9 ms·

EPA Science Under Scrutiny by Trump Political Staff

213 points by ComradeTaco 10y ago

sid-kap 10y ago
As awful as this is, it seems completely legal since the executive agencies operate at the mercy of the President. The President has the authority to tell the EPA to stop researching climate science, or to even disband the EPA. Have we never considered this scenario before? Has there ever been an attempt to establish independent agencies, not subject to the whims of the White House? (IIRC, maybe the CIA or the FBI are independent agencies?)
- nyxtom 10y ago
  FBI and CIA are under the executive branch of government and as such conduct/policies are directed by the residing administration. I don't like the idea of having an independent branch of government not subject to the executive branch no matter how terrible that administration is. I take issue with the fact that the executive branch basically writes laws now, which was never the intention and congress is too slow and partisan to pass any laws at all - that and pork barrel.
- nyxtom 10y ago
  Also, there are laws in place that the EPA is responsible for. So it is highly unlikely (illegal even) to simply disband the EPA for any reason. The only way to do that is through congress by repealing a host of laws that the EPA is effectively responsible for. That is to say, the EPA is responsible for executing on those laws. If they don't, then the government could be sued - which is the purpose of the justice department. That's why we have great organizations like the ACLU and NRDC to make sure those laws get upheld in a court of law.
  - nyxtom 10y ago
    That being said, there are a number of laws that are likely to get axed by the new administration - probably without congress approval given how much the executive branch likes to write laws these days. Clean Power Act, Endangered Species Act..etc. Clean Power Act is likely to go I'm guessing as soon as they can get it
Mtinie 10y ago
Does FOIA cover previously released studies that have been revoked "pending review"?
- wklauss 10y ago
  Maybe, but I don't think FOIA will last long, to be honest, given the steps the current administration has taken in the first 5 days.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - un-devmox 10y ago
    Access to information is being attacked at the State level as well. http://www.wyomingnews.com/news/wyoming-court-ok-to-charge-for-viewing-electronic-records/article_47fa4470-b791-11e6-aaf6-fbca37317729.html http://www.wyomingnews.com/news/wyoming-court-ok-to-charge-f...
  - jakeogh 10y ago
    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/obama-administration-sets-new-record-withholding-foia-requests/ http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/obama-administration-set... It's very unlikely Trump will beat his predecessor in that regard.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
tabeth 10y ago
All of these changes that Trump is making in his first week are making me wonder: what's the population limit, really, for a well functioning democracy? I'm no historian, but didn't the United States go around saying how great democracy is? I don't know about you, but to me it definitely feels like it doesn't work quite as intended. As for the article at hand, all I can offer is this" Trump's blatant distrust for climate change is just mind boggling. What exactly is he afraid that'll happen? [1] Why all of the resistance? These aren't rhetorical questions. I'm genuinely curious. [1] http://www.gocomics.com/joelpett/2009/12/13/ http://www.gocomics.com/joelpett/2009/12/13/
- cmdrfred 10y ago
  What other form of government do you propose?
  - basicplus2 10y ago
    One where one person in power, president or not, can not do pretty much what ever they like
    - scrollaway 10y ago
      This isn't just Trump's work, though. He can do "whatever he likes" because both houses and the senate are all red. If he changes his mind halfway through and becomes a liberal, watch him become somebody who cannot do whatever he likes. This just makes it worse because I've seen so many people defending Trump, or adopting a "what's the worst that could happen?" attitude because they are used to a president who, for 7 years, 10 months and 2 weeks didn't have an ounce of power in congress.
    - dragontamer 10y ago
      Trump can do what he wants because his party now has control of the Presidency, the Senate, the House, AND the Supreme Court. It was a huge, overarching win granting Republicans unprecedented power. Much like Obama's 2009 win which gave Democrats a ton of power. There's nothing "single person" about Trump's victory. The fact of the matter is that Republicans won more States, Representatives, and Senators in local elections across the country. So yeah, the Democracy is working fine, as long as you sorta ignore the electoral college stuff. Believe it or not, that's what people "wanted". The Democrats IMO were just too lazy with the get-out-to-vote attempts and support Clinton. The Republicans wanted victory more, and managed to pull it off.
notpc 10y ago
Like it or not, increasing fossil fuel extraction and cutting environmental regulations is now the policy of the President of the United States. The public communications of the executive branch are under his authority and he's not just going to let the EPA run its public relations and releases contrary to his agenda. Like others have pointed out, there are other ways the public can get the information. But it won't be the EPA running a press office counter to the President's.
- _delirium 10y ago
