Officials testified that DOGE was directly involved in hundreds of grant terminations.
See full article...
See full article...
Trump’s NIH ignored court order, cut research grants anyway
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
A government ignoring the law? How lucky that so many USians prepared their whole lives to fight such a government. Let’s see if it was all for show, like a sock down their crotch. 
Upvote
164
(168
/
-4)
Exactly how many times does the Trump administration have to ignore court orders before we start seeing substantive resistance from Democrats? They should be attempting to throw as much sand into the gears of the House and Senate as possible, and force votes that require Republicans to go on record. We're in the midst of a Constitutional crisis and from what I see the response is totally inadequate.
Upvote
185
(190
/
-5)
What kind of utter bullshit is this? An executive order is inherently political, and Trump has proven himself the king of political interference and meddling.
Do these people actually listen to the words coming out of their mouths?
Upvote
133
(134
/
-1)
No. All they know is that their bullshit works. And they will continue to bullshit until it stops working.
Upvote
96
(96
/
0)
Yet more court orders that the administration is just ignoring. The Constitutional Crisis is already here. It is looking like there will be no consequences for Trump or his people.
We are already living in a monarchy. Republicans seem just fine with that.
Tyranny showed up and somehow all those NRA members forgot one of their main talking points.
We are already living in a monarchy. Republicans seem just fine with that.
Tyranny showed up and somehow all those NRA members forgot one of their main talking points.
Upvote
124
(124
/
0)
After the stupidity of axing medical research using transgenic mice (because, anything trans must be bad) does anybody know if they used the same stupid logic to cut transgenic crop research?
Upvote
47
(47
/
0)
I think this is what running the company like a business looks like.
We get zero transparency, and the bottom line derives from the whims and wants of the shareholders*.
*Citizens are not Shareholders... Investors are Shareholders
We get zero transparency, and the bottom line derives from the whims and wants of the shareholders*.
*Citizens are not Shareholders... Investors are Shareholders
Upvote
42
(42
/
0)
Almost none of this involves votes. That's the problem. Executive order after executive order. Plus putting his clowncar minions in charge of every agency.
Upvote
70
(70
/
0)
What you are describing, are the actions of an opposition party. The US's center-right party has a handful of office holders who want what is best for their constituents and the people of the US, the rest of the party is primarily interested in pleasing their corporate sponsors, maintaining the status quo, and not rocking the boat.
Upvote
27
(38
/
-11)
I think that is the best move. Don’t go after Trump directly. Make it so painful for those around him that they choose to leave. However, it will be up to the US Marshal‘s to arrest him and Bondi will ignore the order.
I read on here that a Federal judge can deputize folks and order the arrest but I’m not sure how that would play out from a practical sense.
Upvote
75
(75
/
0)
What consequences?
"On July 1, 2024, the Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. United States that presidents have absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for those official acts which fall within their 'exclusive sphere of constitutional authority'."
So long as it's through an Executive Order, it's not-illegal. God King Trump could theoretically arrest and disappear anyone who defies or impedes his Executive Order. He is literally above the Constitution. This is 100% in the hands of Congress ... and only if the "undesirables" aren't disappeared first.
Edit: Yes, the people carrying out those orders can still be prosecuted, but they can also be blanket pardoned.
Upvote
39
(43
/
-4)
Slight problem with that.
The courts' ability to actually enforce orders rests with the Department of Justice, which is currently headed by one of Trump's lap dogs. Pam Bondi could easily just have the US Marshalls release whoever is held in contempt and simply refuse to pursue the contempt charges.
The courts are entirely reliant on the Executive branch to enforce their rulings. Without the executive branch to enforce them, court rulings are little more than glorified suggestions that can be ignored. Asking the Executive Branch to enforce court rulings against one of its own members for doing something that the Executive Branch told them to do in the first place is like telling someone to punch themselves in the face and wondering why they just look at you and laugh.
