Topic: Science
“Finally, the next Administration will face a significant challenge in unwinding policies and procedures that are used to advance radical gender, racial, and equity initiatives under the banner of science. Similarly, the Biden Administration’s climate fanaticism will need a whole-of-government unwinding. As with other federal departments and agencies, the Biden Administration’s leveraging of the federal government’s resources to further the woke agenda should be reversed and scrubbed from all policy manuals, guidance documents, and agendas, and scientific excellence and innovation should be restored as the OSTP’s top priority.”
Again, Vought’s racism, bigotry, and science denial is on full display here. It’s utterly laughable that he cites “scientific excellence” as something he’s interested in advancing, but the scientific community OVERWHELMINGLY agrees that climate change is an issue – 97% of actively publishing climate scientists agree that humans are causing climate change and global warming.
Full contextual analysis of Section 1.2: Executive Office of the President of the United States here.
Share this quote from Project 2025:
“All along, it was clear from randomized controlled trials – the gold standard of medical research – that masks provide little to no benefit in preventing the spread of viruses and might even be counterproductive.”
This is an outright lie. Study after study after credible study has proven that masks help control the spread of viruses. There’s a reason that surgeons and doctors have been wearing them for decades. But fair enough – if you refuse to believe the CDC or the NIH, here’s a Mayo Clinic Study9, a study from PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America10, an article from Yale Medicine that essentially says make your own choices, but wearing a mask in public indoor spaces is the smart thing to do11 if you’re at risk, an article from Johns Hopkins12, and an article from UCSF13, all in support of masking up. The UCSF article goes into the science behind it.
From the PNAS study:
“The preponderance of evidence indicates that mask wearing reduces transmissibility per contact by reducing transmission of infected respiratory particles in both laboratory and clinical contexts. Public mask wearing is most effective at reducing spread of the virus when compliance is high.”
I’m not sure what the endgame of lying about the efficacy of masks is, given the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, but I suspect something akin to “freedom.” To which I say, you’re being asked to wear a mask, not a Nickelback T-shirt. Suck it up and be part of the solution, not part of the problem.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3: The General Welfare here.
“Severino writes of the National Institutes of Health, “Despite its popular image as a benign science agency, NIH was responsible for paying for research in aborted baby body parts, human animal chimera experiments”—in which the genes of humans and animals are mixed, “and gain-of-function viral research that may have been responsible for COVID-19.”
Yes, the NIH has historically funded research involving fetal tissue from elective abortions (and with consent only after an abortion was already chosen – there are ethical constructs in place.) It’s a subject of debate, but it has also contributed to advances in vaccines, treatments for various diseases, and understanding human development. The Trump administration put restrictions on this in 2019, and the Biden administration lifted them again in 2021. Specific advancements we’ve made from the use of fetal tissue in research and development have included the polio vaccine, the rubella vaccine, and the hepatitis A vaccine, which was derived from a fetus aborted in the 1960’s, as was the rubella vaccine. Also Adenovirus, chicken pox, Ebola, rabies, and shingles vaccines. [Source] The rubella vaccine has prevented literal millions of birth defects and fetal deaths worldwide, and rubella is the leading vaccine-preventable cause of birth defects.
Additionally, fetal tissue has helped us study how congenital disabilities occur, given us insight into HIV/AIDS, and may eventually provide treatments for blindness, spinal cord injuries, neurodegenerative diseases such as Parkinson’s, Zika virus, and more. Fetal tissue has also been used as a source of stem cells, which can develop into a wide variety of tissues, which has broad implications for regenerative medicine and gene therapy, potentially treating osteoarthritis, heart disease, diabetes, and certain types of cancer. [Source]
The NIH has also funded some research involving the mixing of human cells with animals, typically to study diseases or develop therapies. They’re referred to as “chimera” experiments. A prominent example of these is the creation of “human-pig chimeras”, which involves injecting human cells into pig embryos, aiming to grow organs like hearts or kidneys that can be transplanted into humans without being rejected due to their partially human cell composition. This is focused on organ shortage issues – a truly pro-life policy.
We have no definitive proof yet of where COVID-19 originated (and how), so the author has no reason to speculate that it had something to do with gain-of-function research.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3: The General Welfare here.
“What’s more, NIH has long “been at the forefront in pushing junk gender science.” The next HHS secretary should immediately put an end to the department’s foray into woke transgender activism.”
This is nothing more than transphobia/cheap pandering to transphobes.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3: The General Welfare here.
“The next Administration should embrace innovation and technology, not hinder its use – especially because of scare tactics that ignore sound science.”
