Trump's executive order "Restoring Gold Standard Science" was the worst kind of poison: It looks, smells, and tastes exactly like a healthy meal.

How MAHA Exploits the Flaws of Modern Science

By C. Brandon Ogbunu

An old adage tells us that pressure can burst a pipe, but pressure can also make a diamond. It’s a soothing creed for life’s tumult. It applied most directly to me during my past life as a sometimes-boxer by suggesting that the fighter with less talent (me in my youth) can win by smothering their opponent, throwing punches in high volume, and making their foe uncomfortable. Pressure, this pugilistic advice goes, is the best way to expose the fragilities of adversaries.

The analogy applies to the current war on science, now a year old. My academic colleagues and I feel overwhelmed by the never-ending subversion from the Make America Healthy Again, or MAHA, movement. We are collectively flummoxed, without a plan of action, and vulnerable to every body blow from an emboldened challenger. The worst consequences of the war on science are not the direct ones, like the funding cuts and the attacks on DEI and free speech. Rather, the most harm comes from the stress imposed by President Donald Trump's health and science leadership, who have nevertheless revealed enormous flaws in the process of science — ones that we could have fixed many moons ago and must fix today if we want science to survive.

In reflecting on the war on science, we should note that there is no silver lining. We shouldn’t accept the notion that the goals of science’s opponents are anything but to maim our scientific machine. Any appeal to the movement’s desire for improved well-being is delusional at best, and is more likely nonsense. We shouldn’t force ourselves to extract meaning from an ordeal. However crude it may sound, “This sucks” is an appropriate response.

But in the midst of our rage, we must confront some major flaws in modern science that have been weaponized against us. And they come to light through the answer to a disquieting question: Why does the public seem largely indifferent to the attacks on science?

Congratulations to new medalists

 

It's just common sense

On February 24, watch this, not the other thing

URI team uses new tools to forecast flooding from coastal storms

Hurricane Katrina still offers lessons 20 years after it destroyed New Orleans

Kristen Curry

URI offers tools to meet Rhode Island’s resilience and emergency management needs: CHAMP predicted flooding on Wellington Ave. in Newport during a 2022 nor’easter.

In a new paper in the Journal of Coastal and Riverine Flood Risk, a team from the University of Rhode Island discusses the novel application of Homeland Security exercises to evaluate emergency managers’ use of their simulation support tools to improve response to major coastal storms such as Hurricane Katrina.

They ran their models based on Hurricane Henri, which hit the northeastern U.S. in 2021, but the paper was inspired by a 20-year lookback at Katrina and the damage it wrought on New Orleans. User feedback and observation data were used to inform real-world activation protocols and guide ongoing development of CHAMP (Coastal Hazards Analysis, Modeling, and Prediction).

For one of the paper’s lead authors, Samuel Adams, a marine affairs Ph.D. candidate in URI’s Marine Affairs Coastal Resilience Lab — and also URI’s Emergency Management Director — considering the impact of Katrina is not only an academic exercise, it’s personal.

A native of New Orleans, Adams came to Rhode Island for college, but says, “NOLA will always be home.” His parents’ home was so damaged, he was there for a week after the storm dealing with their house while the city was evacuated. Adams was working as a firefighter and EMT at the time in Bristol, R.I.

“That experience was the primary catalyst that led to my career in emergency management, and ultimately inspired me to pursue my Ph.D. in this area,” Adams comments. “I looked around me and knew there had to be a better way.”

Yeah, snow's still on the ground but it's not too early to think about summer jobs

Work with DEM this Summer!

The Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (DEM) is recruiting for critical summertime positions like lifeguards, park rangers, and other key staff to work at state beaches, parks, and campgrounds. 

If you like being outdoors and want to make a positive impact on your community and our environment, DEM has hundreds of seasonal employment opportunities across its divisions. 

Visit DEM's seasonal employment webpage and apply for a position that interests you!

