In recent years, a troubling trend has gained momentum in U.S. political discourse: anti-intellectualism or the growing hostility toward expertise, scholarship, and institutions of higher learning. Across media and rhetoric, “elite” thinkers, academics, and scientists are frequently portrayed as part of a disconnected or even corrupt “woke” class.
Trump Administration Cites Study Linking Tylenol to Autism
Earlier this week, President Donald Trump publicly asserted a connection between prenatal acetaminophen (Tylenol) use and the development of autism. He urged pregnant people to avoid the drug and suggested modifying warning labels accordingly. These statements quickly drew rebukes from medical and scientific communities, who warned that the evidence is far from settled and that employing such claims without nuance is irresponsible
The centerpiece for scientific pushback is a large-scale Swedish cohort study, published in JAMA, which included data on nearly 2.5 million children born between 1995 and 2019. The study examined acetaminophen exposure during pregnancy and subsequent diagnoses including autism, ADHD, and intellectual disability. Initially, models without sibling controls showed marginal increases in risk. But crucially, when the researchers compared full siblings (who share genetics and many background factors), those risk elevations disappeared. In sibling control models, acetaminophen use was not associated with autism, ADHD, or intellectual disability. The study concludes that observed associations in simpler models may be explained by other, underlying factors. So, autism should not be interpreted as a causal effect of acetaminophen. Supporting agencies, including the NIH, released statements emphasizing that the evidence does not establish causality.
Other recent reviews and expert commentaries echo that caution. Yale’s public health faculty, for example, have noted that while some observational studies suggest associations between acetaminophen and neurodevelopmental outcomes, none have established a definitive cause-and-effect link. Yale School of Public Health Medical outlets and public health bodies have reiterated that acetaminophen remains one of the safer over-the-counter medications for pain or fever during pregnancy when used appropriately.
Trump Says “Smart People Don’t Like Me” — What Does He Mean?
In a recent public appearance, Trump commented, “Smart people don’t like me, you know? And they don’t like what we talk about.” Though the statement appears humorous on its face, it taps into a deeper political dynamic.
This logic extends to higher education, which has increasingly become a target of political suspicion. Universities are painted as bases of liberal elitism, and their leaders are finding themselves under attack from lawsuits, congressional scrutiny, and funding threats. From challenges to affirmative action and campus free speech lawsuits, to accusations that universities waste taxpayer money, higher education is repeatedly cast as self-serving and ideologically biased. The Department of Education has had its oversight portrayed as meddling or partisan rather than as a safeguard for students and institutions.
Together, these attacks reinforce the same narrative that Trump tapped into: that “smart people”(universities and academics) are not to be trusted. What was once a place for civic and intellectual growth has been reframed as a political adversary, widening the disconnect between expertise and the public it seeks to serve.
Anti-Intellectualism on the Rise
Anti-intellectualism is the rejection of expertise, scholarship, and critical inquiry. The theory has deep roots in American politics, but in recent years it has taken on a more menacing role. Richard Hofstadter famously described it as an ingrained suspicion of the “egghead” or the intellectual elite, fueled by the belief that intellectuals are disconnected from the values of ordinary citizens.
That framing is alive today in the way scientific evidence, academic research, and university institutions are portrayed as partisan rather than objective. The Tylenol–autism claim, for example, was less about science than about signaling mistrust of medical authorities. Similarly, Trump’s remark that “smart people don’t like me,” and the broader effort to paint universities as corrupt or biased, feed into the same narrative: expertise is suspect, and the voices of the educated are positioned as adversaries to the “real” people.
This sentiment is not merely rhetorical; it has material consequences, as public skepticism toward higher education and research grows while trust in institutions declines. In the current political climate, anti-intellectualism has moved from the margins to the mainstream, shaping how policy debates unfold and how truth itself is contested.
The Threat to Democracy and Healthy Partisanship
The rise of anti-intellectualism poses a profound threat to democratic life because it undermines evidence-based discourse. When expertise is cast as elitist bias, facts lose their authority, and political debate shifts from reason to emotion and party loyalty. This erosion of trust leaves the public vulnerable to misinformation.
At the same time, universities, research institutions, and government agencies lose credibility, weakening the role of independent knowledge in shaping public policy. If “smart people” are framed as adversaries, fewer experts will engage in civic debate, and citizens will lose access to informed perspectives. Most troubling, democracy itself suffers. Without institutions people can trust, and without a shared baseline for truth, partisanship hardens into hostility, dissent is stigmatized, and compromise becomes impossible. In this way, anti-intellectualism destabilizes the conditions necessary for a functioning and pluralistic democracy.