  For policy statements, yes. But scientific reports, from agencies that have a scientific civil service, like the DoE, NASA, EPA, DARPA, etc. are traditionally considered to be different from policy statements, and lots of them are released every month by low-ranking scientific staff without needing approval from the administration's political appointees.
- notarealdoctor 10y ago
  > Like it or not, increasing fossil fuel extraction and cutting environmental regulations is now the policy of the President of the United States. Like it or not, the Internet is here for those who want to fact check: https://news.vice.com/story/president-obamas-climate-change-legacy-is-clouded-by-his-support-of-fracking https://news.vice.com/story/president-obamas-climate-change-...
  - notpc 10y ago
    The fact that Obama wasn't as environmentalist as some would have liked doesn't change the fact that Trump is clearly much much less so.
- Brakenshire 10y ago
  Yes, I expect goverments to vet release of data by all statistical agencies. Unemployment goes up? Just withhold the data! Problem solved.
- burkaman 10y ago
  > Like it or not I don't like it. I don't really understand the point of your comment, you seem to just be summarizing some of the article. Do you have something substantial to add?
edge17 10y ago
So remind me again what tax dollars are for...?
- snuxoll 10y ago
  To fund research that benefits The Party.
txru 10y ago
Seems like an interesting similarity to the Soviet 'politruk'[0], a Communist Party official assigned to maintain the political control of the armed forces. A familiar example is the politruk who voted to launch nuclear warheads during the Cuban Missile Crisis with his submarine Captain, but First Officer Vasili Arkhipov voted to wait for orders from Moscow. Similar functions also existed in their academic structures, but the official-ness of this order certainly smacks of the politruk. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_commissar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_commissar
kbrwn 10y ago
It feels like such a strange time to be alive. Even if you disagree with the concept of man-made climate change the distortion of scientific studies seems like something that everybody can agree is wrong. So much of science is funded by govt grants. The idea that everything must conform to the view of the current administration or it is not worth funding seems dangerous and economically limiting.
- notarealdoctor 10y ago
  If the staff of any government agency is increased by 1000, will results improve? How about by 10,000 or 100,000? Does it take 1 Million? Is there anything wrong with cutting what isn't helping or is redundant and applying those funds where they are needed more?
  - cyrusaf 10y ago
    I think many would make the argument that not enough is being done environmentally and that more action needs to be taken. Cutting funding to the EPA and lifting restrictions are reversing the progress that we have made environmentally in the past couple decades.
  - twinkletwinkle 10y ago
    No one is talking about staffing. We're talking about the executive gag order and similar policies. The number of employees is irrelevant if they aren't allowed to communicate their findings in a transparent way.
    - copperred 10y ago
      The gag order is a temporary measure until new leaders are in place.
- SmokyBorbon 10y ago
  Except the manipulation is mostly in the other direction. For example, data sets from NASA suddenly changed on year showing increased in temperatures where previously there had been none. The current administration would argue that they're unpoliticizing science. If you're going to manipulate the data to help your side you can't complain when the other side does it. Unfortunately, the chance to have an honest discussion about the climate was destroyed by those climate zealots "hiding the decline".
Gargoyle 10y ago
So I'm confused what has actually happened here. "(epa transition communications direector) said there was no mandate to subject studies or data to political review." Then what is actually going on? This article is very confusing on that point.
- brianmurphy 10y ago
  Consider the source of the article. The root of modern journalism is to make a negative insinuation despite official statements to the contrary and let the reader's preconceived notions run wild.
nikdaheratik 10y ago
This is very worrying as it's starting to look like the same BS that Harper tried to push in Canada. Which was just bad policy and the kind of thing that can keep scientists away from doing valuable research for years.
- maxxxxx 10y ago
  This worries me a little. You can destroy an organization quickly but building it back up takes much, much longer.
gigatexal 10y ago
Hahahahaha wtf? When does the zombie apocalypse happen?
- dang 10y ago
  Please don't do this here.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
ams6110 10y ago
Did the Times change the title? It now reads EPA Science Under Scrutiny by Trump Political Staff
- dang 10y ago
  NYT does do that sometimes, but I think in this case the submitter probably rewrote it—which please don't, unless it's misleading or linkbait: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
verandaguy 10y ago
This is very concerning. Something similar happened in Canada with the previous PM, Stephen Harper, whose government suppressed research which would -- directly or indirectly -- oppose their platform.
steffann 10y ago
What this probably leads to is scientists losing their jobs or their willingness to work in the US. Under the current president their only option seems to be to move to another country where they can do their work and discuss their findings in public. Science with a political filter is no longer science but only politics with the illusion of factual justification...
