Schiffer Dyack

That's a good question.

Number one is really just a lot of institutional knowledge about all of these topics and why they're so foundational to successful policy interventions in our country.

Number two is just kind of the wealth of information, as I've

measure the impacts of their policymaking.

Effectively, every population has relied on federal data in some way or another.

And so without it, there are just a lot of gaps in measuring the food systems in our country and the mental health systems in our country and the public health systems in our country and really everything else in between.

That's right.

USAID is a really good example of this.

One of the things we saw with Doge's kind of calling of USAID and the Trump administration's calling of USAID was that a lot of the data that USAID produced for the federal government, especially on global health and public health, was really a gold standard for researchers around the globe.

And we're now seeing them move away from that as part of a broader move away from relying on American science as well.

There's three more years left.

And like I said, a lot of the effects are really only going to come to light a few months down the road.

And so even beyond the Trump administration, regardless of what comes next, we're still going to be seeing kind of a lot of the reverberating effects of the policy gaps that this has caused.

Yeah, thanks so much, Kai.

I appreciate it.