No, the Trump Administration Didn’t ‘Ban’ 7 Words at the CDC

Heads exploded over the weekend in response to a Washington Post article that claimed the Centers for Disease Control would “ban” seven words in all future budget documents submitted to Congress. The article’s inflammatory headline, “CDC gets list of forbidden words: Fetus, transgender, diversity,” set the tone for an egregiously poor example of journalism, even by Washington Post standards.

Science reporter Lena Sun wrote, “the Trump administration is prohibiting officials at the nation’s top public health agency from using a list of seven words or phrases—including ‘fetus’ and ‘transgender’—in official documents being prepared for next year’s budget.”

Support for that explosive charge came from precisely one anonymous source, a CDC analyst who attended an agency briefing on December 14 where the word-ban was allegedly discussed. (Other terms Sun claimed would be banned include “vulnerable,” “entitlement,” “evidence-based,” and “science-based.”)

The analyst, who has worked at the agency for some time, told the Post, “the reaction of people in the meeting was incredulous. ‘Are you serious? Are you kidding?’ In my experience, we’ve never had any pushback from an ideological standpoint.”

The source said he could not recall another time when words were banned because they were controversial. Sun tweeted out her piece along with a photo of a baby afflicted with the Zika virus to drive home the point how inhumane the White House is.

But buried at the end of Sun’s story was this: “Kelly [Alison Kelly, a CDC official who spoke at the briefing] told the analysts that certain words in the CDC’s budget drafts were being sent back to the agency for correction. Three words that had been flagged in these drafts were “vulnerable,” “entitlement,” and “diversity.” Kelly told the group the ban on the other words had been conveyed verbally.”

As the Church Lady used to say: well, isn’t that convenient? The most provocative words—fetus and transgender—were not edited in drafts, so no paper trail exists. There is no document, memo, or email to support the allegation that these words were indeed “banned.” The entire article rests on the recollection of one analyst who refused to give her/his name and without a shred of evidence to back up the claim.

Not only that, the article went online roughly 24 hours after the CDC meeting occurred. How did the reporters or editors verify any of this in that short amount of time? Was there an attempt to contact Kelly for her response? Was there an attempt to corroborate the analyst’s story with several other attendees? No, this was clearly a rush to post a clickbait story headed into the weekend.

And it worked. The story quickly spread across the Twitterverse. Comparisons to Nazism, book-banning, and dictatorships were offered up by the perpetually-outraged blue-checkmark club of Trump haters. Here are a few winners:

Our fearless Democratic House leader went all, “Danger, Will Robinson!” on it:

On NBC’s “Meet the Press,” host Chuck Todd mocked the “ban” by referring to comedian George Carlin’s famous “seven words you can’t use on TV” bit. Todd gave an unfunny monologue about the words that are banned as they popped up on the screen, then finished with this: “But anyone who has observed totalitarian regimes knows how vulnerable we all can be.” If only Todd recognized the irony in that remark.

CNN escalated the hyperbole, posting a story based solely on the Post article without any independent verification from its own reporters. But it was mostly a portal for activists to vent about the purported ban, such as this gem from the executive director of the National Center for Transgender Equality: “To pretend and insist that transgender people do not exist, and to allow this lie to infect public health research and prevention is irrational and very dangerous. The Trump administration is full of dangerous science deniers who have no business near American public health systems like the CDC. They are actually going to kill Americans if they do not stop.”


The story did start to get some pushback; the New York Times ran a more accurate piece (you know you’re in trouble when the Times beats you on the facts), calling it a “purported” ban and quoting other sources who refuted the Post’s characterization: “A few suggested that the proposal was not so much a ban on words but recommendations to avoid some language to ease the path toward budget approval by Republicans.”

A former CDC official told the Times that “they are not saying to not use the words in reports or articles or scientific publications or anything else the CDC does. They’re saying not to use it in your request for money because it will hurt you. It’s not about censoring what CDC can say to the American public. It’s about a budget strategy to get funded.”

