On May 24, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order aimed at establishing “Gold Standard Science” as the cornerstone of federal scientific research, as part of a broader agenda to restore public trust in science and reinvigorate America’s scientific enterprise. The order, detailed in a White House announcement, defines Gold Standard Science as research that is reproducible, transparent, falsifiable, subject to unbiased peer review, clear about errors and uncertainties, skeptical of assumptions, collaborative, interdisciplinary, accepting of negative results, and free from conflicts of interest. The initiative requires federal research agencies to align their programs with these principles, while also calling on American researchers and academic institutions to adopt these standards.
Trump’s science adviser, Michael Kratsios, elaborated on this vision in speeches at the National Academy of Sciences, emphasizing that the U.S. has seen “diminishing returns” in scientific progress due to issues like research misconduct and professional pressures. He cited examples like a flawed 2009 Alzheimer’s study to highlight the need for reproducibility and transparency, arguing that political biases and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives have eroded public trust in science. Kratsios also defended proposed federal funding cuts, including a 26% reduction to the Department of Health and Human Services’ budget, suggesting that private funding could play a larger role and that spending must prioritize national interests.
The move has sparked polarized reactions. Supporters, as seen in posts on X, praise Trump for challenging “corrupt corporate-funded research” and ending “fake science tyranny,” particularly targeting Big Pharma’s influence. Critics, including scientific organizations and posts on X, argue that the Trump administration’s policies, including significant cuts to science funding and restrictions on climate research, threaten scientific progress and global collaboration. For instance, a New Scientist post highlighted concerns that Trump’s actions could derail climate goals, biomedical research, and pandemic readiness. Others, like the Union of Concerned Scientists, point to a pattern of undermining science during Trump’s first term, citing 346 documented anti-science actions between 2016 and 2021.
Skeptics question the feasibility of the “Gold Standard” framework, noting that while transparency and reproducibility are widely accepted scientific ideals, the administration’s broader agenda—such as defunding climate science or prioritizing economic interests—may contradict these goals. A Nature article reported that Trump officials barred NASA climate scientists from international meetings, raising concerns about politicization. Meanwhile, the emphasis on private funding and reduced federal support could strain universities, which rely on government grants for research infrastructure.
The term “gold standard” in this context is unrelated to monetary policy, despite Trump’s historical interest in a gold-backed currency. Instead, it reflects an idealized benchmark for scientific rigor. Whether this initiative will drive innovation or hinder progress remains debated, with outcomes hinging on how federal agencies implement these standards and navigate proposed budget cuts.