The New York Times thinks the Trump administration doesn’t believe in science, and the paper has the story to “prove” it. The article begins ominously: “The Trump administration is preparing to significantly limit the scientific and medical research that the government can use to determine public health regulations, overriding protests from scientists and physicians who say the new rule would undermine the scientific underpinnings of government policymaking.” But what’s really happening? A shift toward actual science and transparency, unlike the Barack Obama years of politically weaponized “science.”

“We are committed to the highest quality science,” says EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler. “Good science is science that can be replicated and independently validated, science that can hold up to scrutiny. That is why we’re moving forward to ensure that the science supporting agency decisions is transparent and available for evaluation by the public and stakeholders.”

The gist is this: The EPA’s latest guidance requires that scientists disclose the raw data they used to study outcomes. Because that sometimes includes confidential medical records, those studies would be inadmissible. The Times frets that this “would make it more difficult to enact new clean air and water rules because many studies detailing the links between pollution and disease rely on personal health information gathered under confidentiality agreements.”

Cry us a federally protected puddle. What this really means is that it’ll be harder for ecofascists to foist their pseudoscience on the American people through the change-the-world hippies at the EPA. As we’ve said before, in reality, Trump is pushing for the government to return to adhering to sound scientific practice for informing policy decisions — and, in this case, costly environmental regulation — rather than agenda-driven hysterics.