Shutting down the flow of information and “re-educating” federal research funding

KILLING AND WHITEWASHING INCONVENIENT INFORMATION

Chronicling the ongoing authoritarian kleptocrat assault on American democracy and rule of law is getting very interesting. The tactics that past tyrants and other kinds of authoritarians typically use to kill democracy or gain power generally are being applied here and now. One of the normal tactics that authoritarians routinely employ is shutting down as much inconvenient or threatening information as possible. Since DJT now controls the executive branch, he is going to shut off all inconvenient communications to the public. Everything of importance coming out of the executive branch will be vetted and sanitized before release to the public. 

In a recent major authoritarian move, DJT has ordered HHS (Department of Health and Human Services) to temporarily halt most external communications, including public health information and research updates, until at least February 1, 2025 (also reported here). DJT's order affects agencies like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the National Institutes of Health (NIH). 

The pause includes regulations, guidance documents, announcements, press releases, social media posts, website updates, and any public communications not directly related to emergencies or critical to preserving health. To create an illusion of open communications about critical public matters, all communications essential for public health and safety require review and approval by a presidential appointee before release. That way, DJT can whitewash, deny or downplay serious problems. From here on out, we will be lied to or distracted whenever DJT feels the need to distract or lie to us. Expect a torrent of lies and deceit.

RE-EDUCATING INCONVENIENT RESEARCH

Another anticipated authoritarian move by DJT gets rid of inconvenient federally funded research. This authoritarian goal was made explicit in Project 2025. To start the re-education of science process, DJT has ordered a complete halt of research-grant reviews at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the world's largest public funder of biomedical research. Funding for travel to research meetings and training of scientists is also blocked. All of this is for an indefinite time. This puts a temporary freeze on ~80% of the NIH's $47-billion budget that funds research across the country and elsewhere.

Project 2025 focuses on ensuring that federally funded research aligns with conservative principles. Funding for research that might generate data not conforming to radical right authoritarian ideologies will be limited or completely cut off. what ideologies? Mostly brass knuckles capitalism, Christian theocracy and dictatorship. 

There is a strong emphasis on scaling back or completely eliminating climate science research. EPA research activities would also be realigned with authoritarian political goals (brass knuckles capitalism and dictatorship[1]). In addition, Project 2025 proposes banning certain words and phrases from government documents, including terms related to diversity, gender (Christian theocracy), and climate change. That would indirectly influence the direction of federally funded research by imposing an ideological framework on policy and programs.

Not surprisingly, scientists are aghast because they have not read Project 2025, or if they did, they didn't take it seriously. Now that the cash flow is stopped, they are taking it damned seriously. Dumb fucks. Did they really think that DJT and Project 2025 were kidding? Idiots. A Nature article comments:

‘Never seen anything like this’: Trump’s team halts NIH meetings and travel

Confusion and anxiety is rippling through the US health-research community this week following Donald Trump taking office as the 47th US president. His administration has abruptly cancelled research-grant reviews, travel and trainings for scientists inside and outside the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the world’s largest public biomedical funder. Adding to the worry: the Trump team appears to have deleted entire webpages about diversity programs and diversity-related grants from the agency’s site.

Without advisory-committee meetings, the NIH cannot issue research grants, temporarily freezing 80% of the agency’s US$47-billion budget that funds research across the country and beyond.

“I’ve never seen anything like this before,” says Carole LaBonne, a developmental biologist at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, who has received funding from the agency for more than 20 years. The uncertainty caused by the pause will be “devastating for the scientific community”, particularly for early-career researchers, LaBonne adds.

The pause includes “mass communications and public appearances that are not directly related to emergencies or critical to preserving health”, according to an NIH spokesperson. “This is a short pause to allow the new team to set up a process for review and prioritization.”

Once the new team is set for review and prioritization, we can expect a torrent of lies and deceit to flow from the NIH. I bet MAGA yahoos will restart research on eugenics! If nothing else, increased MAGA oversight will ensure ideological conformity in federally funded science, or else YOU’RE FIRED!!