"DEM relies on hiring a robust seasonal workforce each year to manage parks, beaches, and other facilities," said DEM Director Terry Gray. "Working outside at some of the state's best destinations, gaining professional development experience, and having the opportunity to work with people from around the world are just a few of the many perks of joining our team.”

Full-time lifeguard positions are available at all state swimming areas, including surf beaches such as Roger Wheeler and Misquamicut, non-surf beaches such as Goddard Memorial State Park, and freshwater beaches such as Burlingame Campground and Lincoln Woods State Park. Lifeguard pay ranges from $19.75 to $21.00 an hour based on experience and position level. Lifeguards hired by May 22, 2026, can receive a one-time, $500 sign-on bonus as well as a $500 retention bonus if specific requirements are met.

Trump regime continues its war on mRNA vaccines even though millions of lives were saved during the pandemic

FDA reverses course, refuses to review Moderna’s application for new mRNA flu vaccine

Laine Bergeson

The US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA’s) Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) is refusing to review Moderna’s application for approval of a new flu vaccine. The decision comes after the FDA previously indicated support for the company’s phase 3 trial of its mRNA flu vaccine.  

Moderna’s study included more than 40,000 adults age 50 and up and was intended to help the company get approval to use the vaccine in that age-group. In a press release, Moderna said the FDA determined that the company’s study was not “adequate and well-controlled” because the comparable vaccine used in the trial did not represent the “best-available standard of care” in the United States at the time of the study. 

Neither federal rules for how drug studies must be designed, nor the FDA’s own guidance for flu vaccines, refer to the use of "best-available standard of care” in selecting comparator vaccines. Previous correspondence from the FDA to Moderna expressed a preference for the company to use a higher-dose vaccine for older adults as a comparator but stated, “We agree it would be acceptable to use a licensed standard dose influenza vaccine as the comparator in your Phase 3 study.”

The study followed a well-established framework for flu vaccine trials, according to virologist Angela Rasmussen, PhD, of the University of Saskatchewan in Canada. “The trial design they used is essentially the trial design that every single flu vaccine has used,” she tells CIDRAP news. 

Refusal could undermine confidence in FDA

In an interview with The New York Times, Moderna’s president Stephen Hoge, MD, expressed surprise and confusion about the decision, noting the FDA’s earlier support for the company’s study plan. The company’s mRNA vaccine has been accepted for review in the European Union, Canada, and Australia. Moderna has requested a meeting with the FDA to understand the basis for their refusal.

Will a ‘Trump slump’ continue to hit US tourism in 2026 − and even keep World Cup fans away?

Trump regime seems to be doing everything possible to discourage foreign visitors

Frédéric Dimanche, Toronto Metropolitan University and Kelley A. McClinchey, Wilfrid Laurier University

With an upcoming FIFA World Cup being staged across the nation, 2026 was supposed to be a bumper year for tourism to the United States, driven in part by hordes of arriving soccer fans.

And yet, the U.S. tourism industry is worried. While the rest of the world saw a travel bump in 2025, with global international arrivals up 4%, the U.S. saw a downturn. The number of foreign tourists who came to the United States fell by 5.4% during the year – a sharper decline than the one experienced in 2017-18, the last time, outside the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, that the industry was gripped by fears of a travel slump.

Policy stances from the Trump administration on everything from immigration to tariffs, along with currency swings and stricter border controls, have seemingly proved a turnoff to travelers from other countries, especially Canadians – the single largest source of foreign tourists for the United States. Canadian travel to the U.S. fell by close to 30% in 2025. But it is not just visitors from Canada who are choosing to avoid the United States. Travel from Australia, India and Western Europe, among others, has also shrunk.

We are experts in tourism. And while we don’t possess a crystal ball, we believe that the tourism decline of 2025 could well continue through 2026. The evidence appears clear: Washington’s ongoing policies are putting off would-be travelers. In other words, the tourism industry is in the midst of a “Trump slump.”

