Science Agencies Pull ‘Political Interference’ Protections From Scientific Integrity Policies
An illustration of the former NSF science integrity policy.
FYI
Federal agencies across the government are removing language barring “political interference” from scientific integrity policies covering taxpayer-funded research.
Most recently, the National Science Foundation’s new scientific integrity policy, published on Sept. 1, no longer states that it is the agency’s policy to “prohibit political interference or inappropriate influence on scientific activities and the use of scientific information” instead referring only to “inappropriate influence.” The Department of Commerce, which oversees both the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Institute of Standards and Technology, similarly removed its political interference protections in August.
The revisions follow President Donald Trump’s May 2025 Gold Standard Science executive order, which directed agencies to update their scientific integrity policies around principles such as transparency, reproducibility, and unbiased peer review. Multiple agencies last year removed references barring political interference from their scientific integrity policies following the executive order.
NSF’s previous scientific integrity policy, published in 2024, explicitly required that NSF leaders and officials “will not suppress, delay, or alter findings and products of scientific activities by NSF employees and other covered individuals for political purposes or influenced by special interests.” It also said that agency staff should be able to “communicate their scientific activities objectively” free from political interference. Neither statement appears in the agency’s new policy.
NSF declined to comment on the changes. The policy also updated NSF’s scientific integrity complaints procedure, and removed previous references to diversity, equity and inclusion.
The Department of Commerce, which oversees the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Institute of Standards and Technology, also recently revised its scientific integrity policy along similar lines. The new policy retains references to objectivity, transparency, and scientific standards, but removes language intended to shield government science from political interference specifically.
In June 2025, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy issued guidance for agencies to implement Gold Standard Science practices in line with the executive order. In July 2025, the Department of Energy replaced its Biden-era scientific integrity policy with a new policy that largely reverted to the language and structure of the department’s 2017 policy. The Environmental Protection Agency took a similar step in August 2025, rescinding the policy it issued in January 2025, and reinstating its 2012 Scientific Integrity Policy. NIH rescinded its agency-specific scientific integrity policy in March last year, saying it would instead adhere to HHS’s department-wide policy. The HHS policy, originally effective in October 2024 and updated in March 2026, still uses the phrase “political interference” once in its definition of “interference” — down from seven explicit references in the 2024 version.
Why the language matters
The Gold Standard Science executive order did not instruct agencies to remove protections against political interference. In fact, a White House fact sheet announcing the initiative cited political interference in science as a problem that the initiative was intended to address. This leaves unclear why an order intended to prevent political interference in science would spur agencies to trim such language from their scientific integrity policies.
Jacob Carter, a scientific integrity expert and co-founder of the science policy newsletter SciLight, said that pulling the political interference language from federal agencies’ policies seems to be “a continuation of this administration giving political leaders more power to decide what science counts, rather than protecting science from politics.”
Word choices matter, Carter said, explaining; “Explicitly naming ‘political interference’ in the old policies established a very clear boundary that political leaders can make policy decisions, but they cannot interfere with the science to support those decisions. Removing that explicit prohibition makes the boundary less clear.”
The Biden administration strengthened scientific integrity policies across federal agencies, resulting in more explicit protections for federal scientists, processes to report violations of scientific integrity, and professionalization of scientific integrity within agencies, said Jules Barbati-Dajches, an analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Center for Science and Democracy.
Barbati-Dajches noted that UCS has tracked instances of political interference in science since the beginning of the George W. Bush administration in the early 2000s. The recent removal of language protecting against political interference from agency policies is “very alarming and confusing quite frankly,” they said. They added that “spelling out these protections is critical, and when they aren’t explicit, it’s easier for people to take advantage of the ambiguity.”
Protecting science from undue political, financial and corporate influence is the most fundamental part of scientific integrity, Barbati-Dajches said. Removing political interference from scientific integrity definitions is like “describing the ocean to someone for the first time and neglecting to tell them that it’s made of water,” they added.
The updated scientific integrity policies come as political influence over federal science and research funding faces heightened public scrutiny. The White House Office of Management and Budget recently proposed an overhaul of government-wide grant rules that would require senior political appointees to review discretionary awards before they are issued and ensure that they advance the president’s policy priorities. That proposal drew thousands of responses, most of which were negative – according to an analysis by STAT and researchers at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Implementation of the OMB rule has been delayed until December by a stopgap funding bill President Trump signed last week.
