Read theMandate

Project 2025 › Chapter 13 › Proposal

Open the agency's science to public scrutiny

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, chapter 13, p. 438. Written by Mandy M. Gunasekara.

Open the agency's science to public scrutiny

The document says “should”Who acts: EPAHow: internal managementp. 438 in the PDF
What the document says

“EPA should embrace so-called citizen science and deputize the public to subject the agency’s science to greater scrutiny”

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, p. 438

The chapter names data analysis, identification of scientific flaws and research misconduct as the areas where it wants greater public scrutiny. It contrasts this with what it calls scaremongering risk communications and enforcement activities. The chapter separately lists making all supporting studies public and open to comment among its principles.

What the document actually says

“EPA should embrace so-called citizen science and deputize the public to subject the agency’s science to greater scrutiny”

Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, p. 438
That sentence, in plain words

Let the public check the agency's science. Ask them to look for mistakes.

What this is about

The EPA uses science to set rules. The book says the public should be able to check it. It wants people to look for errors.

What has happened
Partly matches

Restoring Gold Standard Science

2025-05-23 · 90 FR 22601

Executive Order 14303 of May 23, 2025 requires agency heads, to the extent practicable and within the agency's authority, to make publicly available the data, analyses and conclusions associated with influential scientific information the agency produces or uses, including data cited in peer-reviewed literature, and the models and source code used to generate it, and it bars employees from invoking exemption 5 of the Freedom of Information Act to withhold those models without the agency head's written authorization. That is the disclosure the chapter's principle of open supporting studies asks for, and the order also directs that updated scientific integrity policies provide for consideration of dissenting viewpoints. The fit breaks down in that the order creates no citizen science program and deputizes no member of the public to audit agency data, it runs to every agency rather than to the EPA, and it expressly excludes from disclosure the risk models used to guide agency enforcement actions or select enforcement targets.

In plain English

The order makes agencies post the data and models behind their science. It also says other views must be weighed. But it sets up no role for the public to check that work. And models used to pick enforcement targets are left out.

What cites those orders

2 agency rules

Each of these names the order above in its own summary, preamble or filing. That is a fact about the document, not a finding that it carries out this proposal: it is one step further away than the order is, and what it does about the proposal is a reading nobody has made here.

Share this page
How to cite this
  1. The document itself

    Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, edited by Paul Dans and Steven Groves (The Heritage Foundation, 2023), p. 438.
    https://static.heritage.org/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf

  2. This page

    “Open the agency's science to public scrutiny,” Project 2025, chapter 13, p. 438. Read the Mandate, https://readthemandate.org/project-2025/proposal/ch13-citizen-science/ (retrieved October 7, 2026).

Cite the document when the claim is about what the document says. Cite this page when the indexing, the wording or the record of what has happened is what is being relied on.

How to Read This Page

The quotation is the document's own words, exactly as printed, checked against the page number against the book itself before publishing. The paragraph underneath is our summary, not the document's words. So is the plain English version, which is why it sits beside the quotation rather than replacing it.

All proposals in this chapter →