Science
Trump orders federal agencies to recognize only two sexes that are 'not changeable'
President Trump signed executive orders Monday asserting that the U.S. government recognizes only two sexes that are “not changeable,” and reversing Biden administration directives on LGBTQ+ rights.
One of the new orders says that “male” and “female” are defined based on reproductive cells and at the point when a person is conceived, and states that government-issued identification such as passports and visas must reflect that definition. In recent years, the U.S. had begun allowing people to select a third option, X, on passports to indicate an unspecified or other gender identity.
Trump’s directive also calls for federal agencies to eliminate any statements or policies “that promote or otherwise inculcate gender ideology,” which it defines as “an ever-shifting concept of self-assessed gender identity, permitting the false claim that males can identify as and thus become women and vice versa.”
Federal agencies will enforce “laws governing sex-based rights, protections, opportunities, and accommodations to protect men and women as biologically distinct sexes,” the order states, saying such measures were needed to prevent men from gaining access to “intimate single-sex spaces” for women.
It also directs federal officials to ensure that people it defines as men are not housed in women’s prisons or detention centers. In addition, the executive order calls for the attorney general to block the use of federal funding for medical treatment or procedures for gender transition for prisoners.
Kellan Baker, executive director of the Institute for Health Research & Policy at Whitman-Walker, an organization focused on LGBTQ+ health equity, noted that the order didn’t appear to make any distinction based on whether someone had pursued medical transition or changed their identity documents.
“It seems to be trying to wave a federal policy wand and make transgender people disappear — which is an impossibility,” Baker said.
Baker said the changes in detention policies aren’t immediate and must go through the federal process of rulemaking. But if they came to pass, he said, the move could put transgender people in federal custody, particularly transgender women, in serious danger.
Under a broader order that rolled back dozens of executive orders issued under then-President Biden, Trump also reversed orders on LGBTQ+ rights, including one that directed the leaders of federal agencies to review their rules against sex discrimination to ensure that people received equal treatment under the law, “no matter their gender identity or sexual orientation.”
The Trump administration is likely to face challenges over the executive actions. Kevin Jennings, chief executive of the LGBTQ+ civil rights organization Lambda Legal, said in a statement that many of the changes called for in the executive orders would take time to roll out, but “we will vigilantly monitor and be ready to challenge when they take effect.”
“We are exploring every legal avenue to challenge these unlawful and unconstitutional actions,” Jennings said.
During his campaign, Trump attacked “left-wing gender insanity” and hammered then-Vice President Kamala Harris over the idea of providing gender-affirming care to federal inmates. He said he would push to block the use of federal funds for medical care involved in gender transition, including surgical procedures.
Trump also stated that he would seek to terminate healthcare providers from the Medicaid and Medicare programs if they give gender-affirming care to youth, which he refers to as “mutilation” — a move that experts said could cut hospitals and clinics off from critical streams of federal funding.
The executive order issued Monday doesn’t broadly address medical care involved in gender transition beyond the restrictions involving prisoners, although experts said changes in how laws about sex discrimination are interpreted could weaken protections for transgender patients. The Biden administration had previously rolled out federal regulations that provided broad protection against discrimination based on gender identity by federally funded healthcare entities.
The American Medical Assn. has expressed support for improving access to gender-affirming care, calling it “an important means of improving health outcomes for the transgender population” and said it supports both public and private insurance coverage for treatment of gender dysphoria. The American Psychological Assn. has also opposed bans on such care.
Science
Do Chimps Who Pee Together Stay Together?
Ena Onishi, a doctoral student at Kyoto University, has spent over 600 hours watching chimpanzees urinating. She has a good reason for all that peeping, though. She is part of a team of researchers that recently discovered that the primates tend to tinkle when they see nearby chimps do the same.
In a study published Monday in the journal Current Biology, Ms. Onishi and her colleagues described this phenomenon, which they call contagious urination. Their discovery raises questions about the role peeing might play in the social lives of chimps and other primates.
