Op-ed in The Los Angeles Times
Donald Trump’s first term as president was characterized by an unprecedented volume of false and misleading statements — exceeding 30,000, according to multiple news organizations. As he advances through the first 100 days of his second term, his administration appears to be intensifying this pattern, amplifying a misinformation apparatus to justify his actions and policy changes.
As he does so, he is also dismantling the government’s ability to evaluate its own policies, replacing credible evidence with propaganda. The second Trump administration is systematically eliminating funding and personnel for oversight and evaluating programs. This threatens our ability to make informed, evidence-based decisions about policies and programs, leaving the public vulnerable to unchecked misinformation and ineffective governance.
When the process or mechanism for systematically and objectively measuring what is working and what is not, what needs to be improved, and what we should replicate in other places and with other people is dismantled, the public will no longer have access to critical information and data.
The gathering and reporting of credible evidence to inform policy decisions was introduced as part of the Great Society legislation when programs under the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act, sponsored by Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, were required to be evaluated. Since then, evaluation has been key in shaping effective government programs. Its importance was reinforced in 2019 with the passage of the Evidence-Based Policymaking Act, signed by President Trump. This act required each government agency to develop evaluation policies outlining their priorities and practices under the appointment of a chief evaluation officer.
During his first two months back in office, the Trump administration has executed an “evidence drain” by eliminating or drastically cutting back on important research and evaluation programs. The Institute of Education Sciences has been virtually eliminated; only three staff members remain at the National Center for Education Statistics; and just over 20 personnel are left to execute the vital functions of the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Before Trump’s cuts, these offices employed more than 180 people.
The administration’s cuts to research funding have received more attention, and indeed, research is essential to medical and technological advancement. But cuts to evaluation take a serious toll as well.
Evaluation studies inform us about our national performance. With accurate, carefully designed studies, we may thoughtfully modify programs and policies to improve their performance and wind down those that we learn are not working well. Prudently constructed studies that produce nuanced answers to these and other questions have been commissioned by our government for more than 60 years to address timely and relevant questions, such as those we should be studying right now: What happens when social services are cut? To whom and where are these cuts having the most significant impact? How does shifting federal student loan programs from the Department of Education to the Small Business Administration affect access to these programs?
The public needs to know and understand the implications of cutting evaluation budgets and federal evaluation offices. Without sound evidence to counter or support claims made by public officials, we, the public, risk having access only to false information, which is now regularly pushed on unchecked social media and news outlets. That is why it is so dangerous for the public and so opportunistic for an administration moving toward authoritarianism to cut these studies with a chainsaw.
Fringe individuals with questionable professional credibility have politicized research studies by rebutting well-established findings and spreading disinformation, as we have seen with vaccine effectiveness and safety. The Trump administration has just hired one of these people to study the already discredited link between vaccines and autism. Spending tax dollars on this kind of “research” is an unquestionable waste of resources and a direct effort to continue pushing misinformation to the public, making it more difficult to discern fact from fiction.
We should also be deeply concerned that the current administration will hire equally unqualified and questionably positioned individuals to evaluate the outcomes of its cavalier cuts to funding and personnel.
We must continue to conduct sound evaluation studies of our programs and policies and provide the public with credible information to inform our national, local and kitchen table discussions. Many states and philanthropic organizations support such efforts. They should increase their commitments to this vital work.
To ensure honest appraisals that counter misinformation, we must, as a public, question the quality and accuracy of evidence used to support value-based assessments of what policies and programs are being “well” implemented and doing “good” for the American people. This is central to the survival of our increasingly fragile democracy.
Read the op-ed on The Los Angeles Times website: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2025-04-11/education-program-evaluation-federal-funding