The Trump administration’s approach to the CDC illustrates a broader strategy where facts are subjugated to ideology, dissent is punished, and legality is optional.

The Modus Operandi of the Trump Administration – Anti-Science Authoritarianism and the Cost of Chaos

by ChatGPT-4o

The recent upheaval at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)—detailed in reports from WIRED and CNN—offers a troubling case study in the Trump administration’s modus operandi. It showcases a pattern of governance that disregards science, quashes dissent, flouts legal norms, and embraces institutional chaos as a strategic advantage. These trends—already evident during Trump’s first term—have escalated to new levels in the administration’s second term, particularly in its treatment of the CDC and its leadership.

1. Disregard for Science and Facts

At the core of this administration’s decision-making is an overt rejection of scientific consensus, especially when it clashes with political narratives. Dr. Susan Monarez, a veteran scientist and recently confirmed CDC Director, was reportedly ousted after refusing to “rubber-stamp unscientific, reckless directives” and for standing by her team of experienced public health experts. Her firing came without formal notification, according to her legal representatives, raising immediate questions about legality and protocol.

Moreover, the administration's health secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has actively undermined established vaccine policies. He removed the COVID-19 vaccine from the CDC’s list of recommended immunizations for children and pregnant women, fired all 17 members of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, and replaced them with vaccine skeptics. These actions have no basis in peer-reviewed science, and contradict decades of data demonstrating vaccine efficacy. Internal resignations confirm these concerns: departing CDC officials cited “the ongoing weaponizing of public health” and “overstating of vaccine risks” as unacceptable distortions of science.

2. Dissent Is to Be Quashed

Institutional dissent—especially when grounded in scientific rigor—is treated not as a form of integrity, but as a threat to political control. The coordinated resignations of multiple senior CDC officials—including the directors of immunization, public health science, and infectious disease centers—reflect a culture of suppression. Those resigning described being sidelined, censored, or ignored. Dr. Demetre Daskalakis, for instance, reported that the data justifying vaccine policy changes was never shared with the CDC, despite repeated requests.

These departures are not part of an ordinary transition. They appear orchestrated to purge scientific leadership and install political loyalists. As one CDC staffer expressed, “My main concern is they will be replaced with puppets… which will lead to people not getting the vaccines they need, which will lead to more preventable outbreaks”.

3. Firings That Flout Constitutional and Legal Norms

The removal of Dr. Monarez is especially notable for its apparent illegality. Her attorneys assert that she did not resign and was not formally dismissed. Her firing was simply announced via an HHS social media post. No due process, no written notice—just a digital pronouncement. This extrajudicial behavior undermines the constitutional protections afforded to civil servants and could constitute a violation of the Appointments Clause and administrative law.

The administration has repeated this tactic across departments—issuing firings and mandates via social media, bypassing statutory procedures, and refusing oversight. It signals a deep erosion of the rule of law in favor of arbitrary executive fiat.

4. Embracing Chaos Over Competence

Contrary to claims of efficiency and strong leadership, the administration thrives on institutional chaos. The result is a decapitated CDC during one of the most turbulent public health periods in recent memory—following mass shootings at CDC headquarters and amid renewed outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases like measles.

In parallel, HHS canceled half a billion dollars in mRNA vaccine research, reinstated defunct advisory bodies with political appointees, and gutted long-standing scientific review processes. These moves further destabilize agencies already facing credibility crises.

Rather than aiming for stability and competence, this administration appears to leverage disorder as a method to delegitimize “the deep state,” elevate fringe voices, and centralize power in loyalist networks. This approach isn’t accidental—it is instrumental to a broader authoritarian playbook that seeks to weaken institutional guardrails.

Consequences for the U.S. and the World

Domestic Consequences:

• Erosion of Trust: Scientific agencies like the CDC rely on credibility. Politicizing them destroys public trust, especially during health crises. As seen during the COVID-19 pandemic, such distrust can lead to lower vaccination rates, higher death tolls, and preventable epidemics.

• Talent Exodus: The ousting of credible scientists discourages future leaders from serving, undermining institutional memory and capacity.

• Legal Instability: Routine violations of administrative law corrode constitutional norms and set dangerous precedents for future governance.

Global Consequences:

• Loss of U.S. Leadership in Science: The CDC has historically shaped global health standards. Its degradation leaves a vacuum that could be filled by less transparent actors.

• Fuel for Global Misinformation: The administration’s promotion of anti-vaccine rhetoric amplifies global disinformation campaigns, empowering authoritarian regimes to justify similar anti-science measures.

Backfire Potential for the Administration:
While such tactics may consolidate short-term loyalty and media attention, the long-term fallout is substantial:

• Public Health Disasters: Preventable disease outbreaks could severely harm children and vulnerable populations—something even politically loyal supporters may find intolerable.

• Legal Challenges: Firings without due process and politicization of scientific policy may result in successful legal challenges, congressional investigations, and public backlash.

• Loss of International Standing: Global partners may disengage or redirect collaborations to more stable democracies, diminishing U.S. soft power and influence.

Conclusion: A Dangerous Template for Authoritarian Governance

The Trump administration’s approach to the CDC illustrates a broader strategy where facts are subjugated to ideology, dissent is punished, and legality is optional. It rejects the Enlightenment principles that have guided modern governance—truth, reason, and accountability—in favor of a volatile mix of populist control and institutional degradation.

This is not simply a matter of poor leadership. It is a blueprint for authoritarian capture of democratic institutions. The consequences—health crises, institutional decay, and legal erosion—are already visible. And if left unchecked, they risk not only America’s democratic integrity but also global health, security, and trust in evidence-based governance.