I legitimately don't understand what Scott's "line" is for political commentary

I'm going to try to not make this a culture war piece and get this post removed.

Scott recently wrote about the wisdom of cutting USAID in a very narrow, technical way, namely whether cutting a wasteful international program automatically means that money is then diverted to an optimal domestic program. There's also a specific discussion of the huge benefits of PEPFAR framed in an effective altruistic way.

Trying to frame this in as non-alarmist a way as possible, there is a lot going on in U.S. politics right now, much of which heavily implicates scientific research, international and domestic efforts to fight disease, and diversity initiatives, to name a few. And we know Scott has opinions about politics given he endorsed Kamala Harris and the other progressive candidates in last year's election.

I would never tell anyone what they should and should not write, especially when he gives it to us for free. But Scott is one of the few true public intellectuals whose opinions I actually trust as being on the level, and avoiding all but the narrowest political comment seems like, at its most generous, a missed opportunity. Someone, not me of course, might even say he has a responsibility to comment on the massive changes being attempted in the federal government and the real impacts it is already having.

EDIT: Because the cheekiness did not come through, yes, I am saying he may have a responsibility. You can tell me directly if I'm wrong. I'm fine with that.