This appears under the heading “Remove Obstacles for Agricultural Biotechnology”. It is absolutely, laughably RICH that a climate change denier would even be able to utter the phrase “scare tactics that ignore sound science” with a straight face. This is unworthy of dignifying with further response.
More potential outcomes of this in the full contextual analysis of Section 3.1: Department of Agriculture here.
“Commence a new agency rulemaking process to rescind the current Administration’s Title IX regulations; restore the Title IX regulations promulgated by then-Secretary Betsy DeVos on May 19, 2020; and define “sex” under Title IX to mean only biological sex recognized at birth.”
Well, not everyone HAS a “biological sex recognized at birth.” This claim is science denial at work. Experts estimate that up to 1.7 percent of the population are born with intersex traits, which can mean anatomy, reproductive organs, hormone patterns, and/or chromosomal patterns that do not fit binary notions of “male” or “female.” They’re somewhere in between. 1.7% of the population is about the same amount as people who have red hair. Do you know a redhead? Then you likely know a person with intersex traits, whether they’re aware of it themselves or not (have you seen your own chromosomes? I haven’t.)
Burke is arguing here for federally sanctioning discrimination against people who cannot help their chromosomal, physical, and hormonal makeup. This isn’t a new thing. The conventional wisdom, if the characteristics of being intersex are noticed at birth, is to leave the person alone until they’re old enough to know how they identify, then allow them to live as they wish. As recently as the 1960’s, these people were called “hermaphrodites”, and doctors would simply assign them a sex at birth and perform a surgery to match their genitals to the sex chosen, then their parents would raise them accordingly. Since penises were harder to manufacture or surgically engineer, most infants with intersex characteristics were simply made as feminine as possible and then raised as biological girls. This, as you can imagine, screwed people up. Here’s some history on that. (Or you can look up David Reimer.)
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.2: Department of Education here.
“On its first day in office, the next Administration should signal its intent to enter the rulemaking process to restore the Trump Administration’s Title IX regulation, with the additional insistence that “sex” is properly understood as a fixed biological fact. Official notice-and-comment should be posted immediately.”
“Day one, we’re going to start legalizing discrimination!” No, sex is not a “fixed biological fact.” See above. Just for fun, here’s a link about the Guevedoces, which, roughly translated, means “penis at twelve.” The Guevedoces are a small community in the Dominican Republic where some males are born looking like girls and subsequently grow penises at puberty, when their testicles also descend. Most were brought up as girls until this happened to them. [Source]28 The world is a vast and complicated place, and very little about it is a “fixed biological fact.”
The next few pages are simply blatant racism, which doesn’t bear repeating. Suffice it to say, Burke’s goal is to effectively legalize discrimination of all kinds in K-12 schools. At one point, she even sneers that “the media will see this as an attack on civil rights.” Yes. And rightfully so.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.2: Department of Education here.
“Eliminate special-interest funding programs. Many DOE energy funding programs are not targeted on fundamental science and technology; instead, they focus more on commercialization and act as subsidies to the private sector for government-favored resources. The DOE Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations (OCED); Office of State and Community Energy Programs; ARPA-E; Office of Grid Deployment (OGD); and DOE Loan Program should be eliminated or reformed. If they continue to exist, FECM, NE, OE, and EERE should focus on fundamental science and technology issues, particularly in relation to cyber and physical threats to energy security, rather than subsidizing and commercializing energy resources.”
This is a lot to digest. In context, he’s arguing here for the Department of Energy cutting all federal funding into research and development for renewable energy. He specifically mentions cutting funding for the SPR (Strategic Petroleum Reserve) or consolidating it into another entity. SPR is the world’s largest supply of of emergency crude oil, designed to reduce the impact of disruptions in oil supplies. It is unclear why he’s making this recommendation.
McNamee wants to eliminate the OCED (Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations). OCED was created to fund large-scale projects that demonstrate the viability of emerging clean energy technologies, helping them reach commercial scale (deploying these technologies into the market.)
McNamee wants to eliminate the Office of State and Community Energy Programs, which provides subsidies to local governments and communities for clean energy.
McNamee wants to eliminate ARPA-E (Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy), which funds high-risk, high-reward energy projects aimed at developing innovative technologies that could transform the energy sector.
McNamee wants to eliminate the OGD (Office of Grid Deployment), which focuses on modernizing and improving the electrical grid, including enhancing its resilience and reliability. This is DIRECTLY at odds with his stated goal of improving the resilience and reliability of the electrical grid.
McNamee wants to eliminate the DOE loan program, which provides loans and loan guarantees to innovative energy projects, often aimed at clean energy technologies like solar, wind, and advanced batteries.
