May 26, 2025 09:00 AM PST
(PenniesToSave.com) – Public trust in government and scientific institutions has taken a major hit over the past decade. With controversial decisions in education, climate policy, and health mandates, many Americans feel that science has been used to justify political agendas rather than inform objective policy. Presidents Joe Biden and Donald Trump have taken starkly different approaches to addressing this concern. Biden’s 2021 memorandum emphasized equity and inclusion, while Trump’s 2025 executive order focuses on transparency, realism, and scientific rigor. This article compares both frameworks and explains what they mean for the average American family, worker, and taxpayer.
Quick Links
- Why did each president issue their own science policy?
- How did COVID school closures expose the role of politics in science?
- Are climate policies being driven by worst-case guesswork?
- How do these rules impact jobs and small businesses?
- What role should DEI play in federal science?
- Which administration held scientists more accountable?
- Why does this debate matter to your family?
Why did each president issue their own science policy?
President Biden’s 2021 memorandum came after years of public criticism regarding the Trump administration’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic. His administration aimed to restore trust in science by promoting openness, inclusion, and what it described as evidence-based policymaking. A major component of Biden’s directive involved embedding diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) values into science and research planning. His administration also sought to elevate community voices and prioritize protections for vulnerable populations.
In contrast, Trump’s 2025 executive order reflects a deep skepticism toward how science was used under Biden. Trump’s order accuses agencies of politicizing data, particularly through worst-case scenario modeling and DEI mandates. His order reinstates stricter scientific integrity policies from his first term and introduces the term “Gold Standard Science,” emphasizing reproducibility, transparency, and resistance to ideological influence. Where Biden emphasized cultural reform, Trump focused on procedural reform.
For the average American, the contrast is more than academic. Biden viewed science as a public trust issue, aiming to broaden participation. Trump viewed it as a credibility crisis, aiming to eliminate bias and political interference.
How did COVID school closures expose the role of politics in science?
The 2021 reopening guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) became a flashpoint in the debate over politics in science. The guidance included direct input from the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), which encouraged stricter reopening conditions that many schools struggled to meet. As a result, in-person learning remained limited well into the 2021 academic year despite evidence suggesting low transmission risks among children and the negative consequences of prolonged school closures.
Trump’s 2025 executive order cites this event as a prime example of compromised scientific integrity. He argues that political organizations shaped CDC recommendations, and that the agency failed to disclose the full scientific basis for its policies. Under his new policy, any such guidance would be required to publish underlying models, acknowledge uncertainties, and disclose third-party influence.
This shift would likely have accelerated school reopenings by prioritizing transparent, data-based decisions over politically influenced caution. For American parents, the stakes were real. Missed class time led to record drops in literacy and math scores, particularly in low-income communities that could least afford it.
Are climate policies being driven by worst-case guesswork?
Climate modeling is another area where the two administrations diverge sharply. Under Biden, agencies often used a climate model known as RCP 8.5 to project future warming scenarios. This model assumes unchecked carbon emissions and coal usage far beyond what experts believe is realistic, making it a worst-case scenario by design. These projections have been used to justify expansive regulatory action and climate-related spending.
Trump’s 2025 order bans agencies from relying on such models without explicitly stating their low likelihood. Agencies are required to use a “weight of scientific evidence” approach that favors replicable, real-world data over speculative projections. This method demands disclosure of assumptions and their likelihoods, ensuring the public is not misled by exaggerated forecasts.
For energy consumers, farmers, and business owners, this could translate into fewer aggressive regulations and more economically sustainable policy. Instead of planning around climate extremes that may never materialize, agencies would be compelled to justify policy based on realistic and transparent projections.
How do these rules impact jobs and small businesses?
Biden-era regulations often stemmed from precautionary models or values-driven frameworks. One clear example is NOAA’s regulation of Maine’s lobster fishery based on right whale protections. The agency used a model it admitted was a “worst-case scenario” that was likely inaccurate. Its conclusions threatened to shut down a historic industry based on questionable assumptions.
Trump’s order directly references this case and requires that agencies reject models they believe are scientifically unsound. Agencies must use data that is falsifiable, replicable, and supported by peer review. This change means regulatory decisions must be rooted in proven science rather than theoretical risks.
The difference could be significant for small business owners, especially in agriculture, fishing, and manufacturing. Biden’s model sometimes prioritized caution over economic impact. Trump’s approach aims to balance protection with realism, potentially reducing regulatory burdens and increasing stability for businesses.
What role should DEI play in federal science?
One of the more philosophical divides between the two presidents lies in the use of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in scientific planning. Biden’s 2021 policy required federal agencies to embed DEI principles into everything from research goals to hiring practices. The aim was to make science more representative and to ensure underserved communities were heard in policymaking.
Trump’s 2025 order bans the use of DEI frameworks in federal science altogether. He argues that these considerations introduce ideological bias and distract from core scientific principles. His administration maintains that science should be judged on evidence, not identity or social justice goals.
To the average American taxpayer, this could mean a pivot away from programs that allocate research funding based on demographics. Under Biden, DEI influenced how studies were chosen and how results were communicated. Under Trump, scientific merit takes precedence, even if it results in less demographic representation.
Which administration held scientists more accountable?
The Biden administration encouraged transparency through advisory boards and scientific integrity officers but stopped short of creating enforcement mechanisms. Its emphasis was on building a culture of trust and voluntary compliance across agencies.
Trump’s order takes a stricter approach. Each agency must appoint a senior official responsible for investigating scientific misconduct. Violations can result in internal corrections or disciplinary actions. Additionally, Trump’s order requires public disclosure of data, models, and even source code used in decision-making processes.
This approach ensures greater accountability but also introduces potential conflict, especially in politically sensitive areas. For Americans concerned about the credibility of federal science, Trump’s enforcement framework offers more direct recourse when misinformation or bias is suspected.
Why does this debate matter to your family?
At first glance, debates over federal science policies may seem remote or academic. But they shape real-world decisions that touch nearly every aspect of daily life. From whether your child’s school stays open, to how much you pay for electricity, to what small businesses must do to comply with federal rules; these scientific frameworks influence policy outcomes.
Biden’s policies emphasized caution, equity, and long-term inclusivity. Trump’s policies emphasize transparency, realism, and scientific rigor. Depending on your values, one may feel more trustworthy than the other. But understanding the mechanics behind federal science can help every American ask smarter questions and demand better decisions from those in power.
Final Thoughts
Science is not just about facts; it is about how those facts are used. When science becomes a tool of politics, public trust erodes. Both presidents recognized the importance of restoring that trust but proposed drastically different paths. For Americans seeking honest, objective decision-making, the debate over how science is governed is more important now than ever.
Works Cited
Levine, Jon. “Powerful teachers union influenced CDC on school reopenings, emails show
” NYPost, 1 May 2021, https://www.npr.org/2021/05/03/993758387/teachers-union-influenced-cdc-on-school-reopening-guidance.
Hausfather, Zeke and Peters, Glen. “The ‘Worst Case’ Emissions Scenario Is Too Misleading.” Nature, 29 Jan. 2020, https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00177-3.
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Maine Lobstermen’s Association v. National Marine Fisheries Service, No. 22-5238, Decided 2023, https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/opinions/docs/2023/06/22-5238-2003771.pdf
Executive Office of the President. Executive Order on Restoring Gold Standard Science, 23 May 2025, https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/05/restoring-gold-standard-science/.
Executive Office of the President. Memorandum on Restoring Trust in Government Through Scientific Integrity, 27 Jan. 2021, https://bidenwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/27/memorandum-on-restoring-trust-in-government-through-scientific-integrity-and-evidence-based-policymaking/.