Climate and DEI Deleted From Government Websites, Federal Workers Fired, Colleges Erase Programs, Law Firms Blackballed, Holocaust Erased, Science Research Curtailed

I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God. [emphasis added]

There is a truth and it is on our side, dawn is coming, open your eyes. José González

I think it’s not helpful to repeat claims that the administration is working on eliminating “DEIA” as though it’s some kind of corporate strategy; just say explicitly that they’re trying to eliminate diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility, and explain how. Katie Mack‬ ‪@astrokatie.com‬

This is about you, this is about me, this is about, All of Us.


US govt’s science foundation purges 37 divisions, equity unit among casualties. DEI another day: Trump priorities bite as $1B in grants vanish, layoffs loom. The Register, May 9, 2025. The US government’s National Science Foundation (NSF) is reportedly axing more than three dozen divisions, including its equity-in-STEM unit, while prepping staff layoffs and yanking over a billion dollars in recently awarded grants. The purge has already sparked legal action and congressional scrutiny. On Thursday, the journal Science reported that NSF staff have been told that 37 divisions across the federal agency’s all eight directorates will be eliminated, accompanied by a number of layoffs among its 1,700 employees. For those unfamiliar with the NSF’s role, the org does not conduct its own research but serves as a federal funding body, allocating public money to support universities, institutions, and small businesses in advancing scientific progress, education, and innovation across the United States. Current directors and deputies of the impacted divisions could lose their titles, with some possibly shuffled elsewhere in the agency or punted into other federal gigs. NSF fields over 40,000 grant proposals a year, funding about a quarter. Until now, division directors had the final word on most awards, according to Science.


The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced Thursday its well-known “billion-dollar weather and climate disasters” database “will be retired,” a move that will make it next to impossible for the public to track the cost of extreme weather and climate events. The weather, climate and oceans agency is also ending other products, it has recently announced, due in large part to staffing reductions. NOAA is narrowing the array of services it provides, with climate-related programs scrutinized especially closely.The disasters database, which will be archived but no longer updated beyond 2024, has allowed taxpayers, media and researchers to track the cost of natural disasters — spanning extreme events from hurricanes to hailstorms — since 1980. Its discontinuation is another Trump-administration blow to the public’s view into how fossil fuel pollution is changing the world around them and making extreme weather more costly. […]The database vacuums loss information from throughout the insurance industry, among other public and private sources. According to the database, there were 403 weather and climate disasters totally at least $1 billion in the United States since 1980, totaling more than $2.945 trillion. As of April 8, there had not been any confirmed billion-dollar disasters so far in 2025, but it lists four events as having the potential to make the tally, including the Los Angeles-area wildfires in January. Between 1980 and 2024, there were nine such disasters on average each year, though in the past five years, that annual average has jumped to 24. The record for one year was 28 events in 2023. “What makes this resource uniquely valuable is not just its standardized methodology across decades, but the fact that it draws from proprietary and non-public data sources (such as reinsurance loss estimates, localized government reports, and private claims databases) that are otherwise inaccessible to most researchers,” Jeremy Porter, head of climate implications for and co-founder of First Street, a climate risk financial modeling firm, told CNN via email.

“Without it, replicating or extending damage trend analyses, especially at regional scales or across hazard types, is nearly impossible without significant funding or institutional access to commercial catastrophe models.”


Trump’s Latest NIH Purge Kills the National Cancer Hotline. Gizmodo, May 6, 2025. Roughly 200 more employees at the National Institutes of Health will be laid off, reportedly to balance out recent rehires…The new layoffs at the NCI largely involved staff who work at the NIH’s Office of Communications and Public Liaison. But these employees play a vital role in corresponding with the public and other doctors about relevant NIH programs; they also maintain the NCI’s Cancer Information Service, which helps answer the public’s cancer-related questions. The NCI has already previously lost 150 employees in other departments, including those involved in outside contracting and human resources. According to the NCI, the Cancer Information Service has been in operation since 1975, providing updated information on everything from support services for cancer patients and their families to clinical trials testing out experimental treatments. The CIS hosts a literal hotline that patients, family members, and doctors alike can reach five days a week—for now at least—well as live chat and an email address. It even connects people to counselors who help those who want to quit smoking (smoking being one of the largest lifestyle risks for cancer).


