Today’s decisions about what and how to communicate about population health occur amid very real fears and expectations of harsh reprisal that have had far-reaching impacts, both for people’s health a...

In an era of polarization, misinformation, and declining public trust in experts, effective public communication about health research is essential for disseminating evidence and maintaining the credibility of the research enterprise. Yet when communicating research findings to general audiences, experts face dilemmas about whether to omit information to avoid public confusion, to prevent the stigmatization of marginalized constituencies, or to keep information from being weaponized against vulnerable groups. Drawing on a national survey of health services professionals conducted in April and May 2025, we found that respondents generally rejected omissions serving self-protective or politically strategic ends but accepted omissions aimed at preventing public confusion or harm to marginalized groups. There is meaningful variation in support for these justifications by ideology, education, and workplace. In weighted regressions, conservatives, PhD holders, and those working outside academia in government or other nonuniversity settings were less likely to endorse omissions as justified compared with liberals and moderates, non-PhDs, and university-based researchers. These findings reveal both common ground and meaningful division in how professionals view transparency, underscoring the need for research on actual communication behavior and guidance to help experts navigate these dilemmas.

In the pre-1960s South, which Supreme Court Republicans have just brought back from the dead, Blacks have no voice in federal lawmaking.

Do Americans have structured, stable, and consequential policy preferences that shape political outcomes? We explore this question through the case of abortion, using a large-scale panel dataset (n ≈....