Trump administration took decisive action on TikTok – now confront junk science
The Pew Research Center recently reported that one in five American adults – and a striking 43% of adults under 30 – get their news from TikTok. A recent executive order issued by President Donald Trump initiated the transition of TikTok’s U.S. operations to a new entity under American control in response to a congressional mandate to address the risks of Chinese propaganda and influence.
We need similar decisive action on junk science in court rooms.
The TikTok order demonstrated a strong commitment to mitigating the risks and public harms posed by potentially inaccurate or deceptive information. It is now time for that same level of commitment to be applied to the judicial branch, where inaccurate and deceptive data presented as legitimate expert testimony can undermine justice, public health and public policy.
According to court records cited by The New York Times, Dr. Andrea Baccarelli, dean of the Harvard School of Public Health and an expert witness in litigation against the makers of Tylenol (also known as acetaminophen or paracetamol), received $150,000 for testimony that was ultimately deemed “unbalanced” and excluded from evidence prior to the case’s dismissal.
Judge Denise Cote of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York concluded that all five of the plaintiffs’ experts, including Baccarelli, failed to apply scientific methodologies reliably, cherry-picked data and ignored the limitations of scientific research. This case underscores the importance of ensuring that expert witnesses present scientifically sound and credible evidence in federal and state court proceedings.
Baccarelli’s case highlights broader concerns about the selective use of scientific data in expert testimony and how junk science can undermine the administration of justice in America’s civil justice system. More broadly, cases like this illustrate how expert witnesses can sometimes exploit the limited scientific knowledge of attorneys, jurors and even judges by presenting flawed studies or misrepresenting data to sway verdicts, eroding public confidence in the judicial system.
In 2023, amendments to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 went into effect. The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that judges find it more likely than not that the basis and methodology underlying contested expert testimony are sufficient. The federal Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules, which recommended the amendments, noted that “judicial gatekeeping is essential” to ensure that jurors, who “lack specialized knowledge,” are not exposed to unreliable expert conclusions.
Thus, the burden of weeding out junk science falls on judges, who must evaluate whether expert witnesses are providing scientifically valid testimony. Even with the amendments to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 in place, judges can nevertheless struggle to distinguish between sound scientific analysis and weak or biased expert opinions.
As a result, a ripple effect can occur. When a judge allows misleading evidence to be admitted in a court of law, it not only affects the settlement or verdict in that particular case; it also increases the risk that both the expert and the junk science utilized by the witness will gain influence in other courtrooms, as well as the legislative and executive branches of government.
Litigation, legislation and regulation must be grounded in sound science.
Yet when junk science makes its way into the courtroom, it risks gaining an air of legitimacy that can mislead other experts, attorneys, judges, lawmakers and regulators, all of whom influence policymaking on behalf of the public.
The Trump administration’s recent public announcement suggesting a causal link between acetaminophen use during pregnancy and autism illustrates this danger. The claim made by the administration is based on the same flawed science presented in Baccarelli’s testimony.
Despite a lack of credible scientific evidence supporting the claim, it has produced unwarranted public doubt about the safety of acetaminophen.
By keeping junk science out of the courtroom, judges help prevent flawed evidence from influencing public policy decisions and fueling the misinformation machine. Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and comparable state-court rules must be clearly understood and applied consistently to ensure expert testimony meets essential thresholds of reliability.
At the same time, federal and state lawmakers and regulators should build upon the progress of the recent TikTok executive order and adopt a rigorous approach when deciding which scientific evidence will guide their policymaking and public statements.
Michael C. Barnes is counsel to Aimed Alliance, a not-for-profit health policy organization. He can be found on LinkedIn.
The post Trump Administration Took Decisive Action on TikTok – Now Confront Junk Science appeared first on The Well News | Pragmatic, Governance, Fiscally Responsible, News & Analysis.
- Trump administration took decisive action on TikTok – now confront junk science - December 13, 2025
- Bupati Sleman Hadir di Festival WASH, Dorong Akses Air Bersih dan Sanitasi di Ponpes - December 13, 2025
- NASA bersiap untuk perjalanan bulan pertamanya dalam lebih dari 50 tahun - December 13, 2025
Leave a Reply