Nature is now condemning what Donald Trump has been doing during his almost four years as President of the U.S. In this case, it’s Nature the prestigious scientific journal and not the trees, flowers, animals, rivers, and everything that’s not made by humans around us. Although, in a scathing editorial, the journal’s editors did also say that “The Trump administration’s actions are accelerating climate change, razing wilderness, fouling air and killing more wildlife — as well as people.” So maybe the plants and wildlife would have something to say about the Trump administration as well, if they could speak any of the human languages.

It wouldn’t be too surprising if wildlife were saying the words “unprecedented times” too. After all, with the Covid-19 coronavirus pandemic, that phrase seems to have become integrated into daily conversation, as in “how’s your twenty-layer chocolate on chocolate cake, unprecedented times” or “could you pass me that plunger, these are unprecedented times.”

One of the things that’s truly been unprecedented is the number of prestigious scientific journals that have taken clear stances for the upcoming U.S. Presidential election. For example, Science, The Lancet, and the New England Journal of Medicine have all now urged voters not to re-elect Trump as President, as I have described previously for Forbes. Scientific American and Nature have both gone one step further and endorsed Democratic challenger and former U.S. Vice-President Joe Biden for President.

While the other aforementioned prestigious scientific publications haven’t really taken stances in previous Presidential election, it’s been more in the nature of Nature to do so. The publication did support Barack Obama back in his 2008 and 2012 Presidential elections They also stood on the side of Hillary Clinton during the last Presidential election. But the fact that they are now part of a five-fecta of top scientific publications that have thoroughly denounced Trump’s Presidency is new.

Plus, as the following tweet states, Nature considers this year’s endorsement particularly important:

Moreover, this most recent editorial from Nature made the previous ones seem like Miley Cyrus’s “Party in the USA” by comparison. Trump has said before, “I know words. I have the best words.” Well, the words used to describe Trump in this most recent Nature editorial were the opposite of best. According to the editorial, “No US president in recent history has so relentlessly attacked and undermined so many valuable institutions, from science agencies to the media, the courts, the Department of Justice — and even the electoral system. Trump claims to put ‘America First’. But in his response to the pandemic, Trump has put himself first, not America.”

The editorial described a litany of problems with the Trump administration ranging from picking fights “with the country’s long-standing friends and allies” and walking away “from crucial international scientific and environmental agreements and organizations” to “its shameful record of interference in health and science agencies — thus undermining public trust in the very institutions that are essential to keeping people safe.”

What word did the editorial use to describe the Trump administration’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic? How about “disastrous”? Disastrous is rarely a positive word. You don’t tend to call someone disastrously beautiful or describe someone’s cavatappi and alfredo sauce dish as disastrously yummy. They wrote about how Trump “chose not to craft a comprehensive national strategy” and instead “flouted and publicly derided the science-based health guidelines set by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for the use of face masks and social distancing.” The editorial indicated that “the administration later rewrote guidelines when the message did not align with its agenda” and that “Trump has lied about the dangers posed by the virus and has encouraged people to protest against policies intended to slow its transmission.”

The editorial went on to decry the “undermining of research advice has been accompanied by the systematic dismantling of scientific capacity in regulatory science agencies.” It stated that “no president in recent history has tried to politicize government agencies and purge them of scientific expertise on the scale undertaken by this one.” According to the editorial, the result has been “accelerating climate change, razing wilderness, fouling air and killing more wildlife — as well as people.” That’s not going to score points among the woodchuck, llama, and possum voting blocs. Oh, and the editorial also mentioned how “Trump has also promoted nationalism, isolationism and xenophobia — including tacitly supporting white-supremacist groups.”

Sound like Trump is not exactly Nature’s favorite President, even though Trump has referred to himself as “your favorite President” on multiple occasions:

By the way, no real scientist has called the Covid-19 coronavirus the Invisible China Virus. In fact, public health experts and others have pleaded with Trump to use the Covid-19 coronavirus’s real name instead to avoid stigmatizing and stereotyping people of East Asian descent, as I reported previously for Forbes.

The Nature editorial didn’t just say vote for anyone besides Trump like Kanye West, a third party candidate, a write-in celebrity, or maybe even a cinder block. It actually said that “Nature is endorsing Biden and urging voters to cast a ballot for him on 3 November.” The editorial offered a number of reasons including Biden’s history of reaching “across to his political opponents” and working “with them to achieve bipartisan support for legislation.” It pointed out how “Biden’s campaign has worked closely with researchers to develop comprehensive plans on Covid-19 and climate change.” The editorial also stated that Biden “has pledged that decisions on the pandemic response will be made by public-health professionals and not by politicians.”

Again having five prestigious long-standing scientific journals so far uniformly condemn the actions of a sitting President is really, really rare, as in it’s never really happened before. All of this is further evidence that the Trump Presidency has not been your typical Presidency. This election is not your typical election. This is no longer simply about typical partisan politics.

The editorial summarized by saying that “Donald Trump has taken an axe to a system that was intended to safeguard and protect citizens when leaders go astray. He has become an icon for those who seek to sow hatred and division, not only in the United States, but in other countries, too.” Otherwise, everything is peaches and cream, right? It concluded with this sentence, “Joe Biden must be given an opportunity to restore trust in truth, in evidence, in science and in other institutions of democracy, heal a divided nation, and begin the urgent task of rebuilding the United States’ reputation in the world.”

In most Presidential election years, it may not be in the “nature” of many scientists to so openly advocate for a particular candidate and at the same time use words like “disastrous” and “shameful” when describing the sitting President. But in this very unusual election year, clearly Nature has decided to do so.