In his concurring opinion in United States v. Skrmetti, Justice Clarence Thomas took direct aim at the modern expert class — those credentialed voices and bureaucratic leaders who assure the public they know what is best, only to pivot, obfuscate, or disappear when consequences arise. At the heart of his concern was how these so-called experts once championed medical gender transitions for children as an unquestionable best practice and now, only years later, are undermined by a growing body of evidence that reveals the long-term damage inflicted by puberty blockers, surgeries, and cross-sex hormones.
This is not the first time experts have led society astray. Nor will it be the last. But it is a cautionary moment that calls for what Thomas exemplifies: not a reactionary rejection of expertise, but a prudent skepticism — a demand that science serve truth, not ideology.
The temptation to treat experts as prophets is understandable. In a complex, highly specialized world, we rely on those with technical knowledge. But, as Thomas Sowell observed in The Vision of the Anointed, a ruling class of “experts” often emerges who claim to speak on behalf of knowledge and progress while sheltering themselves from scrutiny, dissent, or the burden of proof. Their failures, Sowell argued, were almost never treated as cause for reflection or reform. Instead, the blame is shifted to public ignorance, bad implementation, or the alleged obstructionism of political opponents. When the experts fail, they claim other forces, a lack of authority, and always a lack of resources are to blame — never an acceptance of personal responsibility.
This is the pattern we’ve seen in the gender medicine debate. Ten years ago, experts at elite institutions began promoting “gender-affirming care” for minors with gender dysphoria, including off-label puberty blockers, sterilizing hormones, and irreversible surgeries, as the only compassionate response. Those who dissented were maligned as transphobic or anti-science. Parents were told they must affirm or risk their child’s suicide. Doctors who questioned the protocols were professionally punished. Legislators were warned not to interfere with what “the science” had settled.
But it turns out the science wasn’t settled. Today, countries such as Sweden, Finland, and the United Kingdom, hardly bastions of conservatism, have pulled back dramatically on childhood transitions, citing weak evidence, long-term risks, and deeply troubling cases of regret and medical harm. Lawsuits are mounting. Whistleblowers are emerging. And the very same protocols American experts once insisted were the global standard are being abandoned abroad.
Thomas rightly flagged this as a failure, not just of medicine, but of epistemology. How do we know what we know? And who do we trust to tell us the truth?
We should not respond by declaring all experts fraudulent or untrustworthy. That would be to lurch from naïveté to cynicism. Expertise, when properly constrained, is indispensable. But real expertise is marked by humility. It acknowledges uncertainty. It welcomes scrutiny. And it allows the evidence, not ideology or social pressure, to guide conclusions.
The problem arises when experts are treated as ultimate moral authorities rather than fallible advisors. When they are elevated beyond accountability, and disagreement is punished, not with rebuttal, but with denunciation. And this empowers policy to be shaped by panic, groupthink, and the pursuit of ideological conformity instead of prudence and deliberation.
The COVID-19 pandemic offers another illustration. Experts issued ever-changing directives on masking, school closures, and natural immunity, often without admitting uncertainty or debating the trade-offs. Those who raised legitimate questions, including respected scientists such as physician/scientist Jay Bhattacharya, were deplatformed, demonetized, or ignored. Now, as more data emerge, it’s clear that some of the most disruptive measures did little good with much harm, especially to children, small businesses, and mental health.
This isn’t hindsight bias or “Monday morning quarterbacking.” It’s the consequence of an expert class that confuses consensus with correctness and treats skepticism as heresy. In both the pandemic and the gender transition debates, a refusal to tolerate debate led to dangerous groupthink and real human suffering.
So, what is the alternative?
HAWLEY CALLS FOR INVESTIGATION AFTER META DOCUMENT OKS ‘SENSUAL’ AI CHATS WITH CHILDREN
A society that respects expertise must also demand transparency, accountability, and ideological pluralism. We must insist that experts make their reasoning public, their data available, and their recommendations open to challenge. We must foster institutions that reward intellectual honesty over political conformity. And we must cultivate a moral courage that refuses to be bullied by credentials alone.
In our time, the battle is not against expertise, but against its distortion — against the transformation of knowledge into ideology and credentials into a substitute for wisdom. The solution is not to banish experts, but to remind them and ourselves that they are not gods. They are servants of truth. And truth, as Thomas and our Constitution still affirm, must never be subordinated to fashion or fear.
Greg Schaller is the director of the Centennial Institute, the conservative think tank of Colorado Christian University. He has taught politics at CCU, Villanova University, and St. Joseph’s University. He holds a B.A. in political science and history from Eastern University and an M.A. in political science from Villanova University.