Wretched imbecility
grant reviews by political appointees make American Lysenkoism possible
the GOP in Trump 2.0 has morphed into a Bolshevist-Leninist type party structure -- leader above the party and party above the country
https://public-inspection.federalreg...2026-10817.pdf
Last edited by Winehole23; 6 Days Ago at 08:23 PM.
https://elizabethginexi.substack.com...-ombs-proposedThis is arguably the most consequential change in the rule. Senior political appointees, rather than career scientists or program officers, would now be required to conduct a “pre-issuance review” of every discretionary grant before it is awarded. These appointees are explicitly forbidden from deferring to peer reviewers or routinely ratifying their recommendations.
The criteria they must apply include blocking awards that touch on denial of “the sex binary in humans,” illegal immigration, or anything deemed to “promote anti-American values.” The rule also requires that discretionary awards must:
“...demonstrably advance the President’s policy priorities.”
In practice, this gives political appointees a veto over any science that conflicts with the current administration’s ideology.
this is viewpoint discrimination
https://elizabethginexi.substack.com...-ombs-proposed
Scientists no longer allowed to use federal funding to publish, attend meetings, or talk to the public. They cannot collaborate internationally. Grants can be cancelled for any reason, at any time, political appointees have a final say over what gets funded, and who gets funded.
"One thing that actually propelled actual US greatness after World War II was tying large scientific investments to a non-partisan, merit-based process. But that is not the way of Trump, who wants to extend tools of control and retribution over science."
normal descriptions sound insane when you say them out loud
policies like this -- right-wing Leninism -- only make sense if Republicans are planning to stay in power forever
no way would they be cool with Democrats wielding similar executive amplitude
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/02/u...mb-vought.htmlTrump claims federal grant money appropriated by Congress actually is money appropriated for use solely to his political liking, notwithstanding that it's actually earmarked for nonpolitical funding of nonpolitical interests like medical and other scientific research.
all Trump does is f@ck sh!t up and hurt people
https://www.notus.org/policy/usda-bed-bugs-infestationA bed bug infestation at an Agriculture Department building is riling agency staff, reigniting frustrations over remote work policy and making at least some employees sick.
The bugs were found in the building that houses the Animal and Plant Inspection Service, the agency responsible for containing and mitigating the spread of invasive pests in the U.S. The irony, one USDA employee said, “was lost on no one.”
https://apnews.com/article/climate-o...7468a25f8b2674Scientists lose critical climate record as ocean observatory will go dark under Trump funding cuts
...
The initiative launched in 2015 after more than a decade of community planning and construction. It was designed as a 25 to 30-year project, built in part around the oceanographic consensus that detecting meaningful climate signals requires at least three decades of continuous data. “We’ve just got to the 10 year record,” Dever said, “which will give you some hints, but it won’t continue on.”
One significant piece will remain: a seafloor cable network managed by the University of Washington off the Pacific Northwest coast, which will continue providing data on volcanic and seismic activity in the region.
Scientists had seen warning signs as the administration’s proposed 2026 budget included a 55% cut to the science foundation. Official word to begin shutting down arrived in early May.
The initiative was coordinated by the Woods Hole Oceanographic Ins ution in collaboration with the University of Washington and Oregon State University, as well as past partners including Rutgers University and Scripps Ins ution of Oceanography.
The initiative operated on roughly $48 million a year, not including the cost of research vessels, which adds substantially to the overall price. Prior to budget cuts, which began in 2025, around 60 to 70 people worked directly on the project across its partner ins utions, Dever said.
“What’s happening with the Ocean Observatories Initiative is not unique,” he said. “This is just one of a number of science facilities that is being dismantled at the present time. It seems to really mark the end of a federal commitment to basic scientific research — a commitment that has served this nation very well for the last 70 years.”
I can’t stress to everyone how much the Administration just relies on wild assertions of power that lack in any statutory basis. OMB’s claim to be able for instance, to police all grantmaking by agencies, is well, McStuffins. Peer review is often established by statute.
no data, no problem!
science.org joins the resistance
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aej3572OMB’s job is to make sure that the funds are released in accordance with the law. But in Project 2025, the blueprint used by the Trump administration to overhaul the federal government according to a theory of greater executive power, Vought called for an activist OMB that serves as the “keeper of ‘commander’s intent,’” thereby moving power away from Congress.
The sweeping new regulations proposed by OMB would subject every federal research funding decision to political review.
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