And yes, the courts can appoint someone independently. But then you have one independently assigned prosecutor with virtually no resources trying to go up against the executive branch of the US government and demanding the arrest of one of them. How exactly do you think that's going to go? He'll be lucky if he's not in jail by dinnertime.
And this doesn't even count our SCOTUS who has already anointed Trump as all but a king. There is a very real chance that any appeals that make their way up to the Supreme Court regarding this matter could very well result in them giving Trump even more power than he already has by saying courts can't hold the executive branch in Contempt, Trump has the right to cut funding for any reason or no reason at all, Trump's pardon power extends to civil matters, or whatever reason they can vomit up.
Upvote
64
(65
/
-1)
Throwing sand in the gears only works if your opponent wants the machine to keep functioning. Trump's goal is to break the federal government.
Upvote
30
(30
/
0)
Illegal EOs are illegal regardless of Trump's personal criminal liability. Numerous injunctions have been issued, one of them affirmed by the Supreme Court.
Things are bad enough without making up horribles.
Upvote
34
(35
/
-1)
how long til we get an executive order banning looking through windows because the glass is transparent?
Upvote
41
(42
/
-1)
Whether something is illegal or not is completely irrelevant if there's nobody willing or able to enforce consequences. Those injunctions, including ones by the Supreme Court, have largely been completely ignored. Kilmar Abrego Garcia is still in an El Salvadoran hellhole despite a Supreme Court ruling. The mass deportations without due process continue. Trump is still firing people from government en-masse despite injunctions, and has not hired back any of the ones he was ordered to re-hire. And the judges that issued these injunctions in the first place pretty much end up leaving with their tails between their legs once it becomes obvious that their only method of enforcement is empty threats of "contempt" that they have no way to actually enforce.
Upvote
34
(35
/
-1)
I encourage everyone to take a quick look through the budget proposal linked in the article. It's completely absurd, terrifying, and written as if by an edgy high school boy writing in his blog.
Here's a fun excerpt:
"The Budget cuts funding for: climate; clean energy; woke social, behavioral, and economic sciences;
and programs in low priority areas of science. NSF has fueled research with dubious public value,
like speculative impacts from extreme climate scenarios and niche social studies,"
Here's a fun excerpt:
"The Budget cuts funding for: climate; clean energy; woke social, behavioral, and economic sciences;
and programs in low priority areas of science. NSF has fueled research with dubious public value,
like speculative impacts from extreme climate scenarios and niche social studies,"
Upvote
29
(29
/
0)
No, that is not how the Supreme Court's decision actually works. An EO that does not fall within a president's exclusive sphere of constitutional authority is subject to criminal prosecution. A court order destroys the exclusive sphere of presidential constitutional authority, as the court has constitutional authority there too. Ignoring a court order is subject to criminal prosecution.
And indeed any presidential action must first be decided by a court to have exclusive constitutional authority to escape criminal prosecution.
The Supreme Court decision is wrong, because a president ordering the assassination of their election opponent is within the president's exclusive sphere of constitutional authority to order assassinations, but it is clearly criminal. Indeed, the Supreme Court ignored precisely that argument against its decision, and there are of course many other potential exercises of exclusively presidential power that are obviously criminal. So the SC decision is wrong.
But the SC decision doesn't create unlimited criminal immunity for presidents, even when they are exercising presidential authority, when their authority is not exclusive.
Upvote
16
(18
/
-2)
Assuming the United States has permanently sacrificed its lead (or runner-up position) in scientific research, what countries are taking up the slack? Is it just China? Or will this research not get done at all? Between the NASA and HHS cuts, and DOD reshuffling, I stand to potentially lose my job and I need to know if I should learn Mandarin, French, or German.
Upvote
15
(15
/
0)
It’s not only that people aren’t enforcing the law. Trump was convicted of a felony, and the judge refused to sentence him! Like thats pants on head crazy and this judge should have been immediately removed. What kind of fucking justice system is that? What other felon gets that treatment?
Upvote
32
(33
/
-1)
FSTargetDrone
Ars Scholae Palatinae
Trump should have been convicted and imprisoned long before all of this started, but apparently going after a former president and then-presidential candidate is somehow off-limits.