By midday Sunday, CDC Director Brenda Fitzgerald tweeted her agency’s response: “I want to assure you there are no banned words at CDC. We will continue to talk about all our important public health programs.” Fitzgerald used two of the supposedly forbidden words—science-based and evidence-based—in one of her subsequent tweets to underscore the message. She also posted a statement from the HHS that called the Post’s article a “complete mischaracterization of discussions regarding the budget formulation process.”

In a follow-up article, Sun claimed: “the Trump administration has informed multiple divisions within the Department of Health and Human Services that they should avoid using certain words or phrases in official documents being drafted for next year’s budget.” But oddly, despite using the words “ban” and “banned” several times in her original piece, Sun didn’t use either word in her second story. Sun posted a tweet Sunday afternoon that hedged even further, asking “if folks at other federal agencies are also being asked to avoid certain words in drafting budget narratives.” That is a clear pivot away from her original accusation about a ban.

Her source even seemed to backpedal: “What would you call it when you’re told not to use those words? If that’s not a ban, maybe I need to improve my vocabulary.”  

Perhaps. In all fairness, a politically motivated bureaucrat can use any language he or she wants. It is the reporter’s job to flush out what is fact and what is fiction. But in this case, as we’ve seen time and again this year, the Post ran with an incendiary, unverified, anonymously sourced story 24 hours after the alleged briefing took place, with little time to allow the agencies or the White House to respond, so it could incite the anti-Trump mob to spread misinformation about a word ban while subtly changing the narrative between the first and second articles.

Our discredited news media is certainly ending 2017 with a bang.

Support Free & Independent Journalism Your support helps protect our independence so that American Greatness can keep delivering top-quality, independent journalism that's free to everyone. Every contribution, however big or small, helps secure our future. If you can, please consider a recurring monthly donation.

Want news updates?

Sign up for our newsletter to stay up to date.

98 responses to “No, the Trump Administration Didn’t ‘Ban’ 7 Words at the CDC”

  1. But in follow-up reporting, The New York Times cited “a few” CDC officials who suggested the move was not meant as an outright ban, but rather, a technique to help secure Republican approval of the 2019 budget by eliminating certain words and phrases.

  2. Hello………. Liberals…… Known, proven liars cheats and thieves…….Even when telling the TRUTH they are lying about it. If a Liberal says it, it’s a lie. I don’t need someone else to tell me that Liberals lie. It’s ALL they CAN do…………. As an aside. There are a LOT of so called news sources that have lost any credibility. And they aren’t ALL Liberal on the surface…… But they ARE Liberals in their hearts…….

    • Google is paying 97$ per hour,with weekly payouts.You can also avail this.
      On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $11752 this last four weeks..with-out any doubt it’s the most-comfortable job I have ever done .. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
      ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleWagePowerJobsFromHomeJobs/computer/jobs ★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫:::::!da239luuuuu

  3. Let’s see if I can use certain words posting to the comments section of the WaPo. Whoops! Nope! The WaPo bans words for real!

  4. The left started calling babies ‘fetuses’ because the word baby brought to mind, well, a baby, and they certainly didn’t want people that it was actual babies that were being ripped from their mother’s wombs.

    • It wasn’t the left, it was the science. Don’t be stupid.

      • ‘fetus (n.)
        late 14c., “the young while in the womb or egg” , from Latin fetus, “the bearing or hatching of young, a bringing forth, pregnancy, childbearing, offspring.”‘ Normal people do not call a child in the womb a fetus. No one tells their friends they are having a fetus. No one throws a fetus shower. Scientists used the word fetus, but it was not in day to day use by non-scientists until the abortion industry wanted to de-humanize the unborn child. Don’t call people names.

      • And what do you think people at CDC are? Soccer moms giving baby showers?

        You’re afraid of science because it shows the world the way it really is. It something has some intrinsic value science will expose it, not hide it.

      • No, the people at the CDC are human beings who have babies just like the rest of us. However, they are also tools of the government trying to change our concept of reality. I am not afraid of science. I am afraid of the government controlling science and using it to control the people.

