such roles.
Common across these agencies’ current policies is the absence of explicit procedures for handling potential SI violations or resolving them.
According to Internet Archive data, when President Trump returned to office in January 2025, all three of these policies explicitly outlined SIO roles and promised their implementation.
More concerning, several agencies have removed their policies from their historical URLs. This includes the Department of Transportation, the Food and Drug Administration, and the National Institutes of Health. Without these policies, it is unclear what scientific integrity protections are enforced—or if any exist at all.
This executive order was the catalyst for the administration’s adoption of the misleading “gold standard science” rhetoric. Since its signing, numerous instances have shown political officials using this terminology to justify unfounded stances, deregulation, and information suppression.
Reverting agency policies to their pre-2021 versions weakens crucial scientific integrity defenses and creates inconsistency across agencies. A significant advantage of OSTP’s 2023 recommendations was the uniformity of adopted policies, ensuring agencies adhered to the same standards for preventing and addressing science politicization.
The path forward
However, there is still hope. If Congress passes the Scientific Integrity Act, science will receive stronger, more consistent protection. The Act would legally enshrine safeguards against the politicization of science, requiring agencies that fund, conduct, or oversee science to adopt and enforce policies that prevent the suppression or interference with scientific findings. This would significantly hinder efforts to weaken these protections, as seen in the Trump administration.
The Scientific Integrity Act enjoys bipartisan backing and has gathered real momentum: it has been introduced in the Senate for the first time in seven years, sponsored by Sen. Brian Schatz of Hawaii. This development is a significant victory for federal science!
Your efforts and advocacy have brought this bill to both houses of Congress. If you wish to continue supporting federal science, please use this link to thank Sen. Schatz and express your support for the SI Act.