Upvote
47
(48
/
-1)
Every court order Trump and his regime violate is an item for the list in an Impeachment Article.
Yes, Impeachment Articles will not even come to a House vote while a Republican like Johnson is Speaker, but there's no reason Democrats shouldn't be publishing it with regular updates to lead the opposition and show House Republicans are obstructing legitimate impeachment. And even an impeachment passing the House (when the 2 Democrats who died in March are replaced the Republicans will hold only a 5 seat majority, some Republicans may leave office dead or alive, and in 18 months the Democrats can get a majority if democracy and their party is at all functional) will fail in the Senate's 6 vote majority. But that blind partisan obedience should be what Democrats run against in 2026, when Republicans must defend 20 Senate seats to Democrats' 13, a large playing field advantage.
Democrats have to respond to every Republican move with the maximum opposition, including a long list of Impeachment Articles. Not only does that provide a hypothetical chance for a Republican to vote for an article they personally cannot ignore, that hypothetical chance gives the news industry a reason to report the underlying high crime or misdemeanor to the voting public.
That is how our Constitutional democratic republic is designed to function, and largely still does. At least when Democrats actually use it.
Yes, Impeachment Articles will not even come to a House vote while a Republican like Johnson is Speaker, but there's no reason Democrats shouldn't be publishing it with regular updates to lead the opposition and show House Republicans are obstructing legitimate impeachment. And even an impeachment passing the House (when the 2 Democrats who died in March are replaced the Republicans will hold only a 5 seat majority, some Republicans may leave office dead or alive, and in 18 months the Democrats can get a majority if democracy and their party is at all functional) will fail in the Senate's 6 vote majority. But that blind partisan obedience should be what Democrats run against in 2026, when Republicans must defend 20 Senate seats to Democrats' 13, a large playing field advantage.
Democrats have to respond to every Republican move with the maximum opposition, including a long list of Impeachment Articles. Not only does that provide a hypothetical chance for a Republican to vote for an article they personally cannot ignore, that hypothetical chance gives the news industry a reason to report the underlying high crime or misdemeanor to the voting public.
That is how our Constitutional democratic republic is designed to function, and largely still does. At least when Democrats actually use it.
Upvote
37
(37
/
0)
With all due respect, you seem to not be separating the way Supreme Court decisions are supposed to work vs. how they're actually working in reality.
And the Supreme Court's ruling basically said virtually anything is an "official duty" unless SCOTUS says otherwise. I don't know about you, but I don't see a SCOTUS that is very eager to give the Trump administration any significant degree of oversight or rule that his actions aren't official acts.
Until the Supreme Court chimes in on appeal and says anything Trump does is A-OK with them.
And who on Earth do you think is going to do the prosecuting? The DOJ are basically Trump's private law firm now, and they're responsible for criminal prosecutions. Do you think they're going to prosecute one of their own for doing what they were told to do in the first place? Do you think an independent prosecutor has any hope of going up against the US Marshalls, the DOJ, and the rest of the Trump administration?
Actually, the Supreme Court's own ruling basically says an official act is whatever Trump says it is unless the Supreme Court says otherwise.
And it's also final. We don't have a super-duper Supreme Court to overturn them.
In case you haven't been paying attention for the past couple of months, reality has been pretty much saying the exact opposite. Trump has been committing unconstitutional acts for months, and all we've seen is Congress and the judicial system step aside and pave the way for him.
Upvote
31
(35
/
-4)
You can't assume the US has permanently sacrificed anything. The US has a vast and deeply ramified science infrastructure that is globally integrated, with a tremendous momentum and lots of exit barriers for both people and money in it. The current medievalist regime is most probably temporary, and even more likely subject to direct bribes from the vastly profitable corporate beneficiaries of US science. Meanwhile other countries have their own problems filling any US loss of the lead, some of which are exacerbated by their dependence on the USA (including China's). The USA's very large size and openness give it a natural advantage in science that government investment has only ensured.