Ms. Onishi first spotted contagious urination in 2019 while observing chimps at the Kumamoto Sanctuary in Kyoto, Japan. “I was observing a group of captive chimpanzees for a different research project, and I noticed that they tended to urinate at the same time,” Ms. Onishi said. “It got me thinking, Could this be one of those contagious behaviors like contagious yawning?” she explained, referring to our innate tendency to yawn upon seeing or hearing others do it.
To find out, Ms. Onishi studied the sanctuary’s 20 chimpanzees, observing them peeing together over 1,300 times. After crunching the numbers, Ms. Onishi and her colleagues realized that the chimps were indeed urinating in rapid succession. They found that the nearer a chimp was to the initial urinator, the more likely it was to join the party. They also discovered that chimps lower on the social ladder were more likely to go when others were going.
“This result was surprising for us,” Ms. Onishi said. “It raised intriguing questions about the social function of this behavior, which has been overlooked for a long time.”
Why the chimps do this remains a mystery, but Ms. Onishi and her colleagues have several hypotheses. “Contagious urination might help reinforce group connections, boosting overall social cohesion,” she said. “It could promote a shared readiness for collective behaviors. There are so many possibilities.”
Although the study was limited to captive chimpanzees, many of them rescued from the biomedical research industry, the chances that this behavior is unique to this group are low.
“If you walk with great apes in the wild, you often see that group members really coordinate what they’re doing,” said Martin Surbeck, an evolutionary biologist at Harvard University who studies the behavioral ecology of chimps and bonobos and was not involved in the research.
Dr. Surbeck said that he wasn’t surprised to learn that the Kumamoto chimps were engaging in contagious urination and that the behavior wouldn’t be unexpected in the wild. “We might even see it in other social species,” he said.
While more research is needed on contagious urination and its evolutionary function, Ms. Onishi and her colleagues were delighted that they had learned so much through simple observation.
“There is a myriad of things to be discovered from the daily activities of animals,” Ms. Onishi said.
Science
Trump Orders U.S. Exit From the Paris Agreement on Climate
President Trump on Monday signed an executive order to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement, the pact among almost all nations to fight climate change.
By withdrawing, the United States will join Iran, Libya and Yemen as the only four countries not party to the agreement, under which nations work together to keep global warming below levels that could lead to environmental catastrophe.
The move, one of several energy-related announcements in the hours following his inauguration, is yet another about-face in United States participation in global climate negotiations. During his first term Mr. Trump withdrew from the Paris accord, but then President Biden quickly rejoined in 2020 after winning the White House.
Scientists, activists and Democratic officials assailed the move as one that would deepen the climate crisis and backfire on American workers. Coupled with Mr. Trump’s other energy measures on Monday, withdrawal from the pact signals his administration’s determination to double down on fossil-fuel extraction and production, and to move away from clean-energy technologies like electric vehicles and power-generating wind turbines.
“If they want to be tough on China, don’t punish U.S. automakers and hard-working Americans by handing our clean-car keys to the Chinese,” said Gina McCarthy, former White House climate adviser and former head of the Environmental Protection Administration. “The United States must continue to show leadership on the international stage if we want to have any say in how trillions of dollars in financial investments, policies and decisions are made.”
On Monday Mr. Trump also signed a letter to the United Nations, which administers the pact, notifying the world body of the withdrawal. The withdrawal will become official one year after the submission of the letter.
U.S. efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions were already stalling in 2024, and Mr. Trump’s entry into office makes it increasingly unlikely the United States will live up to its ambitious pledges to cut them even further. Emissions dropped just a fraction last year, 0.2 percent, compared with the year earlier, according to estimates published this month by the Rhodium Group, a research firm.
Despite continued rapid growth in solar and wind power that was spurred by the previous administration’s signature climate legislation, the Inflation Reduction Act, emissions levels stayed relatively flat last year because demand for electricity surged nationwide, which led to a spike in the amount of natural gas burned by power plants.
