Recent developments in the administration’s health policies and recommendations have left many in disbelief. From President Trump’s unfounded assertions linking Tylenol and vaccines to autism, to the expedited approval by the Food and Drug Administration of leucovorin as a treatment for autism, it is evident that scientific rigor is not at the forefront of national health policy.

The situation is further compounded by the actions of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. His dismissal of key scientists and the undermining of established vaccine guidelines have caused significant disruption within the agency.

Adding to the controversy, recent reports confirm that the FDA is undertaking an unnecessary review of mifepristone, a medication for abortion that gained approval 25 years ago. This inquiry raises questions about the motivations behind it, given its long-standing approval and use.

In a joint letter, Kennedy and FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary mentioned the agency’s intent to conduct an independent assessment of the evidence. However, Kennedy has previously suggested that decisions surrounding mifepristone’s future may be swayed more by political considerations than scientific evidence, stating that “policy changes will ultimately go through the White House.”

This shift in approach is unprecedented for the FDA. Having engaged in extensive, peer-reviewed research over the past two decades to address gaps in the FDA’s understanding of medication abortion, these recent actions signal a departure from evidence-based policy making.

In fact, in the last Trump administration, the FDA approved my studies exploring the potential for providing mifepristone through pharmacies, including through the mail. This research, together with many other studies, informed the agency’s 2021 decision to remove some of the medication’s restrictions.

Mifepristone has a well-documented safety record, demonstrated through real-world use and in over 100 peer-reviewed research publications. Since it was approved by the FDA in 2000, it has been used by more than 7.5 million people in the U.S. to safely end early pregnancies. Mifepristone’s safety record outpaces that of penicillin or Viagra. 

Why then would our nation’s public health leaders want to investigate a medication that has a track record other medications would envy? Again, this is a political agenda, using a tactic to dupe the public with false claims.

Since the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision allowed states to ban abortion, medication abortion has become even more important. Today, 25 percent of all abortions in the U.S. are provided through telehealth, meaning that after consulting with a clinician remotely, patients receive their medications from a local pharmacy or via home delivery. 

Abundant evidence shows that receiving abortion pills by mail after a telehealth evaluation is just as safe and effective as in-person care. We also consistently hear from patients that telehealth abortion offers privacy and convenience compared to the cost and burden of traveling for an in-person visit.

Rather than place more limits on medication abortion, we should follow the scientific evidence, which points in a completely different direction. We need to look at how removing remaining restrictions on mifepristone would improve health outcomes.

Research from Canada demonstrates that after the in-person dispensing requirement and other restrictions on mifepristone were removed, access to abortion improved and complications remained rare.

Secretary Kennedy’s announcement about mifepristone is not only about abortion. It is part of a broader attack on science by this administration to defund or delay scientific work. 

Slashing funding and personnel at the National Institutes of Health, CDC and other agencies, and delaying or terminating research grants for flimsy reasons, this administration threatens to reverse decades of progress and destroy our country’s leadership in science and innovation. These actions fly in the face of the president’s executive order issued in May focused on “Restoring Gold Standard Science.”

Public health and medical leaders, policymakers and elected officials to urge the FDA should follow the science. Any future regulatory decisions must be evidence-based. For mifepristone, that means affirming the clear scientific consensus on the drug’s safety.

For more than a decade, politicians have slowly chipped away at abortion access in states, often ignoring the scientific evidence about the safety of abortion and the critical role it plays in comprehensive healthcare. This erosion of access has only accelerated since the Dobbs decision.

We cannot let this disregard for science extend to our nation’s highest drug regulatory body. Our health is on the line.

Daniel Grossman, M.D., is a professor of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive sciences at the University of California San Francisco and director of Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health.