There, DJT has already fixed science. MAGA!!

Footnote (for the wonks):

1. Yes indeed ladies 'n germs, there is a lot of social science research on the ill-effects of dictatorship and kleptocracy on societies. Hold on to your butts, here we go: 

Q: Is there social science research into the effects of dictatorship on societies under dictators or kleptocrats?

A: Yes, there is extensive social science research examining the effects of dictatorships and kleptocracies on societies. 

Political Beliefs and Preferences: Research indicates that exposure to dictatorships during youth can significantly influence individuals' political beliefs and preferences later in life. For instance, studies have shown that past exposure to non-democratic regimes can reduce current satisfaction with democracy, preference for democracy, and confidence in institutions. Individuals exposed to dictatorships tend to lean more towards the left of the political spectrum, suggesting a lasting impact on their political orientation 1.

Economic Policies and Social Mobility: Dictatorships, particularly kleptocracies, often implement highly inefficient economic policies that favor the ruler's personal enrichment over societal welfare. A study on Chile under Pinochet's dictatorship highlighted how the regime's conservative ideology and technocratic approach led to a contraction in higher education, disproportionately affecting less affluent backgrounds. This contraction hindered social mobility, contributing to increased inequality 3.

Repression and Propaganda: Dictatorships use a combination of repression and propaganda to maintain control. Research suggests that repression can make citizens more amenable to propaganda, as it removes the most disloyal elements, allowing for more effective manipulation of the remaining population. This dynamic creates a cycle where repression and propaganda reinforce each other, ensuring the regime's stability 9.

Mental Health: The mental health implications of living under a dictatorship are profound. There's evidence of increased posttraumatic stress disorders due to state violence and repression, leading to intergenerational trauma. Additionally, dictatorships can foster internalized oppression, where individuals believe in their own inferiority and mistrust their own thinking, which can have long-lasting psychological effects 7.

Public Good Provision: Dictatorships can excel at solving specific problems, like health outcomes, through centralized planning and coercion. However, this often comes at the expense of political freedoms. For example, in Cuba and the former Soviet Union, improvements in health outcomes were partly a by-product of the regime's efforts to monitor and repress potential opponents 10.

Kleptocracy and Authoritarianism: The relationship between kleptocracy and authoritarianism is complex. Kleptocrats use their control over state resources for personal enrichment while also cultivating international ties to secure allies and enhance their global reputation. This dual strategy involves both inward-looking control over resources and outward-looking efforts to influence international perceptions 5.

Divide-and-Rule Strategy: Kleptocratic rulers often employ a divide-and-rule strategy to maintain power. By exploiting the collective action problem, they can bribe or punish pivotal groups, ensuring that no effective coalition forms against them. This strategy not only helps in maintaining power but also in implementing highly distortionary economic policies without significant opposition 2.

Authoritarian Attitudinal Effects: There's evidence that authoritarian regimes can produce lasting attitudinal effects, where individuals internalize the regime's ideology. This internalization can lead to a lack of correlation between authoritarian ideology and mass attitudes or even resistance, but in many cases, it aligns with the regime's goals, producing a populace more in line with the dictator's vision 4.

Q2: Does the NIH fund any research like this?

A2: Yes, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) does fund research related to the effects of dictatorship and kleptocracy on societies. 

Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research (OBSSR): The NIH's OBSSR supports research that examines the behavioral and social aspects of health, which can include the impacts of political systems like dictatorships and kleptocracies on health outcomes. While the OBSSR itself does not directly fund research, it coordinates and promotes behavioral and social sciences research across the NIH, which can encompass studies on how political environments influence health behaviors, mental health, and public health outcomes 9.

Health Outcomes under Dictatorships: Research funded by the NIH has explored how dictatorships can influence health outcomes. For instance, studies have shown that dictatorships can improve health outcomes through centralized planning and coercion, but this often comes at the expense of political freedoms. This research highlights the complex relationship between authoritarian governance and health, where improvements in health can be a by-product of efforts to monitor and repress potential opponents 4.

