Scientific community issues fresh warning to Congress as 'radical' Trump returns

With a president-elect who has called the climate crisis a "hoax" and vowed to gut fossil fuel drilling regulations poised to take office in one week, more than 50,000 scientists and advocates on Monday implored U.S. lawmakers to consider the incoming administration's "respect for science" as they vote on Cabinet nominees and provide oversight of the Trump White House over the next four years.

Organized by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), a petition signed by 50,588 scientists and experts was sent to every member of Congress, asking them to "defend the science and scientists that keep Americans safe" after President-elect Donald Trump takes office on January 20.

The Republican leader's agenda, and the policies outlined in the right-wing policymaking plan Project 2025, threaten to "eviscerate the protections that Americans count on and support," reads the petition.

During his first administration, Trump rolled back the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) ability to develop regulations under the Clean Air Act and repealed the Clean Water Rule, and he and his nominee for secretary of health and human services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., have signaled they would purge the ranks of the Food and Drug Administration. Researchers at the EPA are also bracing for a "swift and unprecedented" upheaval, with Trump expected to repeal vehicle and methane emissions regulations.

During his presidential campaign, Trump asked oil executives for $1 billion in donations, promising to repay them by gutting President Joe Biden's climate regulations.

"Rolling back science-based policies and silencing scientists has the potential to turn back the clock on the immense progress science has made over past decades, jeopardizing public health, economic stability, national security, and the future livability of the climate."

"The reason behind the Trump administration's radical proposals to sideline science and scientists is crystal clear: Science stands in the way of polluters and special interests unleashing unprecedented amounts of pollution that would put short-term profits over people, no matter the cost to current and future generations of Americans," reads the petition sent to Congress.

The petition calls on lawmakers to:

• Oppose anti-science nominees to any federal agency who do not agree on the record to follow and/or implement a scientific integrity policy in their agency;
• Oppose the elimination of federal agencies or their staff directly or indirectly including through draconian budget cuts, reclassifying staff, or abruptly moving agency headquarters, all of which are a transparent and explicit effort to decimate scientific expertise and decision-making; and
• Defend the safeguards that protect the health and safety of people across the United States, especially those overburdened by pollution, including the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act.

The petition was bolstered by an open letter sent to 99 U.S. senators, including those sitting on committees that will play a significant role in approving or blocking Trump's Cabinet nominees.

The letter, also sent Monday and signed by a coalition of 28 organizations, calls on senators to "ensure nominees are only confirmed if they have the necessary qualifications to succeed in their roles, do not have conflicts of interest, accept established science related to their agency's mission, and value the role of rigorous science, free from political interference, in government decision-making."

Trump's nominees including former North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum, an oil drilling proponent, for interior secretary; fracking firm CEO Chris Wright for energy secretary; and former Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-N.Y.), who repeatedly voted against Clean Air Act standards, as EPA administrator.

"Agency leaders must respond effectively to a variety of threats, from cyberattacks to hurricanes and pandemics," reads the letter, signed by the Endangered Species Coalition, Greenpeace USA, and the National Resources Defense Council. "To do so, they must value science and consider evidence that can help them make well-informed decisions. Our organizations urge you to consider nominees' respect for science in confirmation hearings and votes."

The groups called on senators to only confirm nominees who are free of conflicts of interest and who have relevant qualifications, such as "academic degrees and respect for the mission of the agency or program they are nominated to lead."

Agency leaders, they said, should also demonstrate respect for scientific integrity: "the adherence to professional practices, ethical behavior, and the principles of honesty and objectivity when conducting, managing, using the results of, and communicating about science and scientific activities."

The idea of allowing scientists to work without fear of political interference "has long had bipartisan support," noted the groups, which quoted Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) as saying at a hearing on the Scientific Integrity Act in 2019, "Scientific findings are often relied upon by policymakers to make important decisions that affect the lives of millions of Americans... To maintain the public's trust, there must be a high degree of integrity and transparency in the scientific process."

Agency leaders who interfere with scientific research or who allow their conflicts of interest to interfere with regulating the oil and gas industry, Big Pharma, and public health agencies "would be disastrous for our nation," said the groups, as they would be likely to ignore or misrepresent "scientific evidence in order to make it appear that an appointee's preferred course of action is the clear solution."

"This could take the form of cherry-picking evidence based on ideology or actively advancing misinformation, with potentially deadly results," wrote the groups. "For instance, if a vaccine were developed in response to a new pandemic, as it was during the triumphant Operation Warp Speed of the first Trump administration, an agency leader might hamper vaccine uptake by emphasizing the very small proportion of vaccine recipients who suffered a side effect serious enough to require medical attention without comparing it to the far larger number of severe illnesses averted."

At upcoming confirmation hearings, the groups urged senators to ask nominees whether they commit to: upholding scientific integrity, "ensuring that the findings of scientific research conducted by your agency will be communicated accurately," and using "the best available scientific evidence to inform decisions and evidence-based policies."

"Rolling back science-based policies and silencing scientists has the potential to turn back the clock on the immense progress science has made over past decades, jeopardizing public health, economic stability, national security, and the future livability of the climate," said Dr. Jennifer Jones, director of the Center for Science and Democracy at UCS.

"Protecting science means protecting people—full stop," said Jones. "The broad consensus among scientists demonstrates the urgency we all feel to protect independent science in government decision-making."