RFK Jr.’s ‘No Science Cuts’ Promise Debunked as ‘Pants on Fire’ False

Independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (RFK Jr.) recently claimed his administration would protect science and research funding. But fact-checkers and experts say his long record of undermining scientific consensus proves otherwise.

RFK Jr.’s Controversial Claim

At an Iowa campaign event, RFK Jr. declared:

“We’re not cutting science. We’re not cutting research. In fact, we’re going to expand it.”

The statement seemed aimed at countering criticism of his anti-vaccine and climate-skeptic views. Yet, within hours, journalists and scientists exposed the inconsistencies in his pledge.

A History of Anti-Science Positions

1. Leading the Anti-Vaccine Movement

As founder of Children’s Health Defense, RFK Jr. has:
– Promoted debunked vaccine-autism links
– Spread COVID-19 misinformation
– Faced backlash even from family members, like sister Kerry Kennedy

2. Climate Change Skepticism

While acknowledging climate change, RFK Jr. has:
– Downplayed human responsibility
– Opposed key green energy policies
– Aligned with fossil fuel industry rhetoric

Would RFK Jr. Actually Protect Science Funding?

NIH & CDC Budgets at Risk

Given his hostility toward vaccine science, experts doubt he’d safeguard funding for:
– National Institutes of Health (NIH)
– Centers for Disease Control (CDC)

Climate Research in Jeopardy

His vague stance raises concerns for agencies like:
– NOAA
– NASA Earth Science

Privatizing Research

RFK Jr. has suggested shifting research to private corporations—a move that could defund public universities and independent studies.

Fact-Checkers’ Verdict: “Pants on Fire!”

PolitiFact and others rated his claim “false” to “ridiculously false.” His record directly contradicts his campaign rhetoric.

Why This Matters

Science funding drives:
✔ Pandemic preparedness
✔ Medical breakthroughs
✔ Climate solutions
A president with a history of science denial could jeopardize progress in these areas.

Bottom Line: RFK Jr.’s sudden pro-science stance doesn’t match his track record. Until he disavows past misinformation, his claims remain “Pants on Fire.”