---
title: "Political interference with science agencies by the first Trump administration"
chunk: 7/10
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_interference_with_science_agencies_by_the_first_Trump_administration"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:18:13.322702+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---

=== Department of Agriculture ===
The Trump administration marginalized the role of science at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and oversaw the mass departure of career USDA scientists. In July 2019, two USDA agencies—the Economic Research Service (ERS) and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture—were directed to move from the USDA's headquarters in Washington, D.C. to the Kansas City metropolitan area. Two-thirds of the USDA employees reassigned chose to quit rather than accept relocation. Current and former employees of the ERS were strongly critical of the relocation to Kansas City and other Trump administration policies, and the exodus of scientific and economic talent and disruption to federal research (especially on climate change and food security) that they had caused. The move to Kansas City area resulted in an attrition rate particularly high in the Resource and Rural Economics Division (90%) and in the Food Economics Division (up to 89%). ERS economists said that the Trump administration's moves were retaliation against the agency for publishing research reports detailing the negative economic effects of Trump's policies, including tariffs and Republican tax legislation, on U.S. agriculture.
In April 2018, Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue's office ordered ERS and other research components of USDA to include a disclaimer on peer-reviewed research authored by USDA scientists and published in scientific journals; the disclaimer was to state that findings and conclusions were "preliminary" and "should not be construed to represent any agency determination or policy." Susan Offutt, the ERS administrator under the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations, said that the requirement was contrary to the USDA's longstanding policy that permitted and encouraged federal scientists to publish work in journals. The "disclaimer" mandate was strongly criticized by USDA employees, science advocates, and scientific journal editors. In May 2019, following an outcry, the USDA rescinded the directive.
In April 2020, USDA established a "Farmers to Families Food Box" program, which paid farmers for food that would normally be destined for restaurants, repackaged it into household quantities, and distributed it to food-insecure Americans. Starting in summer 2020, some of the boxes included a letter signed by Trump, recommending coronavirus precautions and concluding "Together we will overcome this challenge, and our Nation will emerge from this crisis stronger than ever before." By September, the Department was requiring all contracted distributors to include the letter in every box. Regarding the letters as election-related advertising, many food banks, schools, and other nonprofit agencies removed the letters before distributing the food, citing the provision of U.S. tax law barring non-profits from engaging in political activity.

=== Hurricane Dorian–Alabama controversy ===

On September 1, 2019, as Hurricane Dorian approached the U.S. mainland, Trump commented on Twitter about the hurricane and incorrectly mentioned Alabama as one of the states that was threatened by the approaching storm. In fact the forecast on September 1 was that Dorian would steer well away from Alabama, so that Trump apparently relied on information that was several days old. About 20 minutes after Trump's tweet, the Birmingham, Alabama office of the National Weather Service (NWS) issued a tweet that appeared to contradict Trump, saying that Alabama "will NOT see any impacts from Dorian". The Birmingham office was unaware of Trump's tweet but was responding to a flood of phone calls and other questions about whether the storm was going to hit Alabama. Later that day and over the following days, as the hurricane moved up the coast and Alabama felt no effects from it, Trump insisted repeatedly that he had been right about the hurricane threatening the state. On September 4, at a briefing in the Oval Office he insisted that his Alabama comment had been correct, and displayed a forecast map dated August 29 which had been altered with a black marker to extend the cone of uncertainty of the hurricane's possible path into southern Alabama; the incident became known as Sharpiegate.
On September 6, NOAA published an unsigned statement in support of Trump's initial claim, saying that NHC models "demonstrated that tropical-storm-force winds from Hurricane Dorian could impact Alabama." The statement also said the message from the Birmingham NWS office had been incorrect because it "spoke in absolute terms that were inconsistent with probabilities from the best forecast products available at the time." The statement was widely criticized as "political", "utterly disgusting and disingenuous", and with "no scientific basis". The Inspector General of the Department of Commerce investigated the memorandum, saying that it called into question "the NWS’s processes, scientific independence, and ability to communicate accurate and timely weather warnings and data to the nation in times of national emergency." Her investigation confirmed that the September 6 statement had been issued by Commerce officials in response to direct orders from the White House. The report said that White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney had instructed Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross to get NOAA to issue a statement supporting the president's claims, and Mulvaney and Ross both approved the statement before it was issued. Another investigation reported that the acting NOAA administrator and his deputy chief of staff had also been involved with issuing the report. NOAA's acting chief scientist said "If not the single highest person in NOAA, who will stand for the Scientific Integrity of the agency and the trust our public needs to invest in our scientific process and products?" The Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Environmental Observation and Prediction wrote in an email to another NOAA scientist, "you have no idea how hard I'm fighting to keep politics out of science."

=== Environmental Protection Agency ===