N※N

Commerce Secretary Dismisses 'Questionable' Science to Prioritize Growth

  //science-technology.news-articles.net/content/2 .. s-questionable-science-to-prioritize-growth.html
  Published in Science and Technology on Wednesday, February 11th 2026 at 14:13 GMT by breitbart.com
      Locales: Washington, D.C., UNITED STATES

Commerce Secretary Doubles Down: Trump Administration Prioritizes Economic Growth Over What It Deems 'Questionable' Science

WASHINGTON - Commerce Secretary Wilbur Lutnick, in an exclusive interview, has reiterated the Trump administration's commitment to deregulation, framing it as a necessary step to unlock American economic potential. However, his strong language - specifically dismissing certain scientific findings as "bullsh*t science" - has ignited a firestorm of criticism from environmental groups, public health advocates, and the scientific community. The comments, made to Breitbart News, provide a stark glimpse into the administration's ongoing battle with regulations perceived as obstacles to growth, particularly within the energy and manufacturing sectors.

Secretary Lutnick's core argument revolves around the premise that many existing regulations are founded on "questionable" or "politically motivated" data. He alleges that these regulations unnecessarily burden American businesses and consumers, hindering innovation and ultimately impacting economic competitiveness. While he maintains the administration isn't "anti-science," he contends that "pro-America" interests sometimes necessitate challenging established scientific consensus. This framing suggests a willingness to prioritize short-term economic gains over long-term environmental and public health concerns.

The specific targets of Lutnick's criticism are environmental and public health regulations. These regulations, often built on decades of research concerning pollution, climate change, and worker safety, are now being re-evaluated with a focus on their economic costs. The administration has already initiated a series of rollbacks targeting regulations related to emissions standards, clean water protections, and endangered species. Lutnick's statements indicate that this deregulation push will continue, with the administration actively questioning the scientific basis for many of these rules.

This approach is deeply rooted in the administration's skepticism toward climate change science. Lutnick directly links the deregulation efforts to a desire for "American energy independence," implicitly advocating for increased fossil fuel production. The economic argument centers on the idea that adhering to stringent climate regulations would place American businesses at a disadvantage compared to international competitors, potentially leading to job losses and reduced economic output. The administration believes that unlocking domestic energy resources, even if environmentally damaging, is crucial for sustained economic growth.

However, critics argue that dismissing scientific evidence in favor of political expediency is reckless and dangerous. Numerous scientific organizations, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the National Academy of Sciences, have consistently warned about the severe consequences of climate change and the urgent need for mitigation efforts. Ignoring these warnings, critics contend, will not only exacerbate environmental problems but also ultimately harm the economy through increased natural disasters, resource scarcity, and public health crises.

Furthermore, concerns are being raised about the methodology used to evaluate the scientific validity of regulations. Critics allege the administration is selectively choosing data that supports its pre-determined economic goals while ignoring or downplaying contradictory evidence. This raises questions about the transparency and integrity of the regulatory review process. The administration's emphasis on "economic realities" is seen by some as a justification for weakening protections that safeguard public health and the environment.

The long-term implications of this approach remain to be seen. While deregulation may provide short-term economic boosts, it could also lead to irreversible environmental damage, increased public health risks, and a loss of international credibility. The ongoing debate highlights a fundamental tension between economic growth and environmental sustainability, and the Trump administration is clearly signaling its willingness to prioritize the former, even at the expense of the latter. The coming months will likely see a continued clash between the administration's economic priorities and the scientific community's urgent calls for environmental protection.