The fact that emissions didn’t decline much means the United States is even further off-track from hitting Mr. Biden’s goal, announced last month under the auspices of the Paris Agreement, of slashing greenhouse gases 61 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. Scientists say all major economies would have to cut their emissions deeply this decade to keep global warming at relatively low levels.
In a scenario where Mr. Trump rolled back most of Mr. Biden’s climate policies, U.S. emissions might fall only 24 to 40 percent below 2005 levels by 2030, the Rhodium Group found.
“President Trump is choosing to begin his term pandering to the fossil fuel industry and its allies,” the Union of Concerned Scientists said in a statement. “His disgraceful and destructive decision is an ominous harbinger of what people in the United States should expect from him and his anti-science cabinet.”
Since 2005, United States emissions have fallen roughly 20 percent, a significant drop at a time when the economy has also expanded. But to meet its climate goals, U.S. emissions would need to decline nearly 10 times as fast each year as they’ve fallen over the past decade.
The United States is also a major exporter of emissions. Because of policies promoted by both Republicans and Democrats, the United States is now producing more crude oil and natural gas than any nation in history. Mr. Trump has vowed to further ramp up production and exports.
While the United States may not be party to the Paris Agreement, it will still be part of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, which hosts annual climate negotiations known as COPs. This year’s COP will be held in Brazil in November and nations will be announcing new pledges for emissions reductions.
One recent study by Climate Action Tracker, a research group, found that, if every country followed through on the pledges they have formally submitted so far, global average temperatures would be on track to rise roughly 2.6 degrees Celsius, or 4.7 degrees Fahrenheit, above preindustrial levels by the end of the century, well above the 1.5 degrees Celsius the Paris Agreement originally set as a goal.
“Trump’s irresponsibility is no surprise,” said Christiana Figueres, a Costa Rican diplomat and an architect of the Paris Agreement in 2015. “In time, Trump will not be around but history will point to him and his fossil fuel friends with no pardon.”
Science
RFK Jr. wants to improve Americans' health. Here's some advice from the outgoing FDA chief
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has called the Food and Drug Administration a “corrupt system” that is waging “war on public health.” He has pledged to eliminate “entire departments” at the agency charged with ensuring the safety of the foods Americans eat and the medicines we take, warning the more than 18,000 people who work there to “pack your bags.”
President-elect Donald Trumphas nominated Kennedy to lead the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. If he is confirmed by the Senate, Kennedy will have the opportunity to “go wild” on health, foods and medicines, as Trump put it during the campaign.
Remaking the FDA may not be as straightforward — or as desirable — as it seems from the outside, says Dr. Robert Califf. He’s in a position to know: his second stint as the agency’s commissioner comes to an end Monday.
Califf’s career has spanned academia, large health systems, the biotech industry, Silicon Valley and the highest echelons of the federal government. His colleagues at the FDA “work just as hard and are at least as smart” as people he’s worked with anywhere else, he said. Public criticism comes with the territory, but things look different when you’re on the inside trying to ensure access to infant formula, make tobacco products less addictive and help consumers understand what’s in their groceries.
Califf spoke to a group of reporters last week on his last day in the FDA’s White Oak campus in Silver Spring, Md. Here’s his advice to those who will take over public health roles in the incoming Trump administration. His comments have been edited for length and clarity.
What do you wish people understood about your job?
This is a job that has a lot of bosses and a lot of constraints. When you’re in the commissioner’s office at FDA, you report to the executive branch. But Congress also thinks it’s your boss. It’s not unheard of for FDA to want to do something and get a message from an important appropriator that, “If you do this, we’re going to cut your budget somewhere else.”
It’s really interesting to me that people think the FDA can just declare this and that. It usually can’t. It usually has to go through a systematic approach. The minute you step beyond the legal boundaries of what the rule book says, you’re going to end up in court. That will get reined in fairly quickly.
How do you expect the new administration to change the FDA?
I have no idea. Right now we have rhetoric, and the rhetoric is contradictory. We just have to wait and see.
