[Goose]

The President and his administration absolutely has the right to establish broad priorities and principles.  One President might, for example, might feel strongly that gun violence is an epidemic and that the CDC ought to devote a lot of resources to combating it.  Another might feel that gun violence is not a CDC issue and would want the CDC to focus on the opioid epidemic, while a third might feel that the CDC should be focused on infectious diseases.  That's fine.

I don't think it is merely a difference of degree to attempt to influence the scientific content of CDC recommendations, however.

BC

BC, I think your example clearly shows how they are the same thing. You can bet if the president feels that gun violence is not a CDC issue there won't be any advisories regarding gun violence coming out from the CDC. It may be that scientifically gun violence is a major cause of death, but if the president doesn't want to hear that, he appoints people that make sure he doesn't. If you work for the CDC and think gun violence should be an issue and an advisory should be issued you have two choices, stay in your lane or quit.

Much of the "influencing" normally goes on behind the scenes, and we don't see it or hear about it. A guidance is issued and everyone stands behind it. It was actually vetted by the president's staff, but we don't know that. In a well-oiled federal bureaucracy, everyone stays on message. Naturally, that is easier to do if the message is clearly articulated and consistent. It doesn't have to be "scientifically correct". The current president is just so bad a manager he can't pull that off, and we get a guidance that has to be revised in public, not private.

[Goose]

The President and his administration absolutely has the right to establish broad priorities and principles.  One President might, for example, might feel strongly that gun violence is an epidemic and that the CDC ought to devote a lot of resources to combating it.  Another might feel that gun violence is not a CDC issue and would want the CDC to focus on the opioid epidemic, while a third might feel that the CDC should be focused on infectious diseases.  That's fine.

I don't think it is merely a difference of degree to attempt to influence the scientific content of CDC recommendations, however.

BC

BC, I think your example clearly shows how they are the same thing. You can bet if the president feels that gun violence is not a CDC issue there won't be any advisories regarding gun violence coming out from the CDC. It may be that scientifically gun violence is a major cause of death, but if the president doesn't want to hear that, he appoints people that make sure he doesn't. If you work for the CDC and think gun violence should be an issue and an advisory should be issued you have two choices, stay in your lane or quit.

Much of the "influencing" normally goes on behind the scenes, and we don't see it or hear about it. A guidance is issued and everyone stands behind it. It was actually vetted by the president's staff, but we don't know that. In a well-oiled federal bureaucracy, everyone stays on message. Naturally, that is easier to do if the message is clearly articulated and consistent. It doesn't have to be "scientifically correct". The current president is just so bad a manager he can't pull that off, and we get a guidance that has to be revised in public, not private.