- steffann 10y ago
  Which is also very sad for the families of those scientists :(
a13n 10y ago
Wow this is getting ugly. What are some actionable things we can do as US citizens to actually have some kind of an impact on this situation? Not just specifically environment, but in general.
- Diederich 10y ago
  Expand your perspective. Try very hard to get into the heads of the 40+% of the population that voted for Trump. Do this with a completely open mind. There are reasons why all of this is happening. People like us (I guess...I don't want to define your personal echo chamber) look at those tens of millions of people and just can't understand why they voted for Trump, or why they seem to believe what they seem to believe. But they are people, just like us, but with different and diverse backgrounds. That's really the answer. If most or all of us can break out of our echo chambers, we might start to develop a path out of this mess.
dmix 10y ago
An official at EPA who worked under Obama isn't buying into this hysteria. > Longtime employees at three of the agencies — including some career environmental regulators who conceded that they remained worried about what President Trump might do on policy matters — said such orders were not much different from those delivered by the Obama administration as it shifted policies from the departing White House of George W. Bush. They called reactions to the agency memos overblown. > “I’ve lived through many transitions, and I don’t think this is a story,” said a senior E.P.A. career official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the news media on the matter. “I don’t think it’s fair to call it a gag order. This is standard practice. And the move with regard to the grants, when a new administration comes in, you run things by them before you update the website.” https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/01/25/us/politics/some-agencies-told-to-halt-communications-as-trump-administration-moves-in.html https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/01/25/us/politics/some-agenc...
- snowwrestler 10y ago
  The reality is that the people coming in at the top of the Trump administration don't yet know what they are doing, and the mid-level staff who usually handle all the details are mostly not hired yet; they're behind schedule on filling those roles. So I think it's plausible that they are mostly just trying to slow the federal machine down a lot, to make it easier for them, as understaffed newbies, to understand and manage. That said, demanding that the government collect, use, and freely communicate accurate scientific knowledge seems idempotent: you will always get a positive result from doing it.
- sedachv 10y ago
  A friend of mine pointed out that Reagan's administration had attempted to shut down the EPA using the same tactics as Trump's administration is doing now: http://www.cleanairwatch.org/2016/12/scott-pruitt-beware-lessons-of-history.html http://www.cleanairwatch.org/2016/12/scott-pruitt-beware-les... He also pointed out that Louis Cordia, who was behind the Burford EPA purges, is now working at the Heritate Foundation and advising the Trump administration. Also here is a perspective from an anonymous EPA staffer: So I work at the EPA and yeah it’s as bad as you are hearing: The entire agency is under lockdown, the website, facebook, twitter, you name it is static and can’t be updated. All reports, findings, permits and studies are frozen and not to be released. No presentations or meetings with outside groups are to be scheduled. Any Press contacting us are to be directed to the Press Office which is also silenced and will give no response. All grants and contracts are frozen from the contractors working on Superfund sites to grad school students working on their thesis. We are still doing our work, writing reports, doing cancer modeling for pesticides hoping that this is temporary and we will be able to serve the public soon. But many of us are worried about an ideologically-fueled purging and if you use any federal data I advise you gather what you can now. We have been told the website is being reworked to reflect the new administration’s policy. Feel free to copy and paste, you all pay for the government and you should know what’s going on. I am posting this as a fellow citizen and not in any sort of official capacity. Even if you choose to disbelieve this, the actionable point right now is "if you use any federal data I advise you gather what you can now."
lstroud 10y ago
Misleading headline
Tulip68 10y ago
It's absolutely horrifying what's going on in the United States. Trying to dictate what are appropriate avenues of investigation for practicing scientists is a hallmark of authoritarian regimes (see "Deutsch Physiks" in Nazi Germany or Lysenkoism in the Soviet Union). When you combine this with Drumpf's bigoted, Islamophobic and un-American executive order aimed at banning Muslims from the country (which substantially increases the likelihood of another terrorist attack, by marginalizing Muslims and playing right into the hands of ISIS), it becomes very clear we are facing one of the darkest times in the history of this republic. For the sake of the world, every decent person who believes in human rights must do everything in their power to resist this tyrannical and illegitimate President. It could very well mean being imprisoned or beaten or even killed by Drumpf's thugs. But if history has taught us anything it is that freedom is worth fighting for.