      • I don’t know if you seriously didn’t get this, but they are scientists doing science reports. “Fetus” is the right terminology on these circumstances. You’re talking about “government controlling science” like if the problem wasn’t precisely that Republicans want scientists to stop using science terminology so they can push their agendas. I mean, I’m seriously baffled, you seem to not understand how science works AT ALL. You should really refrain from developing an opinion, let alone shout it to the world, if you don’t have basic knowledge of the subject. The same people that use the word “fetus” are the ones that cured polio and invented the penicilin; think about this, about how and why science works, before condemning its terminology.

      • The people who developed the police vaccines were Salk and Sabin, who both died in the 90’s, and penicillin was discovered by Fleming, who died in the 50’s, so no, it’s not the same people.

      • It’s a little ironic how you did this research just to make such a stupid point. I can totally picture Alexander Flemming complaining about people using the word “fetus” in science reports.

      • Meh, I was bored. And it didn’t really take that long, quick Google and a couple of Wikipedia page.

      • You do realize that there is NO BAN ON WORDS/PHRASES that the CDC (or any other agency) is allowed to use in their reports, don’t you? You do realize that apparently POLITICAL OPERATIVES ON THE LEFT suggested that when submitting reports to a Republican Congress, they should alter their verbiage in an effort to hide their true intent. Then, the LEFT misinterprets (er, LIES) about their agenda and issues a call to arms against the nefarious Trump administration when it is their own who are obfuscating!

      • And why are you talking about this to me? I’m here to discuss science, you can take your seriously misguided pseudo political rant somewhere else, I have zero interest in it.

      • Oh Lord! The ONLY thing on display in the initial WAPO story was a rant attributing language manipulation undertaken by some Left wing loon who thought that they could distract a Republican Congress. The WAPO story then attributed the language manipulation suggested by the LEFT as being language restrictions imposed by the Trump administration.

        This story has NOTHING TO DO with science. You know that and I know that. But you are caught with your pants around your ankles and are looking for an escape from the purgatory you voluntarily climbed into. Nice try, but no cigar!

      • I only replied to a comment complaining about the use of the word “fetus” because that’s the only subject I’m interested in discussing, in other words I have no interest in the moronic discution you’re trying to draw me in to. If you REALLY want to vent on a leftist you’re very welcome to leave to another topic, one where people are interested in what you have to say. It’s not because what I said bothered you that I’m socially obliged to listen to your shit.

      • “I am not afraid of science. I am afraid of the government controlling science and using it to control the people.”

        Amen. This what every conservative needs to try to explain to ignorant people who think scientific truth comes from a megaphone.

      • You are correct that science shows how things really work. But you are 100% wrong that science reveals intrinsic value. Science is a fact endeavor. It says nothing about the values related to those facts. Simple example — science built the atom bomb but has nothing to say about whether it was a good or bad thing to use it to end WWII. That decision was based on the values and judgment of our political leaders. Same with abortion. Call it a fetus or a baby, science tells us how to end a pregnancy but is worthless in deciding whether it is moral or immoral.

      • Oh no, you’re confounding intrinsic value with morality. You believe in what you want, but these are your subjective values and this is how you should treat them. Not dismissing morality at all, mind you, but science is categorical and it’s ridiculous to in turn dismiss it just so you can support your mortality.

      • I have no idea what you mean by “intrinsic value” or “science is categorical”. Sounds like something from a bumper sticker. Try to explain these in plain English, if you can. As I said and stand by, science tells you what is and what isn’t — facts. It tells nothing about morality. Do you agree with this or not? If not, how about a few examples of how science decides moral or immoral.

      • Strange, I was pretty sure I was using plain English only. But yeah, only failing completely to understand what I said you could confuse it with something off a bumper sticker — are you saying you don’t tend to understand bumper stickers?

        “As I said and stand by, science tells you what is and what isn’t — facts. It tells nothing about morality. Do you agree with this or not? ”

        This is not only obvious, I said the same thing on my reply, just adding that we can never ignore science in name of morality, as the latter is subjective.

