The many controversial people appointed to the Trump administration, from Elon Musk to Robert F. Kennedy jun, have at least one thing in common: they dislike and distrust experts.
While anti-intellectualism and populism are nothing new in American life, there has hardly been an administration as seemingly committed to these worldviews.
Take President Donald Trump’s decision to nominate Kennedy, a well-known vaccine sceptic, to lead the Department of Health and Human Services.
Kennedy epitomises the new American political ethos of populism and anti-intellectualism, or the idea that people hold negative feelings towards not just scientific research, but those who produce it.
Anti-intellectual attacks on the scientific community have been increasing, and have become more partisan, in recent years.
For instance, Trump denigrated scientific experts on the campaign trail and in his first term in office.
He called climate science a "hoax" and public health officials in his administration "idiots".
This rhetoric filtered into public discussion, as seen in viral social media posts mocking and attacking scientists such as Dr Anthony Fauci, or anti-mask protesters confronting health officials.
Trump and Kennedy have cast doubt on vaccine safety and the medical scientific establishment.
As far back as the Republican primary debates in 2016, Trump falsely asserted that childhood vaccines caused autism, in defiance of scientific consensus.
Kennedy’s long-term vaccine scepticism has also been well documented, though he himself denies it.
Recently, he has been presenting himself as "pro-vaccine safety", as one Republican senator put it, before Kennedy’s confirmation hearing.
Kennedy has mirrored Trump’s anti-intellectual rhetoric by referring to government health agency culture as "corrupt" and the agencies themselves as "sock puppets".
Kennedy has vowed to turn this rhetoric into action. He wants to replace over 600 employees in the National Institutes of Health with his own hires. He has also suggested cutting entire departments.
During one interview, Kennedy said, "in some categories, there are entire departments, like the nutrition department at the FDA ... that have to go."
In lockstep with this anti-intellectual movement is a version of populism that people like RFK jun and Trump espouse.
Populism is a worldview that pits average citizens against "the elites".
Who the elites are varies depending on the context, but in the contemporary political climate in the United States, establishment politicians, scientists and organisations like pharmaceutical companies or the centres for disease control and prevention are frequently portrayed as such.
For instance, right-wing populists often portray government health agencies as colluding with multinational pharmaceutical companies to impose excessive regulations, mandate medical interventions and restrict personal freedoms.
Left-wing populists expose how Big Pharma manipulates the healthcare system, using its immense wealth and political influence to put profits over people, deliberately keeping lifesaving medications overpriced and out of reach — all of which has been said by politicians like Bernie Sanders.
The goal of a populist is to portray these elites as the enemy and to root out the perceived "corruption" of the elites.
This worldview doesn’t just appeal to the far Right. Historically in the US, populism has been more of a force on the political Left.
To this day, it is present on the Left through Sanders and similar politicians who rail against wealth inequality and the interests of the "millionaire class".
In short, the Trump administration’s populist and anti-intellectual worldview does not map cleanly on to the liberal-conservative ideological divide in the US. That is why Kennedy, a lifelong Democrat and nephew of a Democratic president, was nominated as a Cabinet member for a Republican president.
Why, then, is disdain for scientific experts appealing to so many Americans?
Much of the public supports this worldview because of perceived ineffectiveness and moral wrongs made by the elites.
Factors such as the opioid crisis encouraged by predatory pharmaceutical companies, public confusion and dissatisfaction with changing health guidance in the early stages of the Covid-19 pandemic and the frequently prohibitive cost of healthcare and medicine have given some Americans reason to question their trust in science and medicine.
Populists have embraced popular and science-backed policies that align with an anti-elite stance.
Kennedy, for example, supports decreasing the amount of ultra-processed foods in public school lunches and reducing toxic chemicals in the food supply and natural environment.
These stances are backed by scientific evidence about how to improve public health.
At the same time, they point to the harmful actions of a perceived corrupt elite — the profit-driven food industry.
It is, of course, reasonable to want to hold accountable both public officials for their policy decisions and scientists and pharmaceutical companies who engage in unethical behaviour.
Scientists should by no means be immune from scrutiny.
Examining, for example, what public health experts got wrong during the Covid-19 pandemic would be tremendously helpful from the standpoint of preparing for future public health crises, but also from the standpoint of rebuilding public trust in science, experts and institutions.
However, the Trump administration does not appear to be interested in pursuing good faith assessments.
And Trump’s victory means he gets to implement his vision and appoint people he wants to carry it out.
— theconversation.com
■Dominik Stecuła is assistant professor of communication and political science, Ohio State University; Kristin Lunz Trujillo is assistant professor of political science, University of South Carolina; Matt Motta is assistant professor of health law, policy and management, Boston University.