213 points by ComradeTaco 10y ago

As awful as this is, it seems completely legal since the executive agencies operate at the mercy of the President. The President has the authority to tell the EPA to stop researching climate science, or to even disband the EPA. Have we never considered this scenario before? Has there ever been an attempt to establish independent agencies, not subject to the whims of the White House? (IIRC, maybe the CIA or the FBI are independent agencies?)

nyxtom 10y ago
FBI and CIA are under the executive branch of government and as such conduct/policies are directed by the residing administration. I don't like the idea of having an independent branch of government not subject to the executive branch no matter how terrible that administration is. I take issue with the fact that the executive branch basically writes laws now, which was never the intention and congress is too slow and partisan to pass any laws at all - that and pork barrel.
nyxtom 10y ago
Also, there are laws in place that the EPA is responsible for. So it is highly unlikely (illegal even) to simply disband the EPA for any reason. The only way to do that is through congress by repealing a host of laws that the EPA is effectively responsible for. That is to say, the EPA is responsible for executing on those laws. If they don't, then the government could be sued - which is the purpose of the justice department. That's why we have great organizations like the ACLU and NRDC to make sure those laws get upheld in a court of law.
- nyxtom 10y ago
  That being said, there are a number of laws that are likely to get axed by the new administration - probably without congress approval given how much the executive branch likes to write laws these days. Clean Power Act, Endangered Species Act..etc. Clean Power Act is likely to go I'm guessing as soon as they can get it

Mtinie 10y ago

Does FOIA cover previously released studies that have been revoked "pending review"?

wklauss 10y ago
Maybe, but I don't think FOIA will last long, to be honest, given the steps the current administration has taken in the first 5 days.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- un-devmox 10y ago
  Access to information is being attacked at the State level as well. http://www.wyomingnews.com/news/wyoming-court-ok-to-charge-for-viewing-electronic-records/article_47fa4470-b791-11e6-aaf6-fbca37317729.html http://www.wyomingnews.com/news/wyoming-court-ok-to-charge-f...
- jakeogh 10y ago
  http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/obama-administration-sets-new-record-withholding-foia-requests/ http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/obama-administration-set... It's very unlikely Trump will beat his predecessor in that regard.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

tabeth 10y ago

All of these changes that Trump is making in his first week are making me wonder: what's the population limit, really, for a well functioning democracy? I'm no historian, but didn't the United States go around saying how great democracy is? I don't know about you, but to me it definitely feels like it doesn't work quite as intended. As for the article at hand, all I can offer is this" Trump's blatant distrust for climate change is just mind boggling. What exactly is he afraid that'll happen? [1] Why all of the resistance? These aren't rhetorical questions. I'm genuinely curious. [1] http://www.gocomics.com/joelpett/2009/12/13/ http://www.gocomics.com/joelpett/2009/12/13/

cmdrfred 10y ago
What other form of government do you propose?
- basicplus2 10y ago
  One where one person in power, president or not, can not do pretty much what ever they like
  - scrollaway 10y ago
    This isn't just Trump's work, though. He can do "whatever he likes" because both houses and the senate are all red. If he changes his mind halfway through and becomes a liberal, watch him become somebody who cannot do whatever he likes. This just makes it worse because I've seen so many people defending Trump, or adopting a "what's the worst that could happen?" attitude because they are used to a president who, for 7 years, 10 months and 2 weeks didn't have an ounce of power in congress.
  - dragontamer 10y ago
    Trump can do what he wants because his party now has control of the Presidency, the Senate, the House, AND the Supreme Court. It was a huge, overarching win granting Republicans unprecedented power. Much like Obama's 2009 win which gave Democrats a ton of power. There's nothing "single person" about Trump's victory. The fact of the matter is that Republicans won more States, Representatives, and Senators in local elections across the country. So yeah, the Democracy is working fine, as long as you sorta ignore the electoral college stuff. Believe it or not, that's what people "wanted". The Democrats IMO were just too lazy with the get-out-to-vote attempts and support Clinton. The Republicans wanted victory more, and managed to pull it off.

notpc 10y ago

Like it or not, increasing fossil fuel extraction and cutting environmental regulations is now the policy of the President of the United States. The public communications of the executive branch are under his authority and he's not just going to let the EPA run its public relations and releases contrary to his agenda. Like others have pointed out, there are other ways the public can get the information. But it won't be the EPA running a press office counter to the President's.