      • Not even close. You still haven’t even tried to explain what “science is categorical” means. Frankly it means nothing. And for the third and last time no one is ignoring science just that science determines the facts of the world. It does not reveal inherent value whatever that is.

      • I still haven’t tried to explain because it’s a pretty straightforward sentence, and if I have to chew everything for you it will get boring pretty fast. But here we go: “categorical” means clear, direct and with authority; meaning your morality can’t sanely override it. Now tell me what part of it you still don’t understand.

        “It doesn’t reveal inherent value whatever that is” yes, its your completely subjective morality that does that, so does everyone’s, doesn’t matter how contradictory that gets. Why are you arguing about something that you clearly doesn’t understand?

      • I could just see you consoling a woman who lost an unborn child to the actions of a drunk or careless driver, or to a violent action taken by a criminal – “there there, you’ve got nothing to be upset about – it was only a fetus.”

      • I mean, you’d be right, but the consolation wouldn’t work because the woman was emotionally attached to the fetus. If she wasn’t, fuck it, go have an abortion, it’s just a fetus indeed.

        Now where were you trying to go with that dumb point?

      • My point is the killing of the unborn is theft of life, regardless of the state of development prior to birth, and regardless of the intent of the person carrying out the act of killing. Your callous, barbarism-driven response was fully expected.

      • Okay, it’s not even that I disagree with you, its just that a) this isn’t what the discussion is about, b) I have no interest in your moral view and c) morality is subjective so you should get off your high horse.

      • The point is that the vast majority of the human race (scientists and non-scientists alike) refer to an unborn child as a “baby” or “child”. In normal day to day, human interactions that involve discussions of children in the womb people use the term “baby” or “child” not “fetus”. The pro-abortion crowd that supports killing unborn children as late as 25 weeks insist on using the term fetus even outside of scientific circles so as to dehumanize the unborn baby.

  5. Liberalism will jump on any accusation,
    innuendo or gossip about the right, but tell them a fact about the left (like
    disturbed lying reprobate hillary told everybody she was shot at) and you just
    get a blank stare.

    • “I understand that confusion arose from a staff-level discussion at a routine meeting about how to present CDC’s budget. It was never intended as overall guidance for how we describe and conduct CDC’s work,” Fitzgerald said.

      • Liberalism is not letting facts sully their Self-Righteousness, ie FOURTH WORST
        US economy under US hating obama, “hands up, don’t shoot” lie or
        “1 in 4 women on campus suffer a sexual assault” lie, San Bernadino
        & Philadelphia police shooter not islamic terrorism! etc

      • So the words were discussed at a budget meeting as not good to use to make the orange buffoon say “off with their heads”?

      • Liberalism doesn’t know that Trump seems like a revolutionary (insert your
        alarmist adjective), but that is only because he is loudly undoing the
        “fundamental transformation” (where he tried to change the greatest
        country in history) of classless US hating obama AND since classless
        obama didn’t govern properly, much of the suffering he’s caused can be more
        easily reversed!

      • Are you gonna address the story or just rant? I dont see Obama mentioned, so maybe recheck your copy and paste.

      • liberalism is so dense they don’t even know its about them! you’re hilarious!

        Liberalism isn’t used to having a pro-American president after the last 8 years
        of US hating obama so of course YOU don’t seem to realize that Trump seems like
        a revolutionary (insert your alarmist adjective), but that is only because he
        is loudly undoing the “fundamental transformation” revolution of
        classless US hating obama.

      • Liberalism sadly sits in their denial
        believing all their own rhetoric & lies BUT worse they inanely think they
        can make others be as intolerant as they are and unable to give a man who loves
        the country a fair shot at running it! YOU”RE ABSURD! Trump doesn’t even have
        to try hard to do better than the US hating man who gave us the fourth worst US
        economy in history, almost zero growth for 8 years with massive new
        regulations! Grow up and live with what you created!

