“I don’t think science knows, actually.”

This was Donald Trump’s response on Sept. 14, 2020 when California Natural Resources Secretary Wade Crowfoot urged him, as then-President of the United States, to recognize the role of climate change in wildfires that were ravaging the American West. 

A defining characteristic of Donald Trump’s first term in office was the politicization of factual information. From denying the reality of climate change to downplaying the severity of the COVID-19 pandemic, Donald Trump repeatedly challenged the credibility of science, often with dangerous consequences. Now, more than four years later – as the Mountain Fire burns across our neighboring Ventura County – Donald Trump has been reelected to the highest office in the land. 

In light of last Tuesday’s election, we are faced with an urgent question: what will a second Trump presidency mean for public trust in the integrity of science? 

In concern with public health, we can reflect on how the Trump administration addressed the COVID-19 pandemic. The emerging virus was an especially critical period where the public looked to the government for guidance and information, placing the president on center stage. In reference to NPR, on the day when the Center for Disease Control confirmed the first case of COVID-19 in the United States, Jan. 22, 2020, Trump said to an CNBC reporter, “We have it totally under control. It’s one person coming in from China, and we have it under control. It’s going to be just fine.”

Three months later, on April 3, when the CDC recommended the public to wear masks and face coverings, Trump said, “You can do it. You don’t have to do it. I’m choosing not to do it, but some people may want to do it, and that’s OK. It may be good. Probably will. They’re making a recommendation. It’s only a recommendation.” 

In the handling of this public emergency, the Trump administration portrayed the pandemic as a minimal issue that was not to be taken seriously. Referencing USA Today, over 1 million Americans passed away within 2.5 years due to COVID-19. There are also estimates that show that the mismanagement of the crisis and media confusion influenced more than 400,000 of the deaths. 

The Trump administration’s past handling of public emergencies is a great cause for concern, especially considering how the president explicitly undermined scientific experts. Refusing to support the guidelines of wearing masks and social distancing, which was provided by the top public health advisor, Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, the president endangered lives and created public distrust in scientists and researchers according to USA Today. 

In the same line of denying scientific findings, President Trump has also minimized the significance of climate change and environmental pollution. Looking at the president’s past tweets, there was a prominent theme of labeling climate change as “mythical” and “nonexistent,” but in recent years, Trump now sees it as a “serious subject.”

Amidst the inconsistent and ambiguous beliefs expressed, the Trump administration has taken major rollbacks such as withdrawing the United States from the Paris Climate Agreement and replacing Barack Obama’s Clean Power Plan with the Affordable Clean Energy rule, which is weaker in regulation. 

The explicit minimization of climate change’s effects subverts the integrity of environmental science. Through Trump’s speeches of denialism and actions of repealing acts meant to fight the crisis, the Trump administration has halted and discouraged the crucial movement to address climate change, especially when the government’s policies and presence in the media are key to making a meaningful impact. 

Executive director of the American Public Health Association in Washington DC, Georges Benjamin said, “I hope we can convince the Trump administration to adopt a bold evidence-based science agenda and to hire people who are skilled and competent to implement it.” 

But considering Trump’s previous presidency, “he had some absolutely amazing scientists who worked for him, and then he undermined them — he didn’t follow their advice,” said Benjamin.

Despite the President-elect’s track record, it is hard to say definitively what another four years under his leadership will look like for science and technology. His recent cozying up to high-profile, controversial figures further complicates the picture. On the campaign trail, an alliance formed between him and Elon Musk, mega-billionaire CEO of the electric vehicle company Tesla and SpaceX. This partnership is likely to have significant implications for both the futures of electric vehicles and space exploration. 

Additionally, third-party presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, who ended his race in August and endorsed Donald Trump, has said that he was promised control of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, despite being an outspoken anti-vaccination activist.

Moreover, we do not yet know to what degree the Trump administration plans to adopt the proposals outlined in Project 2025, a 900-page document of right-wing policy recommendations created by conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation with over half of its 307 contributors having served in Trump’s first administration or on his campaign and transition teams. The recommendations include downsizing the Environmental Protection Agency by closing its Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights and abolishing National Oceanic and Atmospheric administration, which it describes as a “colossal operation that has become one of the main drivers of the climate change alarm industry.”

What we do know is that – now, perhaps more than ever – we must be vocal about any efforts to stifle the truth. Many have already taken up this critical task. In the wake of the 2016 election, researchers at the Columbia University Law School’s Sabin Center for Climate Law and the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund created the “Silencing Science Tracker.” The tracker details attempts on behalf of federal, state and local governments to suppress scientific research and spread scientific misinformation. According to the tracker, instances can be categorized into the following: government censorship, self-censorship by scientists potentially for political reasons, budget cuts, personnel changes (removal of experts from or implementation of unqualified individuals in scientific positions), research hindrance, bias and misrepresentation and interference with education. 

For example, on Jan. 20, 2017, the day of Donald Trump’s inauguration, the tracker reported that the White House website had been re-launched and all references to “climate change” had been removed. Throughout January 2020, on the eve of the global pandemic, Donald Trump was repeatedly warned by health experts about the risks posed by the COVID-19 virus. According to the tracker, these warnings and calls to action were dismissed by the administration as “alarmist.” 

Initiatives like the Silencing Science Tracker exemplify the willingness to speak out against misinformation that this moment calls for. Amidst the uncertainties and inconsistencies that may emerge over the next few years, stewards of science communication have the essential job of safeguarding knowledge and holding those in power accountable for the ways in which they shape public understanding of reality. 

As the editors of the Daily Nexus’s Science and Tech page, we believe in the soundness of the evidence-based reasoning, peer-reviewed research and expert insight that is pursued to the highest degree across our campus every day. We will continue to elevate credible voices, respond to questions with answers rooted in scientific inquiry and provide thoughtful analysis on issues that shape our community and beyond.

We are on the eve of what could be another unprecedented era for both science and scientific journalism alike and we want to make clear our ongoing commitment to the truth.

A version of this article appeared on p.10 of the Nov. 14, 2024 edition of the Daily Nexus.