Some of the people who have been nominated to positions have been very critical, implying that there are nefarious motives of people working in public heath agencies. It feels a lot different when you have to make the decision and be accountable for it as opposed to criticizing the decision.
I have a copy of [President Theodore] Roosevelt’s “Man in the Arena” speech above my desk at home to remind myself every day that you get all this criticism from people who are not actually doing the work. It’s better to be in the arena trying to do the best that you can do.
Kennedy says he wants to get rid of certain departments within FDA. Are there areas you’re most worried about?
I’m worried about every part of the FDA. I don’t think you’ll find people at FDA doing work that no one cares about.
If you look at the food side of the FDA and the inspectorate, it’s massively underfunded. If you cut that — especially if you’re also saying we need to radically change the food system — that would be a problem.
Kennedy wants to see big changes in the food and health industries. Is that realistic?
Slogans are easy, and they sound really tough, but it’s a little different when you get into the to-and-fro. The lobbies that have very much created this food system are powerful. Maybe they can be overcome. There’s a possibility that things could be done for public health that couldn’t be done before.
The other part of this is if you really want to change the food system, you’d better have a 10- or 20-year plan. If you pronounced today, “No ultra-processed foods in SNAP or other federally assisted programs,” the farming industry would crash. I’m not saying that’s a reason to keep it the way it is. What I am saying is you’d better have a very carefully thought-out plan which sustains the economy, not just a bunch of slogans.
Trump said he would investigate claims about vaccines and autism. How should the FDA respond?
Anyone that investigates this will find that the risks and benefits are already delineated. There are dozens of studies that show no relationship between vaccination and autism. It wouldn’t be where I would spend my time, but if he wanted to do it, I think he’ll find that things are already well-documented.
That doesn’t mean that post-market surveillance couldn’t be better. It’s not a great way to have things that every time a question needs to be answered for public health, you need to get permission from every state and territory.
But I don’t think people are going to find any surprises. It’s all out there. For there to be any kind of conspiracy, it would take a whole lot of people outside of government deciding to work together. I’ve lived in America my whole life. It’s hard to get anybody to work together on things.
You’ve called misinformation a leading cause of death. Is it getting better or worse?
We’re losing the battle on misinformation. I’m not talking specifically about FDA. I’m talking about all of us.
To me it’s very clear that a lot of people died who would not have died had they just gotten a free COVID vaccine, and had they not been misled or been made to feel doubtful by people peddling incorrect information.
Often people who are experts in one area have opinions about another area, then when someone disagrees they call it misinformation. It’s a lot easier to put out a slogan or to make something up than it is to worry about whether you’ve got it right and take the time and effort to go to sources and get the right information.
We’re losing the battle right now because of this intersection of social media and cultural changes that have happened. It threatens a lot of the basis for public health. We’ve got to create networks of people who are dedicated to the truth.
What advice do you have for the new health leadership?
Change doesn’t come so easily in government. If we move at least five people, it has to get a congressional review. This makes it really hard.
When possible, use evidence for decision-making. I’ve heard a lot of tweets and short social media things saying, “We’re going to do this, we’re going to do that.” Let’s see the evidence about what an effective treatment is, and then if it’s good, go with it.
Those are my two main pieces of advice.
-
Technology1 week ago
Amazon Prime will shut down its clothing try-on program
-
Technology1 week ago
L’Oréal’s new skincare gadget told me I should try retinol
-
Technology6 days ago
Super Bowl LIX will stream for free on Tubi
-
Business1 week ago
Why TikTok Users Are Downloading ‘Red Note,’ the Chinese App
-
Technology4 days ago
Nintendo omits original Donkey Kong Country Returns team from the remaster’s credits
-
Culture4 days ago
American men can’t win Olympic cross-country skiing medals — or can they?
-
Technology1 week ago
Meta is already working on Community Notes for Threads
-
Politics4 days ago
U.S. Reveals Once-Secret Support for Ukraine’s Drone Industry