On February 13, 2025, my colleagues and I received a call from the Executive Director of the Commissioned Officers Association of the USPHS that confirmed our worst fears about the impact of political interference in science, academic freedom, and integrity. After submitting our presentation for peer review, it was accepted: “Addressing Environmental Health Threats in Academia: Leadership in Research, Professional Collaboration and Community Engagement” to the 58th Annual USPHS Scientific & Training Symposium; a week later, we were informed that we must censor our work or withdraw it. The directive was clear: words such as “health equity,” “climate change,” and “environmental hazards” were now forbidden due to recently issued Executive Orders from the Trump administration.

We refused to comply. Our presentation was accepted as is. We made clear we would not voluntarily withdraw the presentation or self-censor. If they wanted to withdraw the acceptance, they needed to say why and do so in writing. Asking us to self-censor by removing discussion of climate change, environmental hazards, and impacts on equity in health care was not acceptable. We stood by our research, our integrity, and the principle that science should not be dictated by political whims.

Shortly thereafter, we received official confirmation that our work had been deemed “not permissible” under Executive Order 14148, which revokes climate-related initiatives, and Executive Order 14151, which terminates all diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, including those related to environmental justice.

• EO 14148 states that its Purpose and Policy includes “Climate extremism has exploded inflation and overburdened businesses with regulation” and revokes numerous EOs dealing with climate crises, change, and risk. 
• EO 14151’s Purpose and Policy deals with all “diversity, equity, and inclusion [DEI]” programs and directs agencies and departments to terminate all “equity” actions, initiatives, or programs including those that deal with “environmental justice” activities and Federal grantees receiving Federal funding on DEI, DEIA, or “environmental justice” programs.

The message was blunt: these topics, essential to public health and scientific progress, were now unmentionable at a federally co-sponsored symposium.

We Are Not Climate Extremists

We are not climate extremists, nor is our topic about diversity, equity, and inclusion. Our proposal focuses on the well-documented and measurable impacts of environmental health threats on communities, research challenges, and leadership in public health. The core of our presentation is leadership development, research collaboration, and professional engagement—issues directly relevant to public health professionals. The proposal does not advocate for any political ideology. Instead, it seeks to equip attendees with evidence-based strategies to address environmental health threats, a topic firmly rooted in science and public health practice. Any rational person reviewing this proposal would find no legitimate reason for objection. The subject matter—natural disasters, environmental hazards, and community engagement—aligns with public health priorities and emergency preparedness, making its exclusion a stark example of unwarranted censorship rather than a genuine policy concern.

I had to wonder if the leadership of Commission Officers Association (COA), Office of the Assistant Secretary of Health (OASH), and Office of the Surgeon Genderal (OSG) not undersood that health equity simply means everyone has a fair and just opportunity to attain their highest level of health. Health equity is not, and has never been about taking from one to give to another. It is about improving health care for all.

Why would any rational human with an intact moral compass oppose health equity? Are you honoring the uniform you wear or wore if you will not stand up for health equity for those in rural areas, the poor, people with disabilities, the elderly, or any number of other people that have difficulty with access?

A Dangerous Precedent

Executive orders can be instruments of good governance and expedient policy implementation when used responsibly. However, when wielded to suppress knowledge and dictate what science can and cannot address, they become tools of censorship. The repercussions of these directives will extend far beyond a single conference; they set a dangerous precedent for academic inquiry, public discourse, and the dissemination of knowledge. They will promote ignorance.

This is not just about our presentation. It is about a growing trend of silencing scientific inquiry that does not align with political ideology and it did not begin with this administration, but it has been weaponized by this administration to incite fear. It is about the erosion of intellectual independence in federally affiliated institutions. It is about the chilling effect this creates on researchers, educators, and practitioners who now must choose between compromising their integrity or being excluded from critical platforms.

A Failure of Leadership

I am deeply disappointed in the COA, OASH, and to OSG and the individual in leadership positions in those organizations. These organizations should be on the front lines defending scientific integrity and evidence-based policy, not surrendering to political pressure as should the people in them that wanted to lead. The COA is supposed to be dedicated to advocating for the interests of the U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS) Commissioned Corps officers. Its mission is supposed to be to protect and enhance the public health and safety of the United States by supporting and advancing the interests of the Commissioned Corps and its officers. If they do not have the courage to stand up for science now, how can we trust any future Surgeon General’s reports or guidance from OASH? How can the public have confidence in the integrity of any health-related recommendations coming from these institutions? How will officers have confidence in the COA?

Science is not partisan, and public health is not a political tool. If these institutions abandon their duty to defend objective, evidence-based research, they will fail not only the scientific community and the USPHS officers but also the public they are supposed to serve.

Science Cannot Be Gagged

Refusing to acknowledge environmental hazards, climate change, or health equity does not make these issues disappear. Instead, it endangers communities, undermines scientific progress, and weakens the foundation of evidence-based policy. Ignoring over 200 closed uranium mines in New Mexico does not make them disappear. Suppressing research will not prevent their consequences—it will only ensure that we are less prepared to address climate-associated disasters and their health impacts.

Scientific integrity must not be contingent upon political convenience, academic freedom must not be subject to the shifting tides of executive power, and the pursuit of truth must not be constrained by any ideology.

I will not self-censor. I will not erase reality to appease policies that deny it. Science serves the public good, not political agendas, and I will continue to uphold my responsibility to research, educate, and advocate for evidence-based solutions.

If we remain silent in the face of such restrictions, we become complicit in the erosion of the very freedoms that sustain scientific discovery and democratic discourse.

I refuse to be silent.