Is it? Should Scientific American take a neutral stance on creationism, or healing crystals, or the Time Cube theory? Or should they take a factual stance?
Facts are used for all of those things because they all devolve into arguments and facts are handy in an argument. That's not what they're really about though. They're about trade offs and preferences. They're about deciding what's right and wrong.
SA or Science in general gets involved in that and they won't be helping to win an argument. They'll be destroying trust.
Rejecting an obscurantist, anti-science candidate is in line with supporting and defending basic science.
You are not defending the importance of evidence-based science if you do not call out the candidate with a blatant obscurantist and anti-intelectual agenda, which already negatively impacted millions of people.
And I'm not even touching on the systematic threats against basic education.
I think there's a plausible argument that Science shouldn't be value neutral but the opposite of that is just as dangerous. Historically it's not to think that a lot of harm has been caused by people with an agenda who either claimed or even genuinely believed they were just looking at facts.
Taking a stand now is the bare minimum. Assuming the GOP wins, it's game over for a lot of science in the US - anything that goes against Big Oil is first on the chopping block. Always remember Sharpiegate [1], that was just an indication of what will come.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Dorian%E2%80%93Alaba...
You realize that the US is producing the most oil in history under the current administration, right?
The Trump approach is to expand oil, gas, and coal and hostility to wind, solar, and efficient cars and appliances.