> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.fdaweb.com/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# Trump Turned Science into ‘Political Hot Potato’: Op-Ed
- URL: https://www.fdaweb.com/trump-turned-science-into-political-hot-potato-op-ed/
- Published: 2020-08-26T12:00:00.000Z
- Updated: 2026-09-14T16:26:35.000Z
- Author: David McFarland
- Tags: Biologics, Drugs, #legacy-id-D5147521

Former FDA commissioner **Margaret Hamburg** and her principal deputy commissioner **Joshua Sharfstein** are using a *Washington Post* op-ed to urge the agency to take a firm stance for science and against political pressure and stage managing of agency decisions. The two [say](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-fda-must-stand-up-for-itself-and-for-science-not-politics/2020/08/25/7c253742-e70c-11ea-bc79-834454439a44%5Fstory.html?ref=fdaweb.com) **President Trump**’s 8/23 announcement of an FDA emergency use authorization (EUA) for convalescent plasma to treat some Covid-19 patients “was a wild overstatement. The president turned a question of medical science into a political hot potato that has damaged the agency’s reputation for independence and science at a critical time for Americans’ health.”

Hamburg and Sharfstein say Trump’s description of convalescent plasma as “a powerful therapy … proven to reduce mortality by 35%” was “flatly untrue. While there may be signs of some benefit for some patients in some studies, the definitive research that could address such a claim has not even been completed. Rather than correct the president, \[HHS secretary **Alex\] Azar** echoed his enthusiasm for a ‘major advance’ that is ‘a dream in drug development.’”

They note that FDA commissioner **Stephen Hahn** tried to repair the damage the following day, apologizing for mischaracterizing the data himself. The article also notes that Hahn stood quietly while Trump asserted without evidence that the EUA had been “held up” by “people in FDA” for “political reasons.” Hamburg and Sharfstein say such a delay “would be antithetical to the public health mission of the agency and the integrity of its scientists.”

The op-ed suggests competing considerations for FDA decisions could be deliberated by an advisory committee and resolved with a thoughtful explanation published rapidly in a medical journal and accompanied by the release of different views. “It was unprecedented and disturbing to see the initial announcement of this major decision at the White House, coupled with distorted evidence and attacks on the agency’s integrity,” Hamburg and Sharfstein write. 

They conclude that the situation could get worse as Trump is already signaling that vaccine announcements are coming “very soon, very shortly,” thus raising the threat of political interference that strikes at the heart of FDA’s responsibilities in a pandemic.

“Avoiding that scenario is still possible,” Hamburg and Sharfstein say. “FDA can rebuild trust by bringing consideration of challenging authorizations for therapeutics and vaccines to its respected advisory committees, releasing key data and memos in advance. FDA should also announce decisions itself, with transparency about the perspectives of key scientists within and outside the agencies involved. Scientific officials at FDA should explain their analyses and conclusions in detail. For their part, Hahn and Azar should immediately and firmly reject attacks on the integrity of the agency and adhere to the evidence and science in all public statements about future products in development. In short, the administration must not make the same mistakes again. A credible process is essential to public confidence that key decisions are made independently and based in science. The world is up against a virus that does not give too many second chances.”