Does…Does Trump’s CDC Chief Believe That Viruses Evolve?
Trump's choice to fight mutating viruses suggested he doesn't believe in evolution
Vaccines may not be the only serious cause for concern about President-elect Donald Trump’s pick to run the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Trump’s CDC nominee, former Rep. Dave Weldon (R-FL), reportedly suggested during a 2005 interview that he rejects the science of evolution and mutation, the way viruses change and adapt. TFN is the first outlet to resurface the 2005 report.
Weldon’s record has already raised concerns about his understanding of vaccines, along with misgivings about his lack of experience running a massive public-health organization. Rejecting the science of evolution on top of all that could mean the difference between preventing an epidemic and not.
Covid is still killing hundreds of people a week and there is concern that the H5N1 virus that causes so-called bird flu will mutate into more lethal forms.
Nevertheless, none of the reporting since Trump’s Nov. 22 announcement seems to address Weldon’s stance on evolution.
The 2005 report, however, described Weldon as “well versed” in the argument for teaching intelligent design. That’s the religious belief that only God, not evolution, could have created complex biological systems.
It’s not unusual for corporate media to silo religious issues, overlooking their potential impact on public policy. That — and Weldon’s thin public record on evolution — suggest that he could be confirmed by the Senate with the issue never even arising.
Weldon has, on the other hand, led very public efforts against cloning and stem-cell research, signaling his prioritization of religion over science.
Evolution only came up during Weldon’s 2005 interview with a space industry news outlet called SpaceNews. Weldon hails from Florida’s so-called Space Coast, and the interview focused largely on space exploration and NASA.
But the outlet also wrote that, “As a social conservative, Weldon is well versed on the religious arguments against stem cell research and in favor of teaching intelligent design as a counterpoint to evolution.”
Essentially a rebranding of creationism, intelligent design holds that some biological structures and functions are too complex to have resulted from natural selection and therefore must have been designed by God.
There is, however, an entire scientific cottage industry dedicated to explaining how specific complex systems might have evolved. (The notion that only God can explain what science hasn’t yet is a logical fallacy known as God of the gaps.)
Ironically, intelligent design has survived by becoming sufficiently complex to disguise the simple fallacy at its heart. In other words, it evolved. To become complex.
The 2005 report suggested that Weldon was conversant with the complexified arguments for intelligent design. He told SpaceNews that he didn’t bother sharing them with his congressional colleagues.
“I don’t usually employ those arguments principally because in the course of public discourse they’re considered to be invalid,” Weldon said. “Now yeah, if there are a bunch of Christians who got together, some of whom were pro-stem cell, [it is] worthwhile employing religious arguments. But on the floor of the House or the halls of any university, those arguments are just considered non-applicable. So I don’t usually employ them.”
As shocking as it might be for an evolution skeptic to lead the national defense against evolving biological threats, Weldon is no outlier. His boss would be Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., another vaccine skeptic.
Trump has also tapped other Christian foes of evolution. Vice President Mike Pence rejected evolution. Trump’s Army secretary, a doctor, was a self-described creationist.
Weldon wouldn’t even be the first doctor Trump has appointed who rejects evolution. But Dr. Ben Carson was picked to run the Department of Housing and Urban Development, where mastery of viral science was of little relevance.
By contrast, tracking mutations — genomic surveillance — is a core mission of the CDC:
Mutations (nucleotide substitutions) occur in viruses and accumulate with continued viral spread; these mutations result in variants that may have different attributes. Genomic surveillance identifies circulating variants to rapidly inform public health response efforts.
Former Trump Surgeon General Dr. Jerome Adams warned shortly after the nomination of Weldon and other public-health officials that the next administration faces a number of infectious-disease threats.
He named whooping cough, bird flu, and measles.
Bacteria also mutate. Tuberculosis, for instance, is a bacterial infection.
At the height of Covid, genomic tracking was used to identify the characteristics of new mutations, to develop vaccines and to advise the public about methods of transmission.
In the 2023 fiscal year, Congress allocated hundreds of millions of dollars to the CDC for researching and tracking viral and bacterial infections, including respiratory, sexually transmitted, and others.
Having Weldon run the CDC might not matter much if so many other changes weren’t on the horizon.
But Weldon won’t be alone. Kennedy and other skeptics of established medicine and science are poised to take the reins of the entire U.S. public-health apparatus.
Longtime professionals positioned to slow the system’s degradation may not last in their current roles. Trump has promised radical downsizing of the government, which could lead to the wholesale ousting of seasoned public-health officials who not only understand epidemiology but are also seasoned managers of the vast federal health system.
And even with a full week since the Weldon announcement, no mainstream news outlets have raised the conflict between his religious beliefs and the established science that represents America’s best defense against the next epidemic.
Jonathan Larsen is a veteran journalist who’s worked at MSNBC, CNN, and ABCNews. You can support TFN by making a donation or becoming a paid subscriber. Thank you.
Unfortunately so many important distinctions and nuances that were previously considered a sign of expertise in many important fields are no longer respected. How have we ended up going backwards?
Ufff~ but a question: Can we return to “understand”, rather than “believe”? Scientific fact is inoculated, if you will, against people’s beliefs. Please don’t come at me, I’m a stickler for words, because words shape headlines and—geez, the way “beliefs” manifest. 😬