We are currently living through an intensely historical moment threatening scientific evidence, expertise and inquiry in this country. Irrespective of left/right politics, the actions taken over the past 20 days have quickly diminished our capacity to serve as a world leader in science, public health and environmental issues. Our nation is becoming weaker before our eyes.

Nearly three weeks into the new United States presidential administration, officials have been scrubbing references to climate change at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) websites, while putting nearly 10,000 U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) workers on leave, and threatening to fire more than 1,000 EPA staff working on water quality, environment, public health, climate change and humanitarian work. Meanwhile, President Trump has issued piles of Executive Orders and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) memos demanding ends to environmental justice programs and federal funding for scientific research — temporarily paused by a New York et al. v. Trump restraining order — from the National Institute of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) for a range of scientific pursuits from cancer research to air pollution monitoring. In the name of government efficiency, Trump has empowered Elon Musk and his team to go into a dozen agencies with dizzying and seemingly reckless exigency. Soon we’ll need to rely on Punxsutawney Phil and Flatiron Freddy for news and information in the absence of these experts in institutions.

When we look to make sense of the complex world around us, beyond what we can see, observe and feel, we often look to scientific inquiry as a pathway to help us understand and make good decisions. This process leads us to consider who to trust and who are experts in the context of science and society. Trust boosts conceptions of reliability, dependability and belief. These steps taken to dismantle institutions that have been built to serve the nation and world over decades are actively weakening the U.S. standing in the world, breeding mistrust, feeding mis- and disinformation flows and diminishing work that helps provide evidence and insights to improve decision-making.

In broad terms, experts among us who have worked at these Departments and Institutions — Republicans and Democrats, Independents and Libertarians alike — are those who have knowledge and skills gained through training and dedication to topics of study. At the interface of science, policy and society, we routinely rely on expert perspectives and advice. Scientific pursuits blend with insights we gain through aesthetic, affective, emotional, spiritual, visceral, tactile and experiential ways of learning and knowing. Through authentic engagements, trust and conversations, the complexities of science become accessible and find meaning in our everyday lives as we navigate the world.

The actions over the last weeks are part of a longer story. Post-truth, fake news, mistrust in science and expertise have become intertwined with our contemporary communications environment. Nearly a decade ago, “post-truth” was celebrated as the word of the year in both Macquarie and Oxford dictionaries, defining it as “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotions and personal belief.” This notion of post-truth has increased in influence along with its close cousin of “fake news.” A half dozen years before that, the Citizen’s United vs. Federal Election Commission ruling in the U.S. Supreme Court further boosted the ability to consider facts and evidence as flexible concepts. Ultimately, muddying the waters of understanding happens much more quickly than building institutional architectures that support the pursuit of evidence for good decision-making.

Former U.S. Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously said, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” These times are certainly changing for us all. In these times we need to advocate for ongoing pursuits of evidence to inform decision-making, as it intersects with complementary pathways that enrich our understanding of the world. MIT Sociologist Sherry Turkle has noted that while there is never any perfect public square, we must promote public conversations as pathways for vital democratic deliberation. Let’s see this historical moment for what it is and defend pursuits for evidence and insights through these important institutions. We have no more time to lose.

This is a biweekly sustainability and environment column authored by Max Boykoff. Boykoff is a faculty member at the University of Colorado Boulder, though these the views expressed here are based upon his scholarly expertise and research/creative experience as well as personal views and should not be considered the university’s official position on any specific issue. Email: mboykoff@gmail.com.