Kleptocracy and Health: While not explicitly mentioned in the search results, the NIH's broad research portfolio includes studies on corruption, governance, and their impacts on health systems, which can be directly related to kleptocracies. The effects of kleptocracy on health can be inferred from research on how corruption undermines public health infrastructure, diverts resources, and affects the quality of healthcare services.

In summary, while the NIH does not have a specific program dedicated solely to the study of dictatorships or kleptocracies, its funding supports research that intersects with these themes, particularly in understanding how political systems influence health outcomes, governance, and societal well-being.

Regarding allegations of a rigged 2024 election

CONTEXT

The EAC (Elections Assistance Commission), something I never heard of before, is an independent, bipartisan federal agency established by the Help America Vote Act of 2002 in response to the voting equipment and election administration issues highlighted by the 2000 Presidential Election. The EAC's primary mission is to help Americans participate in the voting process and assist election officials in improving the administration of elections. It serves as a national clearinghouse and resource for information on election administration.

The EAC is composed of four commissioners appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Advisory Bodies include a Board of Advisors, a Standards Board, a Technical Guidelines Development Committee (TGDC), and the Local Leadership Council (LLC). EAC staff is led by an executive director and general counsel, with its own Office of Inspector General (that IG is apparently not yet fired by DJT in his purge of inspector generals).

A rigged election? Maybe

Investigative journalist Greg Palast who has a reputation as a credible reporter about election irregularities claims that he analyzed EAC and other data from various public records. He concludes that (1) Harris lost the 2024 election due to massive voter suppression, and (2) absent that, she would have won the election. Palast's reporting alleges these data points and conclusions:

Trump Lost. Vote Suppression Won.

Trump lost. That is, if all legal voters were allowed to vote, if all legal ballots were counted, Trump would have lost the states of Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Georgia. Vice-President Kamala Harris would have won the Presidency with 286 electoral votes.

And, if not for the mass purge of voters of color, if not for the mass disqualification of provisional and mail-in ballots, if not for the new mass “vigilante” challenges in swing states, Harris would have gained at least another 3,565,000 votes, topping Trump’s official popular vote tally by 1.2 million.

Here are key numbers:

• 4,776,706 voters were wrongly purged from voter rolls according to US Elections Assistance Commission data.
• By August of 2024, for the first time since 1946, self-proclaimed “vigilante” voter-fraud hunters challenged the rights of 317,886 voters. The NAACP of Georgia estimates that by Election Day, the challenges exceeded 200,000 in Georgia alone.
• No less than 2,121,000 mail-in ballots were disqualified for minor clerical errors (e.g. postage due).
• At least 585,000 ballots cast in-precinct were also disqualified.
• 1,216,000 “provisional” ballots were rejected, not counted.
• 3.24 million new registrations were rejected or not entered on the rolls in time to vote.

If the purges, challenges and ballot rejections were random, it wouldn’t matter. It’s anything but random. For example, an audit by the State of Washington found that a Black voter was 400% more likely than a white voter to have their mail-in ballot rejected. Rejection of Black in-person votes, according to a US Civil Rights Commission study in Florida, ran 14.3% or one in seven ballots cast.

Palast gets his numbers in part by extrapolating data from past election irregularities and projects that onto the 2024 election. He shows a map of states that passed voter restriction laws from 2021 until just before the 2024 election, based on data the Brennan Center collected, which is at this link. 

I checked Palast's credibility with Perplexity:

Q: Is investigative reporter Greg Palast credible when he alleges that the Elections Assistance Committee found suppression of over 4.7 million votes in the 2024 elections? I cannot find a public report by the EAC with this data in it, can you?

A: Background: Greg Palast is a well-known investigative journalist with a history of reporting on election irregularities and voter suppression. He has worked for reputable outlets like the BBC and The Guardian, and his work has often focused on exposing systemic issues in electoral processes.

