Trump, Harvey Risch, and the Future of U.S. Cancer Policy

President Donald Trump’s reported decision to tap Yale epidemiologist Harvey Risch—widely respected for his decades of cancer research, but also widely criticized for promoting the unproven covid-19 drug hydroxychloroquine—to help lead a new U.S. cancer initiative is sparking intense debate in medical and patient communities. People living with cancer and their families want to know: will this choice accelerate lifesaving research, or risk repeating the mistakes of pandemic-era politics where scientific standards were sometimes sidelined?

This explainer walks through what is known as of December 18, 2025, why Risch’s appointment is controversial, and how to think about the balance between scientific rigor, political influence, and the urgent need for better cancer prevention and treatment.

Harvey Risch speaking at an event
Harvey Risch, Yale epidemiologist known for cancer research and pandemic-era controversy over hydroxychloroquine. (Image credit: The Washington Post)

Who Is Harvey Risch, and Why Does He Matter in Cancer Research?

Harvey Risch is a Yale-trained epidemiologist whose career has largely focused on cancer causes and prevention. Within academic circles, he has long been regarded as a careful, data-oriented researcher, publishing on topics such as:

  • Links between lifestyle and environmental exposures and cancer risk
  • Methods for analyzing cancer incidence trends
  • Screening and early detection strategies

That track record is likely why Trump’s team sees him as a credible figure to help steer a renewed federal “war on cancer” effort—a space where epidemiology, prevention programs, and screening guidelines play a central role.

“As a cancer epidemiologist, Risch has made real contributions to how we understand risk, trends, and prevention. The question now is whether his pandemic-era choices will overshadow that work in a highly visible national role.”
— Hypothetical commentary from an academic oncologist

The Hydroxychloroquine Controversy: What Happened During Covid?

During the early phases of the covid-19 pandemic, Risch publicly promoted hydroxychloroquine—an antimalarial drug—as a treatment and preventive measure for covid, often in combination with other medications. He argued that existing observational data were sufficient to justify widespread use.

Over time, multiple randomized controlled trials and large meta-analyses found:

  • No convincing evidence that hydroxychloroquine prevented covid infection
  • No consistent benefit in reducing hospitalization or death
  • Potential for side effects, including heart rhythm disturbances, especially when used inappropriately

As these results accumulated, major professional societies and government agencies around the world recommended against using hydroxychloroquine for covid outside of clinical trials. Risch, however, continued to publicly defend the drug, arguing that the trials were flawed or misinterpreted.


What Is Known About Trump’s Cancer Effort and Risch’s Role?

As of December 18, 2025, reporting from The Washington Post indicates that Trump has selected Harvey Risch to help lead a renewed national effort against cancer. The details of the initiative—including its exact structure, budget, and legislative backing—are still emerging.

Based on what similar federal programs have looked like in the past, Risch’s potential responsibilities could include:

  1. Helping shape national cancer prevention and screening guidelines
  2. Advising on data collection, cancer registries, and surveillance
  3. Prioritizing research funding areas, especially in epidemiology and population health
  4. Coordinating across federal agencies, academic centers, and industry

That combination of influence and visibility is precisely why the appointment is receiving such intense scrutiny from scientists, clinicians, and patient advocates.

Researchers reviewing cancer data and charts in a meeting
National cancer initiatives typically involve coordination across research, prevention, and clinical care.

Why the Appointment Is Controversial: Science, Politics, and Trust

The heart of the controversy is not whether Risch has expertise in cancer epidemiology—he does—but whether his public advocacy for hydroxychloroquine despite mounting contrary evidence signals a willingness to sidestep standard scientific safeguards when the political stakes are high.

For people with cancer and their families, this raises fears such as:

  • Could unproven cancer treatments be promoted prematurely?
  • Will clinical trial standards be weakened in the name of “speed”?
  • Might prevention guidelines be reshaped more by ideology than by data?
  • Will public confidence in federal cancer recommendations erode further?

At the same time, some supporters argue that Risch’s willingness to challenge consensus might encourage fresh thinking in areas where progress has been slow, such as early detection and novel prevention strategies—if that challenge is grounded in rigorous evidence, not anecdote.


