Trump Administration Makes Unsubstantiated Claims About Autism Causes and Treatments

In a recent development that has stirred significant controversy in the medical community, the Trump administration has made bold claims about both the cause and treatment of autism, despite a concerning lack of scientific evidence to support these assertions. Just six months after promising to investigate the causes of autism, President Trump and top health officials announced that acetaminophen (commonly known as Tylenol) can cause autism and that a drug called leucovorin could treat autism symptoms. These claims were made during an hour-long news briefing on September 22, where President Trump repeatedly advised pregnant women not to take acetaminophen, stating, “We’re going to save a lot of children from a tough life, a really tough life. We’re going to save a lot of parents from a tough life.” However, these declarations have been met with strong skepticism from the scientific community, with the Coalition of Autism Scientists—a group of more than 250 autism researchers—releasing a statement asserting that “the data cited do not support the claim that Tylenol causes autism and leucovorin is a cure, and only stoke fear and falsely suggest hope when there is no simple answer.”

The scientific evidence regarding acetaminophen’s relationship to autism is much more nuanced than the administration’s claims suggest. While some studies have found associations between acetaminophen use during pregnancy and autism risk, these studies do not establish causality. In fact, a large study published in JAMA last year, which examined nearly 2.5 million children in Sweden, found no association between acetaminophen during pregnancy and autism, ADHD, or intellectual disability. Particularly revealing was the sibling comparison analysis, where the supposed link between acetaminophen and autism disappeared when comparing siblings with and without autism—suggesting other factors were at play. Dennis Kuo, a pediatrician at the University of Rochester Medical Center, emphasizes this point: “When the researchers compared siblings, one with autism and one without, any connection between acetaminophen during a mother’s pregnancy and a later autism diagnosis disappeared… There’s no association.”

Even if a consistent association were established, it wouldn’t necessarily indicate causation due to the complex nature of autism’s origins. Autism has a strong genetic component, and autistic people are more likely to experience certain health conditions that may require pain relief, such as migraines. Noor Pervez of the Autistic Self Advocacy Network explains this potential confounding factor: “Autistic parents are more likely than non-autistic parents to have autistic children. So it is possible that parents with autistic traits are more likely than non-autistic parents to take Tylenol during pregnancy, and it is the parents’ autism, not the medicine, that contributes to a greater likelihood that the child will be autistic.” This perspective highlights the danger of oversimplifying autism’s causes, which medical professionals agree are multifaceted and complex.

The administration’s advice to pregnant women to avoid acetaminophen could potentially cause more harm than good. Acetaminophen is one of the few safe pain relief options available to pregnant women, and both pain and fever during pregnancy can pose serious risks. Steven J. Fleischman, president of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, noted in a statement that “the conditions people use acetaminophen to treat during pregnancy are far more dangerous than any theoretical risks and can create severe morbidity and mortality for the pregnant person and the fetus.” Furthermore, studies have linked fevers during pregnancy to increased risks of various disorders, including autism and schizophrenia. By advising pregnant women to “tough it out” without pain relief, the administration’s message could lead to unnecessary suffering and potentially harmful medical outcomes.

Similarly, the claims about leucovorin as a treatment for autism symptoms lack substantial scientific backing. FDA Commissioner Marty Makary stated during the news briefing that the drug would be relabeled to treat people with autism who may have too little folate reaching their brain, asserting that “hundreds of thousands of kids, in my opinion, will benefit.” However, experts in folate science, like Kevin Klatt from the University of California, Berkeley, caution that research on leucovorin for autism is still in early stages. The studies conducted thus far have been small and primarily from one research group, with no large clinical trials completed. Klatt suggests a more appropriate approach would be to fund large-scale, multi-center randomized controlled trials to properly evaluate the drug’s potential, rather than prematurely pushing it as a treatment.

Beyond the scientific concerns, the administration’s framing of autism as an “epidemic” in desperate need of a cure contradicts the perspectives of many autistic individuals themselves. Autism rates have indeed increased, with current estimates suggesting 1 in 31 children are diagnosed with autism by age 8. However, many experts attribute this rise primarily to increased awareness and better screening methods, rather than to environmental toxins or exposures as the administration suggests. More importantly, as Pervez points out, “Autistic people, generally speaking, don’t want a cure. We want to be able to live our lives in our communities, as part of them. You don’t get there by ignoring our wishes and treating us existing as inherently bad.” This insight underscores a fundamental disconnect between the administration’s approach and the actual needs and desires of the autistic community, who often seek support, understanding, and inclusion rather than being viewed as a problem to be solved.

In summary, while the Trump administration’s announcement claimed to offer solutions for autism, it has instead generated significant concern among medical professionals, researchers, and advocates for its lack of scientific rigor and potential to cause harm. The complex nature of autism requires thoughtful, evidence-based approaches that respect both scientific integrity and the perspectives of autistic individuals themselves—something that many feel was lacking in this recent pronouncement.