The US Department of the Interior (DOI) manages a huge swath of the nation’s public lands—the mountains, oceans, forests, and countless natural and cultural treasures. As steward of America’s natural resources, the department is responsible for preserving parks, wildlife, and public lands. DOI decisions affect the future of all these resources, as well as public health, public safety, and the country’s response to climate change. Thus, it is critical that decisions by the DOI are informed by the best available science. However, the Trump administration’s DOI has come under scrutiny from the scientific community, journalists, and other institutions for taking science-based policy actions that are not informed by scientific evidence. These institutions claim that the frequency at which political leadership at the DOI have sidelined scientific evidence or otherwise interfered in science-based decision-making processes is unprecedented.
Results/Conclusions
While observers have occasionally assumed that the Trump administration is unprecedented in its violations of scientific integrity, no analysis has been conducted to-date examining how the Trump administration’s actions stem from—or are different from—the science policy actions of prior administrations. To answer this question, we analyzed notable instances of political interference in scientific policy-making since World War II. This research involved review of primary sources including newspaper and magazine articles dating back to the 1950s as well as synthesis of secondary sources that have directly and indirectly touched on this issue. We find that the Trump administration’s actions reflect a new evolution and escalation of patterns we have already seen. In some cases, the administration’s actions can be considered unprecedented. While there has certainly been progress on scientific integrity in the federal government, the actions of the current administration make it clear that more reforms and oversight are needed. We conclude by offering some insights and recommendations that both fill the historical procedural loopholes highlighted by this paper as well as address modern iterations of science being sidelined in policy decisions.