The power afforded to the administrative state is heavily reliant on public trust and the perception of evidence-based agency decision-making. Organizational reputation is key to preserving regulatory power. However, recent investigations reveal that existing scientific integrity policies may not be sufficient to preserve the credibility of many federal agencies. In fact, a significant number of career scientists across various entities – including the FDA – have observed unreported incidents of political interference. While political influence exerted by the executive branch to set policy goals and determine agency priorities can be beneficial, political pressures must not undermine public trust in scientific agencies. Recently, public perception regarding the FDA’s COVID-19 response threatened to weaken the agency’s longstanding reputation as the gold standard of review. The COVID-19 pandemic publicized vulnerabilities that exist across agencies, as well as those that are unique to the FDA. The FDA’s evolution as an increasingly public health-focused agency that must function in the landscape of politicized science exposes the agency to a greater risk of political interference. After all, the FDA’s involvement in public health requires increased participation in non-ideal, value-based decision-making. Throughout its history, the FDA has managed to maintain its reputation through its firm responses to scandal. The COVID-19 pandemic provides a platform for the FDA to – once again – look introspectively and institute safeguards addressing vulnerabilities that plagued the agency’s pandemic response. This Article examines the FDA’s early COVID-19 response to propose reforms that promote meaningful transparency, public accountability, and scientific integrity.

The COVID-19 pandemic transformed our understanding of the state’s role during a public health crisis and introduced an array of unprecedented policy tools: ever-stricter travel restrictions, lockdowns and closures of whole branches of the economy. Evidence-based policymaking seems to be the gold standard of such high-stakes policy interventions. This article presents an empirical investigation into the regulatory impact assessments accompanying sixty-four executive acts (regulations) introducing anti-pandemic restrictions in Poland over the first year of the pandemic. To this end, the study utilises the so-called scorecard methodology, which is popular in regulatory impact assessment research. This methodology highlights the shallowness of these documents and the accompanying processes, with an absence not only of a sound evidence base behind specific anti-pandemic measures or estimates of their economic impacts, but even of the comparative data on restrictions introduced in other European Union/Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries. Overall, the collected data support the hypothesis that the ad hoc pandemic management process crowded out the law-making process through tools such as regulatory impact assessments and consultations. In other words, the genuine decision-making occurred elsewhere (with the exact process being largely invisible to public opinion and scholars) and drafting legal texts simply codified these decisions, with the law-making process becoming mere window-dressing.

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, advocates have argued for the inclusion of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and trans (LGBT) people in humanitarian response efforts. Yet the application of this differential focus has been mixed among international policy guidelines and national programs. This research note details a queer theoretical approach to humanitarian crises that considers the intersectional factors that produce specific vulnerabilities within LGBT communities. We take two examples from distinct LGBT communities during the COVID-19 pandemic to demonstrate the analytical risk of treating the umbrella acronym LGBT, indicating distinct identity groups, as monolithic and not differentiating within identity groups based on other factors. We contend that this monolithic approach risks obviating the way different structural forces further compound precarity during crisis. Thus, we make the case for rooting intersectional approaches in any queer analyses of crisis.