Trump’s attacks on science: an autocratic playbook—and how to resist

In modern democracies, the health of public life depends on credible facts. When political leaders undermine evidence and the experts who produce it, citizens lose the ability to reason together about shared problems. That is why Trump’s attacks on science are more than a partisan fight; they resemble a well-worn autocratic tactic: weaken independent knowledge, replace it with loyal narratives, and rule through confusion. Understanding how Trump’s attacks on science work—and what to do about them—is essential for safeguarding democratic decision-making and public well-being.

Historical context: why authoritarians target science

Authoritarian rulers have long treated independent research as a rival source of authority. When facts arise outside the control of the state, they constrain power. From Soviet-era political interference in biology to 20th-century attempts to censor epidemiology and climate science, the pattern is familiar: sideline scientific institutions, punish dissent, and elevate ideology over empiricism. In the United States, Trump’s attacks on science borrow from that playbook while adapting it to a 24/7 media environment where misinformation travels faster than corrections.

Crucially, scientific institutions don’t threaten power because scientists are political; they threaten unaccountable power because methods, replication, and peer review are designed to surface error. That makes them resistant to propaganda. Trump’s attacks on science therefore focus less on rebutting specific findings and more on eroding trust in the process that generates them.

How the playbook works

Step 1: Flood the zone with alternatives

A classic move is to produce official-sounding counter-narratives that give supporters permission to ignore unwelcome evidence. Rather than engage with transparent data, surrogate experts and friendly media offer anecdote, “just asking questions,” and cherry-picked charts. Trump’s attacks on science capitalize on this dynamic, substituting loyalty for credentials and controversy for consensus.

Step 2: Politicize the referees

When advisory committees are left vacant, stacked, or sidelined, agencies lose the guardrails that keep policy tethered to evidence. Fewer independent voices in the room means fewer checks on flawed assumptions. Trump’s attacks on science often coincide with rules that restrict who can serve, reduce transparency, or downgrade the role of peer review in regulatory analysis.

Step 3: Punish dissent to chill speech

Even modest retaliation—removing staff from projects, canceling briefings, or public shaming—can send a loud message to career experts. As fear spreads, fewer people speak up, fewer warnings surface, and avoidable mistakes multiply. Trump’s attacks on science exploit the power of example: if a handful of visible critics are punished, many others self-censor.

Step 4: Manipulate the information environment

Suppressing or delaying reports, narrowing public datasets, and reframing metrics can make problems appear smaller than they are. Trump’s attacks on science include efforts to redefine terms, relocate data, or elevate outlier studies—moves that blur baselines and weaken accountability.

Case study lens: pandemics, climate, and beyond

Public health emergencies and climate risks illustrate what’s at stake. In crises, leaders need trustworthy numbers, not vibes. Mixed messages, selective amplification of fringe views, or pressure on agency communications can turn uncertainty into chaos. Trump’s attacks on science during high-stakes moments show how quickly confidence erodes when evidence is treated as negotiable. The result isn’t just disagreement; it’s paralysis, where communities can’t agree on the nature of the threat, much less the remedy.

Yet the harm extends beyond emergencies. Environmental reviews, workplace safety standards, food and drug oversight, and natural-disaster planning all rely on scientific input. When advisory processes are weakened and technical staff are demoralized, delays and errors ripple through permitting, grants, inspections, and enforcement. Trump’s attacks on science thus translate directly into slower services, uneven protections, and costlier mistakes.

Democratic consequences: trust, pluralism, and civic capacity

A pluralistic democracy depends on shared procedures for sorting truth from noise. Courts rely on expert testimony, agencies rely on career scientists, and journalists rely on transparent data to vet claims. Trump’s attacks on science erode these connective tissues. When citizens are told that all experts are biased and all numbers are manipulated, the door opens to permanent grievance politics. In that vacuum, conspiracy thinking flourishes, making it harder to deliver basics: clean air, safe food, public health guidance, resilient infrastructure.

The social costs are real. Communities already facing health disparities often depend most on evidence-based policy—air-quality enforcement, infectious-disease surveillance, safe housing standards. When those systems are hollowed out, harm concentrates. Trump’s attacks on science therefore land hardest where protections are most needed.