Conclusion:

Credibility: Greg Palast's credibility as an investigative journalist in the realm of election integrity is well-established. His claims are often backed by detailed analysis and investigation, though they might not always align perfectly with publicly available data due to the complexity of election data and the timing of official reports.

Data Availability: While the EAC does provide extensive data on election administration, the specific figure of 4.7 million votes suppressed might not be found in a single public report. Palast's number could be a synthesis of various data points, possibly including data not yet released or detailed in public reports.

In summary, while Greg Palast's claims are credible based on his history and expertise, the specific data he references might not be directly available in public EAC reports due to the timing of data release and the complexity of election data aggregation. His assertions should be viewed as part of a broader investigation into voter suppression, requiring further scrutiny and cross-referencing with official data when it becomes available.

Is Palast right about this? I don't know. Maybe. Based on reporting from several sources just after the election, I got the feeling something was seriously wrong. Several analysts were voicing concerns about vote irregularities they found. I think Palast was one of them, but if I recall right he wasn't the only one.

One thing that was clear to me was that Republicans in red state governments wanted to rig the 2024 election. Evidence of that was that they acted to do so by passing restrictive laws. Passing laws is fact, not opinion. Another thing that was clear, Republicans in red state governments where chronic liars, just like DJT. I considered their assertions of "election integrity" to be lies.  

Because I had no trust in elections in states with Republican legislatures, I wrote to both of my Senators, my representative in the House, and on 3 occasions, the Harris campaign. I asked for a detailed analysis of voter and election data in at least several battleground states to confirm either that there were no significant irregularities, or that there was solid evidence of significant irregularities. Not surprisingly, none of my requests for an aggressive inquiry were acted on. 

Democrats don't fight for democracy, they just talk the talk, sort of. Sometimes. And the Dems wonder why they lost the election? Maybe they lost because they didn't want to win bad enough. Seems plausible to me.

Q: Basedd on his deranged public health crackpottery and enraged revenge lust (he hates Fauci, and literally wants him murdered), DJT has ordered the Department of Health and Human Services (NIH, CDC, etc.) to basically stop communication with the public about important public health matters. So the question is, about how long will it be before he orders the EAC to shup up, remove its publicly available data and fire its inspector general? 

My guess, EAC data will disappear and its IG fired within the next two weeks. But that's speculative, just a personal assessment.

Kleptocracy update: Obliterating independent inspector generals

The WaPo writes (not paywalled):

Trump ousts at least 15 independent inspectors general in late-night purge

The dismissals appeared to violate federal law, which requires Congress to receive 30 days’ notice of any intent to fire a Senate-confirmed inspector general

The White House late Friday fired the independent inspectors general of at least 14 major federal agencies in a purge that could clear the way for President Donald Trump to install loyalists in the crucial role of identifying fraud, waste and abuse in the government.

The inspectors general were notified by emails from the White House personnel director that they had been terminated immediately, according to people familiar with the actions, who like others in this report spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the private messages.

The dismissals appeared to violate federal law, which requires Congress to receive 30 days’ notice of any intent to fire a Senate-confirmed inspector general.

Oversight of some of the government’s largest agencies was affected: the departments of Defense, State, Transportation, Labor, Health and Human Services, Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Energy, Commerce, and Agriculture, as well as the Environmental Protection Agency, Small Business Administration and the Social Security Administration.

Most of those dismissed were Trump appointees from his first term, which stunned the watchdog community. One prominent inspector general survived the purge — Michael Horowitz at the Justice Department, an appointee of President Barack Obama who has issued reports critical of both the Biden administration and Trump’s first administration. 

Trump ousted five watchdogs in quick succession during his first term in 2020, starting with Michael Atkinson, the intelligence community inspector general who alerted Congress to the whistleblower complaint that led to Trump’s first impeachment. Trump had appointed Atkinson. The president also removed the State Department’s chief watchdog, who had begun investigating alleged misconduct by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

Many lawmakers at the time said they believed the watchdogs were fired simply because of their involvement in investigations that cast the first Trump administration in a negative light.

But Friday’s dismissals befuddled and stunned the watchdog community, as many of those let go had done hard-hitting investigations of Biden administration operations. 