      • bye hater
        Liberalism IS US hating obama GETTING credit for the fourth worst economy in US
        recorded history!

        AND he gets credit for the worst ever at NOT having even ONE year with more
        than 3% growth during his entire term!

      • Just block the b*tch. I don’t even read past their 3rd word–trolls just go bye-bye. Boom.

      • “buffoon”, eh? And what would you call someone who apparently doesn’t understand that budgets are set by Congress, not the President? It was even mentioned in the column. Sad.

    • you want to talk about innuendo and gossip how about birtherism something your president delighted in some years ago..

      • Liberalism loves their fake
        news or any excuse to hate on Trump, there were no
        hacked voting machines NOR were there ever a serious post-election movement of
        electors to defy their constitutional duties and vote for reprobate Hillary.
        Trump was elected and yet there were no mass resignations at the State
        Department, nor did he try to “ban all Muslims”. The first lady was not an
        elite escort, she never said that she wouldn’t move into the White House,
        Barron does not have autism. Trump’s father never ran racist ads. Trump never
        suggested the US would invade Mexico or use the National Guard to return
        illegals, he did not remove a Martin Luther King bust, he never promised to
        ease Russian sanctions, the golden showers douse is a lie as all of this was to
        string along the weak minded leftist that can’t except reality

      • but the birtherism was very real..and you know it.. as far as the stuff you listed..

        hacked voting machines and rigged elections- thats the stuff repubs always claim when they lose having ACORN stripped of its funding over election fraud even tho none was found.

        Muslim ban – he didn’t ban all but he banned many and I’m sure alot of innocent people are caught up in it.

        Milania – its well known that the russians and chinese enlist escorts and model looking women to hook up with wealthy businessmen for corporate espionage purposes..this chick just lucked up and ended up in the white house. There could very well be a spy in the white house! A SLEEPER AGENT if you will.

        Trump and racism – just check the lawsuit on that in the 70s.

        Trump and mexico – how about the wall they are suppose to pay for but in reality YOU are paying for it…

        Trump and sanctions – his people promised the russians sanctions would be lifted..they speak for him so its like he said it.

        The dossier – probably wouldn’t surprise me

      • Liberalism is the fight against common sense
        they spend more than we have, telling everybody things should be free, they
        care more about illegals then US citizens, they think everybody on the planet
        should move in and that the US tax payer should support them, they can’t stand
        ensuring our elections are fair and legal, they think its fine to let in
        terrorist, they deny a man is a man and woman a woman, they deny a baby is
        human, they empower our enemies thinking that will bring peace etc.

      • liberalism is the most low dense libs, no wonder your party has been decimated at every level

      • Liberalism is NOT even knowing that 2009, Democrats
        had an effective 58-seat majority in the Senate, had a staggering 256 seats in
        the House and held 28 governorships, NOW after 8 years of the corrupt clintons
        and US hating obamas, the left has lost 63 House seats, 10 Senate seats, 900
        Democratic state legislators were defeated, 12 governorships & 31
        statehouses – the left occupies the lowest number since the 1920s. They only
        control 5 states! Its a record loss exactly what you all deserve for voting for
        such corruption.

      • and before that republicans had control and lost it.. and the midterms are coming up so again..the pendulum swings both ways…

      • liberalism loves to deny the HUGE losses the empower of corruption has brought them. This wasn’t just a swap out, duH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
        enjoy your ignorance

      • Liberalism is divisive US hating obama’s legacy of holding the
        record for losing the most congressional seats of any president….the corrupt
        clintons and the US hating divisive obamas have decimated the left at every
        level exactly what you deserve for supporting such corruption….most clueless
        libs don’t even know.

      • trump holding the record for lowest approval ratings in the first year..the russian probes are only going to get deep as more people in his administration start to you wanna talk about corruption thats a laff coming from this president who STILL hasn’t show his most recent taxes in detail.. hell he’s half the reason for the sexual harassment backlash. So continue to live in your bubble

      • Liberalism IS US hating obama GETTING credit for the fourth worst economy in US
        recorded history!