Rebuilding trust: a five-part repair plan

1) Put transparency first

Democratize the guts of policymaking: data, code, and assumptions. Agencies should publish datasets and model documentation by default, with machine-readable formats and version histories. Trump’s attacks on science thrive in the dark; radical transparency flips the incentive structure.

2) Fortify independent advisory systems

Re-establish strict conflict-of-interest rules, restore balance requirements, and guarantee public minutes and evidence dockets. Expand the use of rotating, term-limited panels to prevent capture. Robust advisors make it harder for any administration to substitute ideology for analysis, and they blunt the impact of Trump’s attacks on science by spreading expertise across institutions.

3) Protect scientific speech and whistleblowers

Strengthen agency scientific-integrity policies with real enforcement: clear reporting channels, anti-retaliation provisions, and prompt public summaries of resolved cases. Civil servants must know that telling the truth won’t end their careers. That assurance counteracts the chilling effect central to Trump’s attacks on science.

4) Depoliticize communications standards

Publishers’ edits, clearance timelines, and data-release criteria should be codified and publicly tracked. When press guidance and fact-sheet changes are visible, interference is easier to spot. Normalized, transparent comms processes reduce the room for Trump’s attacks on science to distort public updates.

5) Build public literacy and civic infrastructure

K-12 and adult-education programs should teach how experiments work, why uncertainty bands exist, and how to evaluate sources. Libraries and community colleges can host “evidence literacy” workshops. The more people understand how knowledge is made, the less traction Trump’s attacks on science will have.

What to watch next

Staffing and budgets. Are research offices funded and hiring? Are career experts leaving faster than they can be replaced? Persistent attrition is a leading indicator of damage consistent with Trump’s attacks on science.
Advisory pipeline health. Are committees full, diverse, and publishing? Do agencies respond to their recommendations?
Data access and cadence. Are routine reports delayed or quietly redefined? Are public dashboards archived without explanation?
Rulemaking hygiene. Are cost-benefit analyses transparent about models and sensitivities? Are scientific citations current and complete?
Inspector General and GAO flags. Oversight bodies often surface interference patterns early.

Bottom line

The greatest danger isn’t any one rule or press conference. It’s the normalization of a governing style that treats expertise as an enemy to be conquered. Trump’s attacks on science are a stress test of democratic resilience. The antidote is not blind faith in experts, but strong systems that make evidence visible, contestable, and central to policy. Repair those systems, and trust can be rebuilt; neglect them, and the damage compounds—quietly at first, then all at once.

Connect with the Author

Curious about the inspiration behind The Unmaking of America or want to follow the latest news and insights from J.T. Mercer? Dive deeper and stay connected through the links below—then explore Vera2 for sharp, timely reporting.

About the Author

Discover more about J.T. Mercer’s background, writing journey, and the real-world events that inspired The Unmaking of America. Learn what drives the storytelling and how this trilogy came to life.
[Learn more about J.T. Mercer]

NRP Dispatch Blog

Stay informed with the NRP Dispatch blog, where you’ll find author updates, behind-the-scenes commentary, and thought-provoking articles on current events, democracy, and the writing process.
[Read the NRP Dispatch]

Vera2 — News & Analysis

Looking for the latest reporting, explainers, and investigative pieces? Visit Vera2, North River Publications’ news and analysis hub. Vera2 covers politics, civil society, global affairs, courts, technology, and more—curated with context and built for readers who want clarity over noise.
[Explore Vera2]

Whether you’re interested in the creative process, want to engage with fellow readers, or simply want the latest updates, these resources are the best way to stay in touch with the world of The Unmaking of America—and with the broader news ecosystem at Vera2.

Free Chapter

Begin reading The Unmaking of America today and experience a story that asks: What remains when the rules are gone, and who will stand up when it matters most? Join the Fall of America mailing list below to receive the first chapter of The Unmaking of America for free and stay connected for updates, bonus material, and author news.

Read the first chapter free

Vera2, White House & Politics

Trump’s attacks on science: the autocratic playbook and how to resist