That last paragraph makes clear that DJT does not want hard-hitting investigations, maybe unless they target enemies or opponents.

DJT and MAGA wanting to get rid of IGs (inspectors general) comes as no surprise. However, firing them illegally like this instead of waiting for the 30 day notice period is surprising. And, it's another clear sign that DJT holds the rule of law in open contempt. He apparently has no intention of obeying essentially any law he wants to violate. 

Since this is an official act, he is immune from any civil or legal prosecution. DJT will replace IGs who are more or less honest and competent with kleptocratic, incompetent loyalists. Once this is accomplished, bribery and corruption in the federal government will run wild, free and butt naked. How is that possible? Easy peasy. Last year the USSC (1) granted vast immunity to a sitting president, and (2) legalized bribery of government officials. American kleptocracy has been legalized, empowered and unleashed.

Corruption has been unleashed!

For some context, Public Citizen wrote about this in Sept. 2024:

Revealed in a new Public Citizen analysis, Project 2025’s Pro-Corruption & Anti-Democracy Agenda, the 920-page “Mandate For Leadership” briefing book lists in-depth plans to weaken anti-corruption laws, replace qualified experts with political cronies and weaponize the Dept. of Justice to target local elected officials and election administrators. In one of its corresponding “Presidential Administration Academy” video trainings, two Project 2025 leaders say that, upon election, the next U.S. president should replace the independent Inspectors General (IGs) working to oversee federal operations and detect and prevent fraud, waste, abuse, and misconduct throughout 74 federal programs. The Project 2025 leaders said the next president should instead install “their own IGs” so that they “have control of the people that work within the government.”

The report’s author and Public Citizen Democracy Advocate Jon Golinger called his findings in the right-wing presidential playbook “a threat to knock down the walls that keep corruption from running rampant.”

“Replacing nonpartisan, independent Inspectors General with loyal political cronies would mean more government fraud, waste, and abuse and cost taxpayers millions,” said Golinger. “The whole point of Inspectors General is to have objective government watchdogs who are there to identify problems and propose solutions without regard to political pressure. Wiping out independent IGs would make our government less efficient and effective.”

Christian nationalism update

In news for Christian nationalists (CNs) and, whether they give a rip or not, everyone else in America, the USSC has taken up a case that has the potential to shift a significant amount of wealth and power to American churches generally. Yesterday, the USSC to accepted a lawsuit to decide whether states can reject religious charter schools from receiving public funding. CNN writes:

The Supreme Court agreed Friday to decide whether states may reject religious charter schools from receiving public funding, agreeing to hear arguments in an appeal out of Oklahoma involving the first such school in the nation.

“Oklahoma parents and children are better off with more educational choices, not fewer,” said Jim Campbell, chief legal counsel at the Alliance Defending Freedom, a religious legal group representing the school. “There’s great irony in state officials who claim to be in favor of religious liberty discriminating against St. Isidore because of its Catholic beliefs.”

The court will likely hear arguments this spring and hand down a decision before July. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a conservative, recused in the case without giving a reason.

The court’s decision could have vast nationwide implications by making it easier for religious entities to apply for and receive public taxpayer money for schools. The case has been closely watched by groups promoting religious freedom.

The court has a 6-3 Christian nationalist majority. It consistently backs various religious claims in the name of free speech and freedom of religion or the Free Exercise Clause of the 1st Amendment. To break down the church-state barrier, the Roberts court has been chipping away at the Establishment Clause for years. This lawsuit is over public funding for a proposed St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School in Oklahoma. That school would serve students online throughout the state while maintaining its intention to promote the Catholic faith. The USSC will review an Oklahoma Supreme Court ruling that said the proposal violated both the state and federal constitutions.

This lawsuit could have vast nationwide implications by giving religious entities the power to receive on demand public taxpayer money for religious schools. However, that might depend of whether state constitutions are worded differently. A USSC decision in favor of the church could amount to another blow to church-state separation, American democracy, the secular rule of law and civil liberties. 