_delirium 10y ago
For policy statements, yes. But scientific reports, from agencies that have a scientific civil service, like the DoE, NASA, EPA, DARPA, etc. are traditionally considered to be different from policy statements, and lots of them are released every month by low-ranking scientific staff without needing approval from the administration's political appointees.
notarealdoctor 10y ago
> Like it or not, increasing fossil fuel extraction and cutting environmental regulations is now the policy of the President of the United States. Like it or not, the Internet is here for those who want to fact check: https://news.vice.com/story/president-obamas-climate-change-legacy-is-clouded-by-his-support-of-fracking https://news.vice.com/story/president-obamas-climate-change-...
- notpc 10y ago
  The fact that Obama wasn't as environmentalist as some would have liked doesn't change the fact that Trump is clearly much much less so.
Brakenshire 10y ago
Yes, I expect goverments to vet release of data by all statistical agencies. Unemployment goes up? Just withhold the data! Problem solved.
burkaman 10y ago
> Like it or not I don't like it. I don't really understand the point of your comment, you seem to just be summarizing some of the article. Do you have something substantial to add?

edge17 10y ago

So remind me again what tax dollars are for...?

snuxoll 10y ago
To fund research that benefits The Party.

txru 10y ago

Seems like an interesting similarity to the Soviet 'politruk'[0], a Communist Party official assigned to maintain the political control of the armed forces. A familiar example is the politruk who voted to launch nuclear warheads during the Cuban Missile Crisis with his submarine Captain, but First Officer Vasili Arkhipov voted to wait for orders from Moscow. Similar functions also existed in their academic structures, but the official-ness of this order certainly smacks of the politruk. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_commissar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_commissar

kbrwn 10y ago

It feels like such a strange time to be alive. Even if you disagree with the concept of man-made climate change the distortion of scientific studies seems like something that everybody can agree is wrong. So much of science is funded by govt grants. The idea that everything must conform to the view of the current administration or it is not worth funding seems dangerous and economically limiting.

notarealdoctor 10y ago
If the staff of any government agency is increased by 1000, will results improve? How about by 10,000 or 100,000? Does it take 1 Million? Is there anything wrong with cutting what isn't helping or is redundant and applying those funds where they are needed more?
- cyrusaf 10y ago
  I think many would make the argument that not enough is being done environmentally and that more action needs to be taken. Cutting funding to the EPA and lifting restrictions are reversing the progress that we have made environmentally in the past couple decades.
- twinkletwinkle 10y ago
  No one is talking about staffing. We're talking about the executive gag order and similar policies. The number of employees is irrelevant if they aren't allowed to communicate their findings in a transparent way.
  - copperred 10y ago
    The gag order is a temporary measure until new leaders are in place.
SmokyBorbon 10y ago
Except the manipulation is mostly in the other direction. For example, data sets from NASA suddenly changed on year showing increased in temperatures where previously there had been none. The current administration would argue that they're unpoliticizing science. If you're going to manipulate the data to help your side you can't complain when the other side does it. Unfortunately, the chance to have an honest discussion about the climate was destroyed by those climate zealots "hiding the decline".

Gargoyle 10y ago

So I'm confused what has actually happened here. "(epa transition communications direector) said there was no mandate to subject studies or data to political review." Then what is actually going on? This article is very confusing on that point.

brianmurphy 10y ago
Consider the source of the article. The root of modern journalism is to make a negative insinuation despite official statements to the contrary and let the reader's preconceived notions run wild.

nikdaheratik 10y ago

This is very worrying as it's starting to look like the same BS that Harper tried to push in Canada. Which was just bad policy and the kind of thing that can keep scientists away from doing valuable research for years.

maxxxxx 10y ago
This worries me a little. You can destroy an organization quickly but building it back up takes much, much longer.

gigatexal 10y ago

Hahahahaha wtf? When does the zombie apocalypse happen?

dang 10y ago
Please don't do this here.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

ams6110 10y ago

Did the Times change the title? It now reads EPA Science Under Scrutiny by Trump Political Staff

dang 10y ago
NYT does do that sometimes, but I think in this case the submitter probably rewrote it—which please don't, unless it's misleading or linkbait: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

verandaguy 10y ago

This is very concerning. Something similar happened in Canada with the previous PM, Stephen Harper, whose government suppressed research which would -- directly or indirectly -- oppose their platform.

steffann 10y ago

What this probably leads to is scientists losing their jobs or their willingness to work in the US. Under the current president their only option seems to be to move to another country where they can do their work and discuss their findings in public. Science with a political filter is no longer science but only politics with the illusion of factual justification...

steffann 10y ago
Which is also very sad for the families of those scientists :(

a13n 10y ago

Wow this is getting ugly. What are some actionable things we can do as US citizens to actually have some kind of an impact on this situation? Not just specifically environment, but in general.