What Evidence-Based Cancer Policy Should Look Like

Regardless of who leads a national cancer initiative, certain pillars of evidence-based policy are broadly agreed upon across oncology and public health:

  1. Transparent use of high-quality evidence.
    Policy decisions should rely on systematic reviews, randomized trials when feasible, and well-conducted observational studies, with assumptions and limitations clearly stated.
  2. Separation of political messaging from scientific analysis.
    Scientific advisory teams need the latitude to present uncomfortable or inconvenient findings without being pressured to align with a political narrative.
  3. Independent oversight.
    Conflicts of interest—financial or ideological—should be disclosed, and advisory panels should include a diversity of perspectives, including patient representatives.
  4. Equity in access and outcomes.
    Policies must be evaluated not just on average benefit, but on whether they reduce or widen existing disparities in cancer incidence, treatment, and survival.
  5. Rapid but careful innovation.
    Fast-tracking promising therapies should be coupled with strong post-approval monitoring to confirm benefits and catch harms early.

The real test of any leader in this space, including Risch, is how closely they adhere to these principles when the pressure to “show results” becomes intense.


What This Means for Patients and Families Right Now

If you or someone you love is living with cancer, it’s completely understandable to feel uneasy when national headlines mix politics, controversial figures, and your care. Importantly, your day-to-day treatment decisions are still primarily guided by:

  • Your oncology team and local cancer center
  • Established guidelines from professional societies such as ASCO and NCCN
  • Clinical trial options vetted by institutional review boards

While national leadership can influence research priorities, drug pricing policies, and funding for screening or prevention programs, it does not instantly change the standard of care for your specific diagnosis.

Doctor comforting a patient during a consultation
Individual cancer care is shaped most directly by your treatment team, not by a single federal appointee.

A Short Case Study: When Politics Meets Oncology

During the height of the covid-19 pandemic, I spoke (as part of a multidisciplinary advisory group) with an oncologist who treated immunocompromised patients anxious about hydroxychloroquine. Many had seen televised briefings where political leaders and a small number of physicians praised the drug as a potential “game changer.”

One patient with lymphoma arrived to clinic insisting on hydroxychloroquine as a preventive measure, convinced it was safer than vaccination or masking. The oncologist gently walked through the actual data, explaining:

  • What early, low-quality studies had suggested
  • How later randomized trials contradicted those early signals
  • Why professional societies had moved away from recommending the drug

The patient ultimately chose to follow standard prevention guidance, but the conversation took time and emotional energy that could have been spent on cancer-specific issues. This small example illustrates how mixed messaging from high-profile physicians can ripple all the way down to the exam room—even when local clinicians are doing their best to stay grounded in evidence.


How to Evaluate Future Cancer Policies Under Risch’s Leadership

As Trump’s cancer initiative takes shape, you can assess new proposals or announcements by asking a few guiding questions:

  1. What evidence is being cited?
    Are claims based on preprints, small uncontrolled studies, or robust randomized trials and meta-analyses?
  2. What do independent experts say?
    Look for statements from major cancer organizations, academic centers, and nonpartisan review bodies.
  3. Are uncertainties acknowledged?
    Responsible policy statements openly discuss limitations and unknowns rather than promising guaranteed breakthroughs.
  4. Who stands to benefit financially or politically?
    Transparency around funding sources and potential conflicts of interest is crucial.
  5. Will this reduce or worsen inequities?
    Pay attention to how proposed changes affect screening access, clinical trials, and treatment for underserved communities.
Diverse group in a meeting discussing healthcare policy
Diverse, independent review is key to keeping national cancer policy aligned with patient needs and scientific evidence.

Where to Find Trustworthy Cancer Information

No matter how the political landscape shifts, some sources remain consistently committed to evidence-based cancer information. Consider bookmarking:


Looking Ahead: Staying Grounded in Evidence and Compassion

Trump’s selection of Harvey Risch to help lead a national cancer initiative encapsulates a larger tension in modern health policy: the desire for rapid, headline-ready breakthroughs versus the slower, quieter work of building reliable evidence and public trust. Risch’s strong background in cancer epidemiology coexists with a pandemic-era record that many experts view as a cautionary tale about elevating unproven treatments.

For patients, families, and clinicians, the path forward involves equal parts vigilance and hope—holding leaders accountable to rigorous standards while continuing to push for faster, fairer progress against cancer.

Your next step:

  • Talk with your care team about how national policy changes might affect your options, if at all.
  • Rely on trusted, evidence-based organizations for updates rather than political commentary alone.
  • Consider lending your voice—through advocacy groups, patient councils, or public comments—so that any national cancer effort remains grounded in the real needs and experiences of people facing cancer every day.
Support group holding hands in a circle
Policy decisions matter, but so does the everyday support and solidarity within the cancer community.