The following point cannot be overstated: For years, a cherished goal of the CN wealth and power movement has been to vastly expand the power of Christianity to demand and get legal access to state and federal tax revenues. Years of CN lawsuits have been pounding on the church-state separation legal doctrine and the Establishment Clause. Until now, that has limited the power of Christianity to get tax revenues. The Establishment Clause has already been seriously weakened. 

AN IMPORTANT LEGAL NUANCE

So far, the Establishment Clause has prevented direct payments of tax dollars to churches or religion generally. But there is a ghastly but subtle sleight of hand that (i) CNs are arguing, and (ii) as it slowly nibbles away at the Establishment Clause, the USSC has increasingly allowed "indirect" tax payments to things like (1) vouchers for religious charter schools, (2) aid to groups or third parties who can spend those tax dollars on religion (see image below), and (3) a state program to improve playground surfaces at secular schools (the state was forced to pay for a religious school improvement). All of that amounts to a shift toward allowing direct funding for secular purposes to be spent at religious institutions. 

The following money laundering scheme is legal right now:

1. Replace special interest with government

2. Replace politician with church or religion 

3. Replace lobbyist with a group or third party 

who spends tax dollars on religion

What this lawsuit probably quietly seeks to legalize is on the left

(but most CNs would probably deny that)

As we all know, money is fungible. Thus, even if tax dollars are allocated indirectly to religion, the cash can be used to directly support religious activities by freeing church money from paying "non-church" expenses like religious schools. That includes paying tax dollars to indoctrinate children into Christian beliefs. In my opinion, the reality is that the distinction between "direct" and "indirect" funding for religion is a lot more semantic than substantive. 

In a 2002 dissent against tax dollars for religious private schools, Justice John Paul Stevens argued that — regardless of the private choice made by voucher recipients — students using vouchers to attend religious schools receive “religious indoctrination at state expense.” Thus, the Cleveland [religious school] program ran afoul of the Establishment Clause. See the semantics here? Stevens spoke of tax payments as “religious indoctrination at state expense”, regardless of whether the funding was called direct or indirect.

Attacks on the Establishment Clause predate Roberts who has been on the USSC since 2005. Roberts is hostile to the Establishment Clause. Surprisingly, Justice Barrett has voluntarily recused herself from the St. Isidore case. Why recuse? Presumably, she did that due to her previous association with the University of Notre Dame Law School, where she was a faculty member. The school's religious liberty clinic is involved in representing the Catholic sponsors of St. Isidore, creating a potential conflict of interest. 

If the USSC holds that St. Isidore has a right to state tax money, the decision will be announced at the end of June 2025, or maybe the first day or two of July. If the USSC rejects St. Isidore's application for state funding, the decision could come as much as a month or so before then. If St. Isidore wins, more tax dollars will flow go to Christianity and presumably other religions. 

How much is this worth? That's hard to know

Federal tax breaks value to religion is approximately $2.4 billion annually by one estimate. State and local property tax exemptions are estimated by the Center for Inquiry in 2012 to be worth about $71 billion/year. Christianity rejects the state and local estimate, saying it is closer to about $6.9 billion. If the USSC gives religious schools access to tax dollars in this lawsuit, the value of that could add at least another $3-4 billion, but that is speculative and hard to estimate. 

Presumably, most or all other religious schools across the country will try to get state funding. There are about 22,000-27,000 religious private schools in the US, of which about 12,600 are Catholic, but estimates vary. 

Churches tend to hide their finances or make analyzing financial data difficult. Churches and certain religious organizations are automatically considered tax-exempt under IRC Section 501(c)(3) without any need to even apply for this status. This automatic exemption means that many churches do not file for formal recognition, making collection and analysis of financial data hard to impossible. And although churches are automatically exempt at the federal level, state-level exemptions require applications, but the process and requirements vary significantly from state to state. This makes it difficult to aggregate data across states. In some situations, individual churches do not appear in IRS databases or public records, further obscuring the total value of tax breaks.