Diederich 10y ago
Expand your perspective. Try very hard to get into the heads of the 40+% of the population that voted for Trump. Do this with a completely open mind. There are reasons why all of this is happening. People like us (I guess...I don't want to define your personal echo chamber) look at those tens of millions of people and just can't understand why they voted for Trump, or why they seem to believe what they seem to believe. But they are people, just like us, but with different and diverse backgrounds. That's really the answer. If most or all of us can break out of our echo chambers, we might start to develop a path out of this mess.

dmix 10y ago

An official at EPA who worked under Obama isn't buying into this hysteria. > Longtime employees at three of the agencies — including some career environmental regulators who conceded that they remained worried about what President Trump might do on policy matters — said such orders were not much different from those delivered by the Obama administration as it shifted policies from the departing White House of George W. Bush. They called reactions to the agency memos overblown. > “I’ve lived through many transitions, and I don’t think this is a story,” said a senior E.P.A. career official who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the news media on the matter. “I don’t think it’s fair to call it a gag order. This is standard practice. And the move with regard to the grants, when a new administration comes in, you run things by them before you update the website.” https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/01/25/us/politics/some-agencies-told-to-halt-communications-as-trump-administration-moves-in.html https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/01/25/us/politics/some-agenc...

snowwrestler 10y ago
The reality is that the people coming in at the top of the Trump administration don't yet know what they are doing, and the mid-level staff who usually handle all the details are mostly not hired yet; they're behind schedule on filling those roles. So I think it's plausible that they are mostly just trying to slow the federal machine down a lot, to make it easier for them, as understaffed newbies, to understand and manage. That said, demanding that the government collect, use, and freely communicate accurate scientific knowledge seems idempotent: you will always get a positive result from doing it.
sedachv 10y ago
A friend of mine pointed out that Reagan's administration had attempted to shut down the EPA using the same tactics as Trump's administration is doing now: http://www.cleanairwatch.org/2016/12/scott-pruitt-beware-lessons-of-history.html http://www.cleanairwatch.org/2016/12/scott-pruitt-beware-les... He also pointed out that Louis Cordia, who was behind the Burford EPA purges, is now working at the Heritate Foundation and advising the Trump administration. Also here is a perspective from an anonymous EPA staffer: So I work at the EPA and yeah it’s as bad as you are hearing: The entire agency is under lockdown, the website, facebook, twitter, you name it is static and can’t be updated. All reports, findings, permits and studies are frozen and not to be released. No presentations or meetings with outside groups are to be scheduled. Any Press contacting us are to be directed to the Press Office which is also silenced and will give no response. All grants and contracts are frozen from the contractors working on Superfund sites to grad school students working on their thesis. We are still doing our work, writing reports, doing cancer modeling for pesticides hoping that this is temporary and we will be able to serve the public soon. But many of us are worried about an ideologically-fueled purging and if you use any federal data I advise you gather what you can now. We have been told the website is being reworked to reflect the new administration’s policy. Feel free to copy and paste, you all pay for the government and you should know what’s going on. I am posting this as a fellow citizen and not in any sort of official capacity. Even if you choose to disbelieve this, the actionable point right now is "if you use any federal data I advise you gather what you can now."

lstroud 10y ago

Misleading headline

Tulip68 10y ago

It's absolutely horrifying what's going on in the United States. Trying to dictate what are appropriate avenues of investigation for practicing scientists is a hallmark of authoritarian regimes (see "Deutsch Physiks" in Nazi Germany or Lysenkoism in the Soviet Union). When you combine this with Drumpf's bigoted, Islamophobic and un-American executive order aimed at banning Muslims from the country (which substantially increases the likelihood of another terrorist attack, by marginalizing Muslims and playing right into the hands of ISIS), it becomes very clear we are facing one of the darkest times in the history of this republic. For the sake of the world, every decent person who believes in human rights must do everything in their power to resist this tyrannical and illegitimate President. It could very well mean being imprisoned or beaten or even killed by Drumpf's thugs. But if history has taught us anything it is that freedom is worth fighting for.