Trump presses science with unverified medical claims, undermining trust in doctors, health experts say

A Sept. 22 press conference in which President Donald Trump asserted that acetaminophen use during pregnancy is linked to autism, and offered his own guidance on childhood vaccines, has prompted concern among clinicians and public-health officials that political rhetoric is supplanting evidence-based medicine.

The president used the dais to present a mixed bag of medical claims, some clearly contradicted by current science, others reframed in ways that may mislead nonexperts. He suggested that pregnant women should not take acetaminophen, a pain reliever and fever reducer routinely recommended by medical groups when clinically indicated, and he urged parents to rethink the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s vaccination schedule, including ideas that vaccines could be spaced out or divided into separate doses. He even floated delaying the hepatitis B vaccine to age 12, and asserted that certain vaccines were unnecessary. The remarks drew swift criticism from professional organizations and public-health researchers who said the statements lacked credible data and could expose families to avoidable health risks.

What

A second paragraph would normally introduce the image; however, the image is placed after this paragraph as requested.

What followed was a portrait of how political theater can masquerade as science. Officials leaned on selective citations and cherry-picked studies that fit a predetermined conclusion while ignoring broader evidence that does not. The administration invoked a recent review to imply a link between acetaminophen and autism without acknowledging the nuance in the literature, including studies that show no association once genetic and other factors are controlled for. The push also ignored the fact that association does not prove causation—a point repeatedly stressed by medical societies and researchers listening to the discourse.

There is no credible mechanism by which acetaminophen would cause autism. The body of evidence on the topic is mixed: some observational studies have found weak associations with neurodevelopmental outcomes, but major population-based studies have failed to confirm a causal link. A large Swedish study, published last year, found no association between prenatal acetaminophen exposure and autism after accounting for confounding variables. Some analyses have even suggested that brief, infrequent use may not increase risk and, in some scenarios, could be associated with a reduced risk compared with no use at all. Critics argue that drawing conclusions from each isolated piece without considering the full body of evidence is misleading. Medical groups, including obstetric and high-risk pregnancy specialists, continue to recommend acetaminophen for fever and pain in pregnancy when clinically indicated, noting that untreated fever and pain carry known risks to both mother and fetus.

The administration’s messaging was not limited to acetaminophen. The president’s remarks about vaccines—urging parents to abandon the CDC schedule and “space out” shots, and even proposing separate doses for measles, mumps, and rubella that do not exist in the United States—were contradicted by public-health authorities. Health officials have long maintained that delaying vaccines or splitting vaccines into multiple injections increases the number of clinic visits and opportunities for disease exposure, while offering no proven safety advantage. The stance also conflated policy guidance with personal opinion: the president characterized recommendations as being “based on what I feel,” a formulation that public-health experts said erodes trust in the evidence base that underpins routine immunization programs.

The same day, the National Institutes of Health announced the creation of an Autism Data Science Initiative aimed at expanding research into the condition, signaling continued investment in understanding autism’s origins and development. In the same breath, critics argued the administration has eroded the broader public-health infrastructure and funding that researchers rely on to translate data into practice. The timing underscored a paradox: a targeted, higher-profile push on autism research amid broader questions about how science is funded and communicated in a political climate that prizes certainty over nuance.

From a clinical standpoint, the risk of undermining trust is tangible. Emergency physicians and other frontline clinicians often see families navigating ambiguous guidance and conflicting signals about what is safe for pregnancy and early childhood. A pregnant patient with a fever, for example, faces a balancing act: fever and infection carry real risks, while misinformation can lead to suboptimal treatment choices. The situation also places parents in the untenable position of weighing “expert” statements that appear to contradict the best available data, feeding confusion about when to follow medical guidance and when to push back.

The discrepancy between public messaging and scientific consensus has broader implications for public health. FDA statements issued the day of the press conference acknowledged that there is no conclusive evidence establishing causation between acetaminophen use in pregnancy and autism. Yet in subsequent appearances, including a televised interview, agency officials appeared to overstate findings from a review that some researchers say does not establish causality. The lead author of that review has been clear that more research is needed to determine whether any relationship exists at all. This misalignment—between what public leaders say on stage, what health agencies convey in formal statements, and what researchers conclude—has the potential to undermine trust in health authorities and the guidance they issue.

As this unfolds, the harm may extend beyond the specific questions of acetaminophen and the vaccine schedule. The core issue is whether people can rely on medical guidance that is rooted in evidence rather than politics. If families begin to doubt the credibility of health officials, they may delay care, avoid proven preventive measures, or reject guidance that protects them from serious diseases. The public health apparatus depends on a shared commitment to scientific integrity and transparent decision-making, especially when policies affect pregnant people and children. The current moment has highlighted how quickly rhetoric can outpace data, how easily uncertainty is reframed as certainty, and how trust—the essential currency of medicine—can be damaged when leaders substitute opinion for evidence.

In sum, the episode is not just about one medication or one vaccine schedule. It foregrounds a broader question about the relationship between science and politics in times of crisis. If the trajectory continues, the consequence could be not merely a temporary dip in public confidence but lasting implications for how communities engage with health care, respond to future public health advisories, and protect vulnerable populations. Health professionals emphasize the need for ongoing, rigorous research and sustained funding to answer unresolved questions, alongside clear, consistent communication about what is known, what remains uncertain, and how patients should navigate decisions that affect their families’ health.