        AND he gets credit for the worst ever at NOT having even ONE year with more
        than 3% growth during his entire term!

      • crazy conservatism is trump getting credit for an economy that was growing before he took office….all the positive numbers were fake until he comes to power now its all true…GTFOH

        And sure the stock market is at all time highs.wallstreet knows they have one of their own at the helm so its the wild west all over again. As regulations get pulled down bubbles are going to start pop up again..trump being president is to wallstreet what an substitute teacher is to a unruly class.. no class work just a bunch of kids running wild while the teacher props his legs up and takes a nap.

      • Liberalism IS US hating obama GETTING credit for the fourth worst economy in US
        recorded history!

        AND he gets credit for the worst ever at NOT having even ONE year with more
        than 3% growth during his entire term!

      • Liberalism IS US hating obama GETTING credit for the fourth worst economy in US
        recorded history!

        AND he gets credit for the worst ever at NOT having even ONE year with more
        than 3% growth during his entire term!

      • liberalism’s “end of the world” hyperbole and US hate just aren’t winning policies. If you all choose to stay out of the democratic process, that’s your choice….but no wonder your party
        has been decimated at every level! If everything is SO BAD then why aren’t you happy about it for your party?

      • Do the black helicopters hovering over your house keep you awake at night? Just pull your tin-foil hat further down over your ears and you won’t hear them.

        Obama to the Russians: “After the election, I’ll have more flexilbilty” and “give me more space”.

        Hillary made $120 million dollars of the Russians with the Uranium One deal. She and her buddies the Podesta brothers got quite rich off their Russian comrades.

      • I thought the russians weren’t bad guys anymore..not since putin and trump became butt buddies whispering in each others ears.

      • Yeah clinton floated the idea during a contentious election season but when it didn’t take hold they dropped it a few days later…trump promoted and barnstormed birtherism for MONTHS a YEAR AFTER the election. Chump cut his political teeth by using a ridiculous conspiracy theory (birther) to disrespect the man who was democratically elected President in 2008 but NOW wants respect for his ultra murky election.

      • No, that wasn’t what those articles were about. Before the Obama birther stuff (though yes Clinton camp did float it around) while the Presidential Election was in full swing – Democrat partisans and their media orgs like the NYTimes, Salon, MSNBC, and so on were questioning McCain’s eligibility because he was born in Panama (on a military base).

      • Do you honestly think that your side of the aisle would have abandoned those accusations had McCain won?

        There is no difference. The Democrats used the birther stuff against McCain in 2008, then to complain when its thrown back at them is abit hypocritical.

      • Yes I do believe democrats would have abandoned those accusations if mccain won:

        BEFORE the election the Senate passed a nonbinding resolution stating that McCain was eligible.

      • Birtherism was started by the Hillary campaign back in 2008. This has been well-documented by Politico in a number of articles. That probably didn’t stop you by voting for her though.

  6. Obama banning words; OK. Trump banning, if he in fact did; Terrible!

  7. Didn’t Obama refuse to say “Islamic extremism?” I guess it’s okay when the Dems decide to ban certain words, right?

    • He also banned “War on Terror.” It became an Overseas Contingency Operation.

  8. If Trumped wanted to, what’s to stop him?

    No, trump isnt banning words. But if the left wants to crap their pants, I have popcorn.

  9. Kettle to Pot: When was the last time you read about “Muslim Jihadi Terrorists” in the WaPo? How about ‘Illegal Immigrants?”

  10. Cool – so they White House is telling our federal agencies to avoid using certain words or phrases like “diversity” and “science based” to avoid upsetting Republicans in Congress – and the author is okay with that?

    • You think that directive came from the White House? You think the Trump White House that is pushing back hard on the overreach of the Obama administration wants the CDC to soften language to appeal to the Republican Congress? Are you DAFT???

      Apparently, the answer is YES!

    • Sounds like advice from a leftist trying to help their comrades navigate the funding process.

