Empirical evidence from prior tariff episodes, most notably the Trump administration’s levies on Chinese imports, already showed that such measures reduced U.S. GDP by 0.12% (Grossman, Helpman, & Redding, 2024). In short, the 2025 Executive Order epitomizes a familiar pattern: policy anchored in rhetoric rather than data, a case of epistemic failure in political and economic governance.
Foreign policy is not only about advancing material interests; it also embodies the norms and values a state projects abroad. Here, the order also strayed into the realm of diplomatic malpractice. By denouncing ongoing legal proceedings against former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro as a “Witch Hunt,” the White House crossed a delicate line between legitimate diplomacy and overt interference in another nation’s political system. This was not a neutral observation but a politicized intervention into Brazil’s sovereign institutional processes. The breach was exacerbated by Eduardo Bolsonaro, the former president’s son and a sitting federal deputy, who lobbied U.S. officials to sanction Supreme Federal Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, the magistrate overseeing investigations into coup-related plots following Lula da Silva’s 2022 electoral victory.
It is important to situate this moment within a longer history of denialism and obscurantism. Throughout modern history, certain actors have chosen to negate empirically established truths. These positions may appear fringe, but they serve political purposes: sustaining dogmatic narratives that bolster authoritarian projects. When such distortions migrate into statecraft, the consequences are severe. Trump’s actions represent more than economic shortsightedness or clumsy diplomacy. They exemplify a systematic turn toward governance practices that subordinate science, law, and evidence to political theater.
The convergence of protectionism, misinformation, and transnational meddling thus signals a deeper pathology: an anti-evidence agenda that corrodes both domestic policymaking and international credibility. This trajectory became visible during the COVID-19 pandemic, when political leaders worldwide dismissed epidemiological expertise, promoted untested treatments, and cast doubt on public health authorities. In the United States, the politicization of health guidance translated into measurable excess mortality. Wallace, Goldsmith-Pinkham, and Schwartz (2022) showed that partisan identity became a predictor of death, with Republican-leaning counties experiencing substantially higher excess death rates due to differential vaccine uptake and adherence to mitigation measures. The consequences of anti-scientific governance are therefore not abstractions but they are counted in lives lost.
By extending this lens to U.S. foreign policy, we see how epistemic failures reproduce themselves across domains. In trade, the rejection of economic evidence leads to policies that damage growth and undermine global supply chains. In diplomacy, the embrace of false narratives corrodes respect for sovereignty and emboldens authoritarian actors abroad. And in public health, denialism fuels preventable death and suffering. Taken together, these strands reveal the architecture of what might be called anti-scientific governance.
The challenge is not merely to fact-check Trump’s assertions or to catalog the falsehoods of populist leaders. It is to confront the institutional and political incentives that allow misinformation to persist and metastasize. Why do leaders persist in promoting demonstrably false claims? The answer lies in the short-term political utility of such narratives: they galvanize loyal constituencies, delegitimize adversaries, and deflect accountability. Yet this utility comes at a steep cost: diminished credibility, eroded alliances, and weakened democratic resilience. The United States, long self-styled as a beacon of rule-based order, risks forfeiting that moral capital when its own policies are driven by anti-scientific impulses.
Ultimately, the 2025 tariff order and its attendant diplomatic fallout should be read as a cautionary tale. The foreign policy of the world’s most powerful state reverberates far beyond its borders. When it is shaped by denialism, obscurantism, and disregard for evidence, it does harm bilateral relations and it corrodes the international system itself. The broader lesson is sobering but essential: anti-scientific governance, wherever it emerges, is not confined to domestic arenas. It radiates outward, destabilizing international institutions and undermining the epistemic foundations of global cooperation. Donald Trump’s falsehoods are widely recognized, yet the lingering question remains: who will have the courage and the means to confront the most powerful man on Earth?