As for the suggested focus for the remaining offices that he’s not killing, he’s saying that the FECM (Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management) should focus on fundamental research in fossil energy, rather than funding carbon capture projects. He’s saying that the NE (Office of Nuclear Energy) should focus on basic nuclear research rather than advancing commercial nuclear technologies. He’s saying that the OE (Office of Electricity) should prioritize cybersecurity and physical security of the grid, instead of grid modernization efforts. Finally, he’s saying that the EERE (Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy) should focus on scientific advancements rather than deploying renewable energy technologies commercially.
Whew! Now that we’ve unraveled the WHAT, you can find the WHY in the linked analysis below.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.3: Department of Energy and Related Commissions here.
“A top priority should be the immediate and consistent rejection of all EPA ORD and science activities that have not been authorized by Congress.”
If the EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) and other science activities were limited only to those explicitly authorized by Congress, as this statement suggests, the consequences could be significant and potentially harmful to environmental protection efforts.
ORD’s research often addresses emerging environmental threats, such as new pollutants, climate change impacts, or novel industrial processes. Limiting research to only what is specifically authorized by Congress could reduce the agency’s ability to respond quickly to emerging issues and technological advancements.
Waiting for Congress to authorize specific research would likely introduce significant delays in responding to urgent environmental or public health crises. If an issue arises, such as the discovery of a harmful pollutant, the EPA would not be able to investigate or develop solutions unless Congress formally approves it. This could lead to a slower response to serious threats, including toxic spills, contamination, air and water quality issues, and climate-related disasters.
Furthermore, if the EPA’s scientific research is subject to congressional approval, it would almost certainly (and possibly by design) become politicized. Research might be influenced by political agendas or lobbying, rather than being driven by scientific priorities or actual environmental needs.
Limiting the EPA’s ability to conduct broad scientific research would likely undermine public trust in environmental regulation (which is also 100% by design in this case.) If people believe that the agency’s research is being dictated by political agendas rather than unbiased scientific inquiry, confidence in the EPA’s findings and regulations will erode.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.4: Environmental Protection Agency here.
“Instead of allowing these efforts to be misused for scaremongering risk communications and enforcement activities, EPA should embrace so-called citizen science and deputize the public to subject the agency’s science to greater scrutiny, especially in areas of data analysis, identification of scientific flaws, and research misconduct.”
Let’s break this one down. The phrase “scaremongering risk communications” implies that the EPA may be exaggerating environmental risks (e.g. pollution, climate change, toxic chemicals) to justify its regulatory actions. Gunasekara is suggesting that the EPA is using its scientific findings to instill fear in the public, leading to enforcement activities that are based on overstated risks.
“Citizen science” refers to the involvement of non-professional scientists (the general public) in collecting, analyzing, or interpreting scientific data. The suggestion is that the public should be more involved in scrutinizing the EPA’s scientific work, playing a watchdog role in ensuring the accuracy and reliability of the agency’s data and research. This is another form of “my opinion is just as good as your expertise”, which is prevalent throughout this project and not only untrue, but a dangerous mindset.
Throughout Project 2025, its authors have argued with staffing the government with loyalists to the agenda rather than actual experts. This adds an extra layer of stupidity – now we’re bringing in citizen non-scientists to “watchdog” a government agency that’s supposed to adhere to scientific principles. I can see Earl Schmo on the news now, testifying that he’s “been using harmful pesticides for years, and nothing bad has happened to him, so they must be safe.” Meanwhile, he’s riddled with cancer he’s not aware of.
I’m all for engaging the public in science. It encourages scientific literacy. But elevating public critique to the level of institutional oversight is the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. It will lead to misinterpretation of complex data, because scientific research involves specialized knowledge that laypeople mostly do not have.
It also increases the risk of disinformation, also almost certainly by design. Citizen science efforts that aim to find flaws in scientific research could be exploited by special interest groups who oppose certain regulations (e.g., fossil fuel or chemical companies). This could lead to a flood of misinformation or deliberate attempts to discredit legitimate environmental science, using public skepticism to weaken regulations. If individuals with limited understanding of scientific methods are empowered to challenge science, there is a risk that conspiracy theories or false claims about environmental issues could gain traction, especially when amplified by social media. Perhaps the author is counting on this, because this is directly in the service of deregulation efforts. This one is more nefarious than most, because it’s taking the long road to deregulation by gradually and falsely convincing the public that regulations aren’t necessary.
She goes on to argue that Congress should provide incentives to the public for identifying scientific flaws and research misconduct, which roughly translates to “pay the public to spread disinformation.” This is on page 470, paragraph 4.
Full contextual analysis of Section 3.4: Environmental Protection Agency here.