The Stench Of Capitulation Lingers On Biglaw Firms In League With Trump Above the Law, May 6, 2025. If the firms won’t fight for themselves, how will they fight for clients?Last week, one of the biggest stories in Biglaw was Microsoft’s change in attorneys. In a key piece of litigation, they ditched Simpson Thacher (a firm that capitulated to Donald Trump and promised $125 million in pro bono payola for whatever causes Trump fancies) for Jenner & Block (a firm that is fighting Trump vindictiveness in court). It seems when your firm is in the news for “fail[ing] the American people” and backing down from a legal fight, confidence in your ability to fight on behalf of your clients waivers. And Microsoft isn’t the only company steering work away from the yellow-bellied nine. According to reporting by Law.com, several general counsels have a dim view of those in the “order of obsequiousness.” One energy company GC said, “I have pulled firms off of prospective new work. I had Skadden on one, and I had Willkie on another, and I pulled them off because of their settlement. I’m literally in a thread with other GCs, and those two firms have been pulled from other people’s panels as well.” The energy GC continued, “more than a dozen companies are actively [issuing requests for proposals] for new work, and they’ve just changed the panel. Firms that they would normally have gone to, they’ve just pulled them out.”


Microsoft Drops Law Firm That Made a Deal With Trump From a Case. The tech giant instead engaged a firm that is fighting the president’s executive orders, Jenner & Block, in a sign that those firms can still attract clients. The New York Times, May 1, 2025. When big law firms attacked by President Trump decided to make a deal with him rather than fight, many did so because their leaders feared that clients would abandon a firm caught on the administration’s bad side. Now that logic may be getting less compelling. A major company, Microsoft, has dropped a law firm that settled with the administration in favor of one that is fighting it. Large companies like Microsoft often farm out legal work to dozens or even hundreds of firms and may move business depending on circumstances, like pricing, expertise or potential conflicts. Microsoft declined to comment on why it changed law firms in a significant case last week, but the switch suggests that a firm that chose to fight the Trump administration could still attract an important client. On April 22, several attorneys at the law firm Simpson Thacher & Bartlett informed the Delaware Court of Chancery that they would no longer be representing Microsoft in a case related to the company’s 2023 acquisition of the video game giant Activision Blizzard, according to court filings. Simpson Thacher reached a deal with the White House last month in which the firm committed to perform $125 million in free legal work for causes acceptable to the Trump administration. In a joint statement with other firms making similar agreements, Simpson Thacher said the pro bono work would be on behalf of “a wide range of underserved populations.” On the same day that the Simpson Thacher lawyers filed paperwork withdrawing from the Microsoft case, at least three partners at the firm Jenner & Block informed the court that they would be representing Microsoft in the case. Jenner is fighting in court to permanently block a Trump administration executive order targeting its business.


Trump Fires Biden Appointees, Including Doug Emhoff, From Holocaust Museum [no paywall] April 29, 2025. “Holocaust remembrance and education should never be politicized,” Mr. Emhoff said in reaction to the removal of him and senior Biden White House officials from the board that oversees the museum. The New York Times, April 30, 2025….Mr. Emhoff is Jewish and an outspoken critic of the rise in antisemitism. His appointment to the council was announced in January; presidential appointments are typically five-year terms. The other officials who were dismissed include Ron Klain, Mr. Biden’s first chief of staff; Tom Perez, the former labor secretary and senior adviser to Mr. Biden; Susan Rice, the national security adviser to former President Barack Obama and Mr. Biden’s top domestic policy adviser who led a major national strategic effort to counter antisemitism; and Anthony Bernal, a senior adviser to Jill Biden, the former first lady. All of their appointments were announced in January….


Joint Subreddit Statement: The Attack on U.S. Research Infrastructure, April 29, 2025 [snipped below]. Many of you are likely familiar with the news of the Trump Administration and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) terminating grants and budgets at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), and the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), as well as posturing around the Smithsonian Institution and the National Gallery of Art.  There is no way to sugarcoat it. These actions endanger the intellectual freedom of every individual in the United States, and even impact the health and safety of people across the world by willfully tearing down the nation’s research infrastructure.  As moderators of academic subreddits, we engage with public audiences, every one of you, on a daily basis, and while you may not see the direct benefits of these institutions, you all experience the benefits of a federally supported research environment.  We feel it is our responsibility to share with you our thoughts and seek your help before the catastrophic consequences of these reckless actions.

