During the first Trump administration, Virginia Burkett, a senior government scientist, felt like she had a target on her back.
She fought Trump officials’ attempts to eliminate climate research programs while rejecting their demands to change the nation’s first report on how global warming is affecting every region of the country.
But Dr. Burkett says she paid the price. In a whistleblower complaintshe said, the Trump administration retaliated by demoting her and removing her from her position as chair of the committee overseeing the report.
His experience was part of a vast attack on science in the federal government under the first Trump administration. Other scientists were also demoted or reassignedprojects were halted and scientists were forced to suppress their research or prevented from making it public. Ultimately, hundreds of scientists and environmental policy experts left the government.
But Dr. Burkett was reinstated to a leadership position by the Biden administration and remained in federal service, along with thousands of others. And as Mr. Trump is set to return to the White House, they have pushed for new policies and procedures to guard against political interference.
“What concerns me most is protecting future scientists from the harm that I have faced,” she said, echoing the views of about two dozen current and government officials interviewed for this article.
“A lot of people in federal science organizations are nervous,” said Mark Sogge, a former U.S. Geological Survey research ecologist who retired in 2021 and stays in touch with former colleagues. “But I haven’t heard of people looking to retire en masse.” Many of them say, “I have the experience to help me get through this.” »
A senior government official, who works in science and spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation by the Trump administration, said career employees have begun building a firewall four years ago. “We have been preparing since day one” of the Biden administration to better protect science and scientists, the official said.
Actions taken include the creation and expansion of scientific integrity policies in many federal agencies that detail how government scientists should conduct and publish research, what to do if politicians try to block this work, and define the sanctions for violations. Scientific integrity officers have recently been installed in several agencies to enforce policies. And new union contracts come with consequences for politicians who retaliate against scientists who follow these policies.
The goal is to shine a spotlight on the work of government scientists and guard against any attempts to suppress or manipulate it.
Trump’s transition team has called the efforts a preemptive block on the new president’s ability to implement his policies.
“Biden is going against the will of the American people by doing everything he can to make it more difficult for President Trump to implement his agenda that he overwhelmingly voted for,” Karoline Leavitt said , spokesperson for the transition. “Despite these setbacks, President Trump will quickly fulfill the promises he made when he returns to the White House next week. »
“It is likely that the goal of these scientific integrity efforts is less about ensuring that the best science is considered when making policy decisions, and more about building support for and anchoring progressive policies of “extreme left in the administrative state,” Rep. James Comer, the Kentucky Republican who leads the committee, wrote in document requests.
Mr. Trump, who has called established science on man-made global warming a hoax, has promised to erase limits on pollution from factory tailpipes and smokestacks. His allies say that shortly after taking the oath, he delete the sentences “climate change” and “clean energy” on each agency’s website. People working on his transition have prepared a series of executive orders aimed at reorienting the government away from climate change, including withdrawing the United States from the 2015 Paris climate accord, signed by nearly every country.
Mr. Trump’s allies are also considering moving EPA headquarters and agency facilities. 7,000 workers outside Washington. During its first mandate, the administration moved the Bureau of Land Management in Colorado and moved two scientific research branches of the Department of Agriculture to Kansas, leading to an exodus of employees.
Under the Obama administration, the White House directed government agencies to create “scientific integrity policies,” setting out standard practices and processes that government scientists must follow. President Biden built on this by directing agencies to expand and strengthen policies to “prohibit inappropriate political interference” and “prevent the suppression or distortion of technical findings, data, information, conclusions, or results scientific or technological”.
The Biden White House also managed each agency of the firm designate a chief science officer and scientific integrity officers to enforce policies. There were fewer than a dozen scientific integrity officers at the end of the first Trump administration. Today, there are more than 30. The White House directive requires these officials to be career civil servants, not political appointees.
A 2023 memorandum from the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy defined scientific integrity to mean that research is peer-reviewed, that scientists should be able to openly express disagreement without fear of reprisal, and that violations of scientific integrity policies should be treated as seriously as violations of the rules of government ethics and have consequences.
“It was like, OK guys, let’s strengthen these guardrails,” said Marijke van Heeswijk, a former senior scientist at the U.S. Geological Survey, who retired in 2020 but stays in touch with her former colleagues. “Until recently, we had been pretty naive. These rules were put in place to clarify what was previously understood, and now it is written in black and white.
White House officials admit that nothing will stop future administrations from erasing or ignoring these policies.
“Any president can rescind any previous president’s memorandum,” said Kei Koizumi, senior deputy director for policy at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. “But we view this as a public compact between the federal government and the American people.”
Some agencies have redesigned the system for reporting political interference in scientific work. At the U.S. Geological Survey, scientists must report suspected misconduct to the agency’s inspector general, an independent watchdog, rather than to top agency officials, who are typically appointed by the president.
“Inspectors general have provided a much better avenue to conduct serious investigations into scientific integrity violations because they have investigative powers and are not afraid to go after political leaders,” said Tim Whitehouse, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, a nonprofit group that advocates for the rights of public employees.
The Union of Concerned Scientists, an advocacy group, sent a letter signed by 2,405 scientists to Congress asking members to “oppose attempts to politicize or eliminate the scientific roles, agencies, and federal research that protect our health, environment, and communities.”
Rep. Paul Tonko, Democrat of New York and a member of the House Science Committee, plans to introduce legislation requiring government agencies to maintain and enforce scientific integrity policies. “Scientific integrity policies are helpful, but now that we have a repeat of Trump, we need to force the law,” Mr. Tonko said in an interview.
But the prospects of adoption seem dim in the current Republican-majority Congress.
Employees at some agencies have used their employment contracts to secure new protections. A new union contract for employees of the Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service, which was moved from Washington to Kansas during Trump’s first term, stipulates that scientific findings cannot be changed by managers, non -scientists or public relations personnel, and can be freely communicated externally. the agency without political influence.
At the National Institutes of Health, where many employees were distressed by how the Trump administration underestimated Covid risks early in the pandemic, a union contract finalized this month stipulates that any change in policy of scientific integrity must be approved by union negotiators.
At the EPA, a union contract finalized in June 2024 allows employees to file a complaint if they suffered retaliation for reporting scientific misconduct. It says any employee facing retaliation for adhering to the policy can seek a legally binding decision from an independent arbitrator.
“Under the previous Trump administration, we were in an extremely vulnerable position,” said Marie Owens Powell, president of the EPA employees union. “That’s one of the lessons we learned. This section on scientific integrity creates new protections for scientists.
Another resource is a nonprofit organization, the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund, which offers free legal advice to climate scientists.
In December, the group offered comprehensive workshops at annual conference of the American Geophysical Uniona gathering in Washington of approximately 25,000 Earth and space scientists from around the world.
“Compared to the first Trump administration, government scientists are now more comfortable coming to us and using our legal assistance to pursue lawsuits,” said Lauren Kurtz, the group’s executive director. “They are less afraid to make things happen.”
Some employees come up with creative survival strategies.
In one corner of the EPA’s large headquarters on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington is the National Environmental Museum, which opened last year. Joanne Amorosi, the project manager, pointed to the top of an exhibit celebrating Mr. Trump in large letters for signing a 2020 law that eliminates some greenhouse pollution.
At the bottom of this posting, in smaller letters, it says that Mr. Biden, who has done more than any president to combat climate change, has appointed a task force to promote climate change within the federal agencies.
Ms. Amorosi pointed out the incongruity but added: “If he sees his name there, maybe he’ll be more inclined to keep it as is.” »
Hiroko Tabuchi reports contributed.