  11. Right. It’s not a ban. It’s a suggestion that certain words, like evidence-based and diversity, be avoided in budget documents. And why avoid those words? Because the BBC, aka the Baboons on the Budget Committee, aka the Republican Baboons on the Budget Committee, will get the heebie-jeebies if they see those words. Color me reassured.

    • You do realize that this was a Leftist operative who was suggesting text construction BASED ON WHAT THAT LEFTIST OPERATIVE THINKS about how a Republican Congress would respond to some words/phrases. It is nothing more than the LEFTIST OPERATIVES belief system that is on display!

      • And of course Allison Kelly,who was quoted as having, er, suggested that the words not be used, has refuted the quotation and exposed it as nonsense,right? No? Could it be that she hasn’t made any response at all? And if not, what does that tell you?

        PS–Lose the dopey caps.They make you look foolish, and it’s not as if you’ve got a lot of ground to give away.

  12. The Obama administration tried to ban the terms “terrorist” and “war on terror”, preferring “radical extremist” and “overseas operations” instead. There was even a lengthy exchange with the press pool in 2009 over whether the 9/11 hijackers were “terrorists” or “extremists.” The Obama administration stood their ground, and the press accepted the new language.

    Fact is, administrations that produce reports are allowed to use whatever phrases or guidelines they wish. If they want to call automobiles “zippy people boxes” then everyone else is free to read, interpret, and criticize those reports however they see fit. Nobody can tell the White House what words to use. They can use whatever words they wish.

    • My absolute favorite was labeling the Fort Hood terrorism as “workplace violence.”

      • As was 9/11 and the World Trade Center, technically speaking.

        Two people getting violent over some disagreement at work and someone who watches ISIS videos and then shoots up a store where they work are not the same thing. And everybody knows it.

  13. How much you want to bet that if true (and it’s likely not) that the advice came from a lefty trying to help their comrades get funding.

  14. Whether it’s a ban or a suggestion, the fact that the CDC is avoiding using “evidence-based” and “science-based” in their budget requests in order to secure funding from a Republican administration tells you all you need to know.

    Maybe they should sprinkle in “biblically-speaking” a few times in order to up their chances… What a joke.

    • Have you checked your white privilege today? I’m sure you’d agree that every white person needs to do that on a daily basis to remind ourselves that we have an unfair and unearned advantage over people of color.

      Naturally, the only fair thing for us to do is to vote for Big Brother leftists who will redistribute wealth so that each faction in our wonderfully progressive society is awarded the same amount of wealth and the same amount of equality. Once we’re all equal we’ll all be equally happy and all will be well with the world.

  15. Wouldn’t the term be Scientific, if it referenced a principle or theory developed using the scientific method. Science based, sounds like a term used to usurp Science for a political purpose, like Climate change, or AGW.

  16. As usual, main stream media skews stories to put the President in the worst light possible. This time it was the WaPo headline “Trump Administration Bans Words”. Incredible that they whine about fake news.

  17. What? You mean the employees of the CDC are actually allowed to speak English while serving in the government of the United States of America First? This is an outrage!

  18. “even by Washington Post standards” ???????? What gave you the ridiculous notion that the Washington Post has ANY standards?

  19. I knew it was fake, immediately, and compared it to the bogus story during the Reagan administration that they wanted to call ketchup a vegetable.

  20. The director of the CDC, Brenda Fitzgerald, vociferously denied the characterization of the words as “banned,” saying in a statement “there are no banned, prohibited or forbidden words at the CDC — period.”

    But Fitzgerald did not deny that some staff may have been instructed to avoid certain language in key budget documents.

    “I understand that confusion arose from a staff-level discussion at a routine meeting about how to present CDC’s budget,” Fitzgerald wrote in her statement. “It was never intended as overall guidance for how we describe and conduct CDC’s work.”

  21. That anyone who fancies themself a journalist could take this allegation seriously is preposterous. When you’re a kid learning math you’re taught to look at your answer and ask does it make sense? Sun was given no such guidance.