Fewer Canadians heading south

The impact of Donald Trump’s policies are perhaps most pronounced when looking north of the U.S. border. According to the U.S. Travel Association, Canadian visitors generated approximately 20.4 million visits and roughly US$20.5 billion in visitor spending in 2024, supporting about 140,000 American jobs.

The economic impact of fewer Canadian visitors in 2025 affects mostly border states that depend heavily on people driving across the border for retail, restaurants, casinos and short-stay hotels.

The sharp drop in return trips by car to Canada is a direct indication that border economies might be facing stress. This has led elected officials and tourism professionals to woo Canadians in recent months, sometimes with “Canadian-only deals.”

And it isn’t just border states. In Las Vegas, some hotels are now offering currency rate parity between Canadian and U.S. dollars for rooms and gambling vouchers in a bid to attract customers.

Winter-sun states, such as Florida, Arizona and California, are facing both fewer short-stay arrivals and an emerging drop-off in Canadian “snowbirds.” Reports indicate a noticeable increase in Canadians listing U.S. properties in Florida and Arizona for sale and canceling seasonal plans, threatening lodging, health care spending and property tax revenue.

Economic and safety concerns

Economic policies pursued by the Trump administration appear to be among the main reasons visitors are staying away from the U.S. Multiple tariff announcements – pushing tariffs to the highest levels since 1935 – along with tougher border-related rhetoric and an aggressive foreign policy have contributed to a negative perception of the U.S. among would-be tourists.

Many foreigners report feeling unwelcome or uncertain about travel to the U.S., and some public leaders from Canada and Europe have urged citizens to spend domestically, instead. This significantly reduced intent to travel to the U.S. in 2025.

Meanwhile, exchange rates and inflation have further affected some aspiring travelers, especially Canadians. The Canadian dollar was weakened in 2025, making U.S. trips more expensive. This disproportionately affected day-trip and shopping-driven border crossings.

Travelers are also staying away from the U.S. because of safety concerns. Several countries have posted travel advisories about the risks of traveling to the U.S., with Germany being the latest. Although most worries are related to increased border controls, recent aggressive tactics by immigration agents have added to potential visitors’ decisions to avoid the U.S.

Trump and Vance Can’t Be ‘Pro-Life’ While Committing Violence Against Children

Children aren’t exempt from ICE’s violence. And for administration hardliners, that’s the point.

By Jordan Liz

Families detained at the Dilley Immigration Processing Center in Texas wave signs during a demonstration on Saturday, Jan. 24, 2026. Brenda Bazán/Associated Press

On January 20, ICE agents detained a five-year-old child just outside his home in Minnesota. The child was used as “bait” to try to draw family members out of their home.

A widely circulated photo of the boy being apprehended, with his Spiderman backpack and fuzzy little animal ears on his winter hat, may become an indelible image of ICE’s cruelty.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) alleges that ICE was conducting a targeted operation against the boy’s father, Adrian Alexander Conejo Arias. Yet he and his son had entered the country via an official crossing point. They have an active asylum case and there was no order of deportation against them.

Zena Stenvik, the local school superintendent, reports that this was the fourth child detained by ICE in that community alone. A 10-year-old fourth grader and two 17-year-olds were also taken.

Since then, more children have been abducted. On January 22, ICE agents detained a 2-year-old girl and her father, Elvis Joel Tipan Echeverria, in south Minneapolis. Like Arias and his son, Echeverria and his daughter are asylum seekers without an active order for deportation.

On January 29, two brothers in the second and fifth grades were detained with their mother. She also has a pending asylum case.

Violence towards children is nothing new for the Trump administration. During Trump’s first term, more than 5,000 immigrant children were forcibly separated from their parents. These children were held in dirty, crowded, chain-linked cages and only provided foil sheets to serve as blankets. In December 2024, Human Rights Watch reported that as many as 1,360 children had still not been reunited with their parents.

Observing Lent

Maybe he couldn't pay Trump's billion dollars membership fee

 I'm liking this guy almost as much as Francis

Cotter bill would allow property tax deferment by senior or disabled homeowners

Pay when you're dead

Rep. Megan L. Cotter has filed legislation to help older Rhode Islanders stay in their homes by allowing deferment of their property taxes.