Besides, speaking/reading/writing English will remain an advantage even for people working in foreign science venues, including China's, as it is by far the most widely used language in science. Even Latin has remained in use in science millennia after it "died", centuries after it was still necessary to retain a critical mass of users in science, without Italian, German or even English eliminating it.
Upvote
-15
(2
/
-17)
That's not what he said. Here's the quote:
That's wrong.
And you're making new claims that are equally wrong:
Name one. I'd be happy to name several cases in which judges are pursuing contempt and other remedies, and various others in which the Trump administration is complying with injunctions while appealing the order. I don't know of a single case in which a federal judge has given up on attempting to enforce a court order.
It's possible we eventually get to a constitutional crisis in which Trump openly defies the courts and they're left with no enforcement mechanisms. We're not there yet, and probably won't get there, since the Supreme Court can order US law enforcement and/or the US military to enforce Supreme Court decisions. In theory Trump could order the opposite, but he's not a god-king, regardless of what you think, and given conflicting orders it's very likely a large number of LE and military personnel would follow the court rather than Trump and Bondi.
None of this is going to get there. Trump isn't a strong president. He's a weak president and getting weaker. He's the most unpopular president in history at the three month mark of his administration and he's underwater even on the economy. He's been enjoined by numerous courts and is more or less obeying the injunctions, he's starting to lose on his nominations in Congress and he can't get even Republicans behind his tariff policy or his budget. The main thing he has going for him at this point is people like you who assert that he's all-powerful. He's not.
Upvote
14
(21
/
-7)
Let me get this straight, a new associate of McKinsey - Rachel Riley * left the company, to join DOGE and destroy the NIH from within.
McKinsey has an interesting track record tied to Enron (and more.)
She's just an advisor to HHS, yet wielded an axe via generic email template to forcefully cancel any grants (from a mad-man tossing EO's out).
*It's hard to confirm if this is the same Rachel Riley, as if they've scrubbed her presence a bit from searches, and there's so many articles to reference
Brad Smith and Rachel Riley work together
Edit: Big whoops on adding 'L' to McKinsey - the links are still correct
McKinsey has an interesting track record tied to Enron (and more.)
She's just an advisor to HHS, yet wielded an axe via generic email template to forcefully cancel any grants (from a mad-man tossing EO's out).
Luckily plenty of websites and Wiki are keeping track of these people and their actions. I wonder if States can file civil suits directed at Musk and any DOGE staff involved. Drag them in for depositions, discovery, attach financial penalties for any court issues along the way.
*It's hard to confirm if this is the same Rachel Riley, as if they've scrubbed her presence a bit from searches, and there's so many articles to reference
Brad Smith and Rachel Riley work together
Edit: Big whoops on adding 'L' to McKinsey - the links are still correct
Last edited:
Upvote
3
(3
/
0)
Not sure House Democrats have any sand they can throw in the gears, since the majority decides what comes to the floor etc.
And I wouldn't rest any hopes on those pathetic excuses we call Democratic Senators.
Upvote
20
(20
/
0)
McKinsey, there's no L (other than L that every company takes when it hires management consultants).
Upvote
10
(10
/
0)
Exactly. Just like Stalin said about the Pope that one time, how many divisions does the judicial branch have at its disposal to make any of this happen?
Upvote
20
(20
/
0)
Many Democrats are fighting much of this. Unfortunately, some of them are trying to negotiate or even embrace him out of fear of losing power. Thankfully, the Koch's are working to stop Donnie because he is out of control.
Upvote
3
(5
/
-2)
Plus they're arresting and detaining judges who rule against them.
Upvote
18
(18
/
0)
No other country will be able to fund scientific research to the extent the US has while also insisting on as much transparency as we have done so up until now. Also, US research universities are largely more productive than the bulk of foreign ones, again as a consequence of decades of investment.
So no, a lot of the research will not get done at all.
Upvote
22
(22
/
0)
Soon the government will argue a US court has no jurisdiction over a Russian asset.
Upvote
14
(14
/
0)