This week, our scholars looked at the alarming disparity between policymakers' words and their actions across diplomatic, economic, and public health agendas.

Writing in The Dispatch, Danielle Pletka asks when the White House plans to live up to President Joe Biden's promise of basing American diplomacy on a defense of freedom, opportunity, and universal human rights. From Afghanistan to Cuba and Palestine to Ukraine, Pletka argues that while Biden often says the right things about America's foreign policy, his actions have failed to support his rhetoric.

In AEIdeas, Matt Weidinger writes that the president's domestic agenda also suffers from nebulous assurances. When the American Rescue Plan passed in March, Weidinger points out, the White House cited data that showed the law would result in full employment by 2022. Now, the White House relies on the same source to argue that another $4 trillion rescue package is necessary to reach full employment — because the source's definition of "full employment" has changed.

Similarly, as M. Anthony Mills makes clear, "scientific" pronouncements have proven to be rarely as definitive as their proponents claim. The rhetoric of "follow the science" thus often hinders public health efforts as much as it helps. Because judgment inevitably plays a role in setting public health policy, Mills writes, "Reestablishing an appropriate role for science in our politics . . . requires restoring the central role of politics itself in making policy decisions."

Finally, earlier this week AEI's Chris Stirewalt hosted three prominent writers to discuss the devolution of American journalism — a profession once built on fairness, accuracy, and balance, but now dominated by groupthink and advocacy journalism. Caitlin Flanagan, Michael Powell, and Thomas Chatterton Williams joined Stirewalt to discuss how they resist this new "post-journalism" orthodoxy and produce challenging, fair-minded coverage.