The legislation (2026-H 7567) would apply statewide and would be available to those 62 or older and those of any age who are permanently totally disabled or are disabled veterans. 

Under it, the payment of property taxes on single-family homes owned and occupied by those who qualify could be deferred until the property is disposed because of the death of all owners or otherwise sold or transferred. The deferred amount, which would be subject to a 6% annual interest rate, would constitute a lien on the property and would be added to its final tax bill.

“For most people, a home is their largest asset, an investment in their physical and financial security for life,” said Representative Cotter (D-Dist. 39, Exeter, Richmond, Hopkinton). 

“Unfortunately, staying in that home can become unaffordable when people retire or become disabled. Allowing property tax deferment would provide another option, similar to a reverse mortgage, that would give homeowners more opportunity to age in place and remain in the home they love for the rest of their lives.”

Rhode Island is in court against Trump again, this time over his decision to destroy efforts to curb climate change

CLF: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency sued over illegal repeal of climate protections

Steve Ahlquist 

From a CLF press release:

Conservation Law Foundation (CLF), as part of a broad coalition of health and environmental groups, has sued the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over its illegal determination that it is not responsible for protecting us from climate pollution and its elimination of rules to cut the tailpipe pollution fueling the climate crisis and harming people’s health.

The case, filed in the D.C. Circuit, challenges the Trump EPA’s rescission of the 2009 endangerment finding, which found that climate pollution is a threat to public health and welfare. The finding supported common-sense safeguards to cut that pollution, including from cars and trucks. In addition, the agency eliminated the clean vehicle standards, which were set to deliver the single biggest cut to U.S. carbon pollution in history, save lives, and save Americans’ hard-earned money on gas.

The case was brought by:

• The American Public Health Association, American Lung Association, Alliance of Nurses for a Healthy Environment, Clean Wisconsin, represented by Clean Air Task Force (CATF),
• Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice (CCAEJ), Clean Air Council, Friends of the Earth, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Rio Grande International Study Center (RGISC), and the Union of Concerned Scientists, represented by Earthjustice, and
• Center for Biological Diversity, Conservation Law Foundation, Environmental Defense Fund, Environmental Law & Policy Center, NRDC (Natural Resources Defense Council), Public Citizen, and Sierra Club.

The named defendants are EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin and EPA itself as an agency.

“Taking away the endangerment finding doesn’t protect families — it abandons them,” said Conservation Law Foundation Senior Vice President for Law and Policy Kate Sinding Daly. “This scientific determination has for years served as the bedrock of our nation’s efforts to curb deadly pollution and safeguard public health and welfare. Taking it away only absolves the EPA of acting on behalf of every family in the country. We won’t let that stand and we’re prepared to take this fight to court to ensure our communities aren’t left to bear the consequences of unchecked climate-warming pollution.”

Under the Clean Air Act, the EPA is legally required to limit vehicle emissions of any “air pollutant” that the agency determines “cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” 

In 2007, the United States Supreme Court held in Massachusetts v. EPA that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases unambiguously are “air pollutants” under the Clean Air Act and told EPA to determine, based on the science, if that pollution endangers human health and welfare. EPA made that determination in 2009, which led to new standards for vehicles. It built on that finding when issuing other standards.

In its repeal, the Trump EPA is rehashing legal arguments that the Supreme Court already considered and rejected in Massachusetts v. EPA.

Along with the repeal of the endangerment finding, the EPA eliminated all carbon emissions standards from vehicles. The EPA’s clean car standards set in 2024 would save drivers of new cars an average of $6,000 over the lifetime of their vehicles. The EPA’s own analysis found that eliminating vehicle standards will increase gas prices, force Americans to spend more on fuel, and have a net negative effect on the economy.

