Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

MAGA says no to Trump & Kennedy’s junk science

Opinion

MAGA says no to Trump & Kennedy’s junk science

U.S. President Donald Trump answers questions after making an announcement on“ significant medical and scientific findings for America’ s children” in the Roosevelt Room of the White House on Sept. 22, 2025, in Washington, D.C. Federal health officials suggested a link between the use of acetaminophen during pregnancy as a risk for autism, although many health...

(Getty Images)

President Trump stood at the White House podium, addressing a room full of reporters.

“First, effective immediately, the FDA will be notifying physicians that the use of…ah-said-a…well…let’s see how we say that.”


As he struggled again to say “acetaminophen,” and asked someone off camera, “Is that OK?” when he finally managed to get his lips around the word, the moment was a perfect encapsulation of the dumbing down of expertise and the political corruption of science under this administration.

He said that taking acetaminophen, or Tylenol, while pregnant has been associated with a “very increased risk of autism,” a claim pushed by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy with little to no basis in scientific fact.

“Taking Tylenol is not good,” Trump declared, as if anyone in their right mind would take medical advice from a guy who suggested injecting disinfectant to treat coronavirus.

Scientists — people who, unlike Trump and Kennedy, have actual expertise in these matters — objected. Dr. Helen Tager-Flusberg, director of the Center for Autism Research Excellence at Boston University called the announcement “appalling” and “a very significant distortion” of what science says about any possible links.

The Coalition of Autism Scientists said: “The data cited do not support the claim that Tylenol causes autism and leucovorin is a cure, and only stoke fear and falsely suggest hope when there is no simple answer.”

And Sura Alwan, a clinical teratologist at the University of British Columbia, said, “The evidence does not support a causal link between acetaminophen or vaccines and autism.”

The absurdity of Trump and Kennedy doling out medical advice, when the former promoted taking anti-malaria medication hydroxychloroquine to ward off COVID-19 — and then contracted COVID-19 himself — and the latter believes chemicals in drinking water can make someone gay or trans, should not be lost on anyone.

Everyone should ignore these crackpot Looney Tunes and trust their doctors and pediatricians, not two politicians cosplaying at science, whose long and sordid history of bad advice could lead to serious injury or death.

And while MAGA-world usually falls in line quickly to defend even Trump’s worst impulses — see Jan. 6, see Russia, see tariffs — this time Tweedledum and Tweedledee aren’t getting quite the support they’re used to. That’s how bad this is.

Less than a day after Trump made his announcement, his own administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Dr. Mehmet Oz, went on MAGA favorite Fox News to walk it back.

“So the message is not, ‘Never take Tylenol,’ ” he said, contradicting Trump’s own words. “It’s, ‘Take Tylenol judiciously.’ Take it by talking with your doctor.”

Also on Fox, the network’s own senior medical analyst Dr. Marc Siegel asked and answered the question pretty definitively. “Does acetaminophen during pregnancy cause autism? People out there need to know there’s absolutely no proof whatsoever that that’s the case.”

In Congress, there’s been some rare pushback, too. Senate Majority Leader John Thune told CNN he was “very concerned” and insisted, “science ought to guide these discussions.”

Sen. Bill Cassidy, a licensed physician, posted on X, “HHS should release the new data that it has to support this claim. The preponderance of evidence shows that this is not the case.”

And Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal blasted Trump and Kennedy’s anti-Tylenol campaign, pointing to lawsuits against the maker of Tylenol and what may be personal interests in those outcomes.

“What’s going on here has less to do with healthcare than with a campaign by the plaintiffs bar,” wrote the Journal’s editorial board. “If a drug company made the unproven claims aired at the White House, the Food and Drug Administration would threaten legal action.”

“So why the sudden alarm, complete with a presidential presser?” it continued. “The Occam’s razor answer is the influence of RFK Jr., who is carrying water for his friends in the plaintiffs bar. A who’s-who of lawsuit shops are pushing the Tylenol-autism link in federal court. The transparent goal is to drum up more claims to drive a bigger damage award or settlement.”

I’m not even sure Trump believes all of the garbage he spewed on Monday. In his inimitable way, he seemed to distance himself from what he was selling, saying, “This is based on what I feel,” and “You know, I’m making these statements from me, I’m not making them from these doctors,” and “I’m not a doctor, but I’m giving my opinion.”

So when asked if it was appropriate for him to tell the public what to do, given it was based on his “feelings,” he answered it was “absolutely appropriate.”

Chef’s kiss.

S.E. Cupp is the host of "S.E. Cupp Unfiltered" on CNN.


Read More

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court, in holding that partisan gerrymandering is permissible—unless it "goes too far"—stated that the argument made against this practice based on the Court's "one person, one vote" doctrine didn't work because the cases that developed that doctrine were about ensuring that each vote had an equal weight. The Court reasoned that after redistricting, each vote still has equal weight.

I would respectfully disagree. After admittedly partisan redistricting, each vote does not have an equal weight. The purpose of partisan gerrymandering is typically to create a "safe" seat—to group citizens so that the dominant political party has a clear majority of the voters. It's the transformation of a contested seat or even a seat safe for the other party into a safe seat for the party doing the redistricting.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Puncher’s Illusion: Winning the First Round and Losing the War
Toy soldiers in a battle formation
Photo by Saifee Art on Unsplash

The Puncher’s Illusion: Winning the First Round and Losing the War

In the Rumble in the Jungle, George Foreman came in expecting to end the fight early.

At first, it looked that way. He was stronger, faster, and landing clean punches. I watched the 1974 championship on simulcast fifty-two years ago and remember how dominant he was in the opening rounds.

Keep ReadingShow less
Calling Wealthy Benefactors!
A rusty house figure stands over a city.
Photo by Katja Ano on Unsplash

Calling Wealthy Benefactors!

My housing has been conditional on circumstances beyond my control, and the time is up; the owner is selling.

Securing affordable housing is a stressor for much of the working class. According to recent data, nearly 50% of renters are cost-burdened, meaning they spend over 30% of their take-home income on housing costs. Rental prices in California are especially high, 35% higher than the national average. Renting is routinely insecure. The lords of land need to renovate, their kids need to move in. They need to sell.

Keep ReadingShow less
An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed upon entering the Jacob K. Javits Federal Building on June 6, 2023 in New York City. New York City has provided sanctuary to over 46,000 asylum seekers since 2013, when the city passed a law prohibiting city agencies from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement agencies unless there is a warrant for the person's arrest.(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)
An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed.
(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)

The Power of the Purse and Executive Discretion: ICE Expansion Under the Trump Administration

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key Takeaways

  • Core Constitutional Debate: Expanded ICE enforcement under the Trump Administration raises a core constitutional question: Does Article II executive power override Article I’s congressional power of the purse?
  • Executive Justification: The primary constitutional justification for expanded ICE enforcement is The Unitary Executive Theory.
  • Separation of Powers: Critics argue that the Unitary Executive Theory undermines Congress’s power of the purse.
  • Moral Conflict: Expanded ICE enforcement has sparked a moral debate, as concerns over due process and civil liberties clash with claims of increased public safety and national security.

Where is ICE Funding Coming From?

Since the beginning of the current Trump Administration, immigration enforcement has undergone transformative change and become one of the most contested issues in the federal government. On his first day in office, President Trump issued Executive Order 14159, which directs executive agencies to implement stricter immigration enforcement practices. In order to implement these practices, Congress passed and President Trump signed into law the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), a budget reconciliation package that paired state and local tax cuts with immigration funding. This allocated $170.7 billion in immigration-related funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to spend by 2029.

Keep ReadingShow less