> Could anyone here make a legitimate argument why these gag-orders are a good idea? They're temporary and intended to have more clear follow-up later. I don'

> Could anyone here make a legitimate argument why these gag-orders are a good idea? They're temporary and intended to have more clear follow-up later. I don't even think this is stretching what's reasonable. He's the head of the executive branch and they're a federal agency reporting to him. If an evangelical right-winger created a "Department of Bible Studies," I would expect a Democratic President taking office to potentially ask them not to release any public statements until the new administration has met with the department to clarify what their role and priorities will be. Besides, the story at hand is that the "gag order" was rescinded and the actual policy sent out is very similar to the previous administration's. It doesn't mention who sent out the original e-mail, why, or under what authority. If the administration overrules it 24 hours later, it's quite possible it didn't come from them.