Rhode Island Health Department warning to pet owners whose pets have gotten rabies shots recently

Animal Rabies Vaccine Recalled

Make sure they get the RIGHT shots

The Rhode Island Department of Health (RIDOH) and the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (DEM) are alerting pet owners, animal control officers, and municipal clerks that a shipment of rabies vaccine is being recalled because some vials in that shipment may have contained sterile water instead of rabies vaccine. 

This vaccine was received by veterinarians, including veterinarians in Rhode Island, between September 29, 2025 and January 8, 2026. The recalled vaccine was made by Boehringer Ingelheim Animal Health. The recalled lot is IMRAB 3TF, vaccine; 1 mL; Serial 18665; expiration date March 12, 2027. Other manufacturers and brands, and other serial lots manufactured by Boehringer Ingelheim, are not affected by this recall. 

Rhode Island law requires dogs, cats, and ferrets to be vaccinated against rabies. Any animal that was vaccinated with this lot will not be considered currently vaccinated for rabies management or dog licensing purposes. 

Any pet that was administered this recalled product should be revaccinated against rabies. There are no health concerns for pets with being administered sterile water or with being readministered rabies vaccine. 

Without Evidence, US Cancer Institute Studying Ivermectin’s ‘Ability to Kill Cancer Cells’

Once touted by MAGA as a COVID cure, Bobby Jr. is now ordering it be studied as a cancer cure. Really.

After Trump cancelled billions for real cancer research, we get this

Rachana Pradhan

The National Cancer Institute, the federal research agency charged with leading the war against the nation’s second-largest killer, is studying ivermectin as a potential cancer treatment, according to its top official.

“There are enough reports of it, enough interest in it, that we actually did — ivermectin, in particular — did engage in sort of a better preclinical study of its properties and its ability to kill cancer cells,” said Anthony Letai, a physician the Trump administration appointed as NCI director in September.

Letai did not cite new evidence that might have prompted the institute to research the effectiveness of the antiparasitic drug against cancer. The drug, largely used to treat people or animals for infections caused by parasites, is a popular dewormer for horses.

“We’ll probably have those results in a few months,” Letai said. “So we are taking it seriously.”

He spoke about ivermectin at a Jan. 30 event, “Reclaiming Science: The People’s NIH,” with National Institutes of Health Director Jay Bhattacharya and other senior agency officials at Washington, D.C.’s Willard Hotel. The MAHA Institute hosted the discussion, framed by the “Make America Healthy Again” agenda of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The National Cancer Institute is the largest of the NIH’s 27 branches.

During the covid pandemic, ivermectin’s popularity surged as fringe medical groups promoted it as an effective treatment. Clinical trials have found it isn’t effective against covid.

Ivermectin has become a symbol of resistance against the medical establishment among MAHA adherents and conservatives. Like-minded commentators and wellness and other online influencers have hyped — without evidence — ivermectin as a miracle cure for a host of diseases, including cancer. Trump officials have pointed to research on ivermectin as an example of the administration’s receptiveness to ideas the scientific establishment has rejected.

“If lots of people believe it and it’s moving public health, we as NIH have an obligation, again, to treat it seriously,” Bhattacharya said at the event. According to The Chronicle at Duke University, Bhattacharya recently said he wants the NIH to be “the research arm of MAHA.”

The decision by the world’s premier cancer research institute to study ivermectin as a cancer treatment has alarmed career scientists at the agency.

“I am shocked and appalled,” one NCI scientist said. “We are moving funds away from so much promising research in order to do a preclinical study based on nonscientific ideas. It’s absurd.”

KFF Health News granted the scientist and other NCI workers anonymity because they are not authorized to speak to the press and fear retaliation.

HHS and the National Cancer Institute did not answer KFF Health News’ questions on the amount of money the cancer institute is spending on the study, who is carrying it out, and whether there was new evidence that prompted NCI to look into ivermectin as an anticancer therapy. Emily Hilliard, an HHS spokesperson, said NIH is dedicated to “rigorous, gold-standard research,” something the administration has repeatedly professed.