There is something amiss on Capitol Hill. Senator Richard Blumenthal (@SenBlumenthal) and Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (@DWStweets) have introduced the "Preventing Opportunities for Teen E-Cigarette and Tobacco Addiction (PROTECT) Act" to address what they say is "the alarming rise in e-cigarette use among youth." It proposes spending $500 million on a @CDCgov initiative "to address this alarming trend" through research, grants, "the development of evidence-based policies," and other activities "to combat the rise in e-cigarette use among youth." blumenthal.senate.gov/newsro… The acronym may be impressive, but the premise is false. The PROTECT Act is promoted as a response to an “alarming rise” and “alarming trend” in youth vaping. But the latest federal data say exactly the opposite. Youth #vaping has fallen dramatically—nearly 70% from 5.38 million users in 2019 to 1.63 million in 2024—and declined further to about 1.44 million in 2025. fda.gov/news-events/press-an… fda.gov/tobacco-products/you… And some context for that 1.44 million figure matters: “current use” in the federal survey means having used an e-cigarette on at least one day in the past 30 days—not necessarily regular use. While 5.2% of all middle and high school students reported any e-cigarette use in the past 30 days, only about 2.1% of all students used e-cigarettes on 20 or more of those 30 days, and only about 1.4% used them daily. Youth vaping remains an important public health concern, and continued efforts to prevent youth use are important. But describing a steep, sustained decline as an “alarming rise” or “alarming trend” misrepresents the reality. It also obscures the extraordinary public health progress we have made in reducing youth vaping while youth cigarette smoking has fallen to historically low levels. So why portray a dramatic decline as an alarming rise? Sound public health policy—and the messaging around it—should be driven by accurate public health evidence.