I’ll admit it: when I first saw Shaun Harper’s scathing takedown of the “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) report, I rolled my eyes. Harper makes no secret of the fact that he despises the Trump administration—he practically froths at the mouth when calling the report’s citation errors “evidence of academic fraud.” Yet even someone like me, who generally cheers on Trump’s policy moves, can’t deny that spotting nonexistent studies in a high-profile HHS document undermines public trust.
Let’s be clear: no one should shrug off phantom footnotes as mere formatting glitches—especially under an executive order explicitly demanding “gold-standard” science. If your policy recommendations rest on data, you must guarantee that every citation actually exists. When watchdog group NOTUS (No One’s Talking About Us) unearthed studies that had no traceable authors or journal home, the White House was forced to scramble and swap in real references. That patchwork fix was necessary—and delayed no one’s ability to see that the heart of MAHA still leans on bona fide CDC surveys and peer-reviewed research.
What Harper Gets Right
- Credibility Matters: If you call your work “gold standard,” you can’t have cute little typos fraught with fake sources hiding in the appendix. A student who tried that would be tossed out of grad school. If we demand that level of rigor from academia, why wouldn’t we expect it from the federal government?
- Watchdog Oversight Is Healthy: Poking holes in governmental publications—whether it’s Harper or another critic—keeps agencies honest. In a world where “alternative facts” can feel routine, having conscientious folk flag missing citations is a good thing.
But Let’s Not Go Overboard
Conversely, “calling for felony fraud charges” against every official involved? That’s overkill. If a footnote misfires and you correct it within hours or days, dragging Congress (or worse, the DOJ) into a months-long witch hunt risks burying real progress under partisan red tape. Imagine applying that standard to every public-health or education report—no program could ever launch without an army of lawyers scouring bibliographies.
Instead, I’d argue for a
middle path:
- Immediate Corrections + Transparency
- When HHS replaced the fake citations with genuine papers, they did the right thing. But they also owe us a clear explanation: Which studies went missing? Who approved the original draft? America deserves a red-line version showing where the“gaps” were. That level of transparency would calm the masses more effectively than a press release claiming “formatting errors.”
- Independent Vetting for Future Reports
- If Trump’s “gold-standard science” EO is going to have teeth, let’s bolster it with a bipartisan, expert review board. Think of it as the FDA for footnotes: before release, an impartial panel of epidemiologists, statisticians, and ethicists would certify that every citation is rock solid. If you trust perfect polls or post-election audits, you can trust a vetting process for research.
- Keep the Focus on Outcomes
- At its core, MAHA’s recommendations—expanding telemedicine, shoring up rural clinics, boosting childhood immunizations—aren’t built on phony data. Those programs had real planning grants and pilot projects that already improved access in underserved areas. Census Bureau data and CDC surveys back up most of the numbers. The footnotes simply detail which journal article showed “X percent decrease in under-5 obesity.” Swapping a bad citation for a correct one doesn’t magically transform telehealth into a mirage.
Trump’s Record on Health Isn’t Perfect—but It’s Far from a “Scam”
Before the anti-Trump armies sharpened their knives, the administration was tackling problems that mattered:
- COVID-19 Vaccines: In record time, Operation Warp Speed produced multiple vaccines and deployed them to millions of Americans. No small feat, even if critics gripe about “mandate overreach.”
- Lowering Drug Costs: Between negotiating lower insulin prices and thinning out FDA red tape for generics, the White House made it easier for seniors to afford prescriptions. That’s not hypothetical—it’s millions of real lives changed.
- Cutting Unnecessary Regulations: By rolling back certain Obamacare regulations and streamlining hospital-quality reporting, the administration freed up $10–$15 billion annually—money that hospitals could redirect to patient care rather than paperwork.
If the worst gripe from the left is “phantom citations,” then maybe we ought to applaud how fast Trump’s team has pushed forward operational programs rather than fretting over every comma. That’s not to say Harper’s concerns are invalid; mistakes in public documents weaken confidence in science-driven policy. But it’s equally true that the administration moved swiftly to correct errors—and those corrections didn’t alter the fact that more children can get telemedicine consults, more rural families have vaccine access, and more under-5 health initiatives are funded.
Balancing Critique with Common Sense
So here’s my two cents: criticism of citation errors is legitimate, even from someone like Harper who clearly loathes Trump’s policies (and doesn’t hide it). But at the same time, we have to avoid turning every spreadsheet slipup into a Capitol Hill crusade. A better solution is robust pre-publication review, not post-facto witch hunts. If policymakers can show their work—and do so transparently—then that “gold standard” claim holds water even under the fiercest scrutiny.
In the end, I want to see America harness data wisely, enact policies that improve lives, and hold every administration accountable—without strangling progress over minor bibliographic blips. If we can debate footnotes and health-care outcomes with equal vigor, then maybe we’re actually living up to the “gold standard” of civic engagement.