Granting of research awards is  a dull bureaucracy behind exciting projects.  Each agency functions differently, but across agencies, research grants are a highly competitive process.  Teams of researchers led by a Primary Investigator (or PI) write an application to a specific grant program for funding to support a relevant project.  Most granting agencies,  require a narrative about the project’s purpose, rationale, and impacts, descriptions of anticipated outputs (like a website, a public dataset, software, conference presentations, etc), detailed budgets on how funding would be spent, work plans, and, if accepted, regular updates until project completion.   Funding pays for things like staff, equipment, travel,  promotional materials, and most importantly, the next generation of scholars through research assistantships.  PIs rarely see the total sum themselves, rather universities receive the grant on behalf of a project team and distribute the funds. Grants include “overhead” meaning a university receives a sizable portion of the funds to pay for building space, facilities, janitorial staff, electricity, air conditioning, etc. Overhead helps support the broader community by providing funds for non-academic employees and contracts with local businesses.

Grants from NIH, NSF, IMLS, and NEH make up a very small portion of the federal budget.  In 2024, the NIH received $48.811 billion, the NSF $9.06 billion, IMLS received $294.8 million and the NEH was given $207 million.  These numbers sound gigantic, and this $58.37 billion total sounds even more massive, but it’s less than 1% of the $6.8 trillion federal budget.  These are literal pennies for the sake of supposed efficiency.

For Redditors, one immediate impact is NSF defunding of research grants related to misinformation and disinformation.  As moderators of academic communities, fighting mis/disinformation is a crucial part of our work; from vaccine conspiracies to Holocaust denial, the internet is rife with dangerous content.  We moderate harmful content to allow our subscribers to read informed dialogue on topics, but research on how to combat misinformation is “not in alignment with current NSF priorities” under this administration. Research on content moderation has helped Reddit mods reduce harassment and toxicity, understand our communities’ needs better, and communicate what we do beyond the ban hammer.

For the humanities, the NEH terminated grants to reallocate funds “in a new direction in furtherance of the President’s agenda.”  Every presidential administration will shift research interests, but these new guidelines are not in the interest of academic research, rather they seek to curate a specific vision and chill research ideas that disagree with a political agenda.  Under the executive order to restore “Truth and Sanity to American History,” honest inquiry is subservient to nationalistic ideology, a move that r/AskHistorians strongly opposes.

Other agencies that provide key sources of information to academics and the public alike face layoffs including the National Archives and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Cuts to the Department of Education are terminating studies, data collection, teacher access to research, and even funds that help train teachers to support students.  Meanwhile cutting NASA’s funding jeopardizes the recently built Nancy Grace Roman Telescope and the National Park Service is removing terminology to erase the historical contributions of transpeople…


Biglaw Firms In League With Donald Trump Now Have To Defend Cops That Kill Black And Brown People, Above the Law. April 29, 2025. “Donald Trump’s aggressive and questionable use of Executive Orders to turn the country into a far-right hellscape continues. Last night, he signed an EO that ramps up the police state — targeting sanctuary cities that have refused to go along with Trump’s vision on immigration. Specifically, the EO seeks to use the military to run point on domestic law enforcement (Posse Comitatus Act, be damned!) and insulate police officers from legal consequences (because I guess qualified immunity isn’t enough). It’s some dystopian shit. But thanks to the cowardly capitulation of multiple firms, this is also a Biglaw story. The EO specifically provides the following:

The Attorney General shall take all appropriate action to create a mechanism to provide legal resources and indemnification to law enforcement officers who unjustly incur expenses and liabilities for actions taken during the performance of their official duties to enforce the law. This mechanism shall include the use of private-sector pro bono assistance for such law enforcement officers.

So… the Biglaw firms that inked deals with Trump (Paul Weiss, Kirkland, Latham, Skadden, Milbank, Willkie, Simpson Thacher, A&O Shearman, and Cadwalader) to get out from the right-wing doghouse will be asked — or, more ominously, assigned — to work on defending police officers accused of using excessive force. Huh, it looks like providing the Trump administration with $950 million in a pro bono payola slush fund was a terrible idea. Who would have guessed, except literally everyone? I’m sure (at least some of) the firms will try to assure the rank-and-file internally that they’ll be able to set boundaries with the Trump administration. But that’s not how appeasing a bully works! As my colleague Joe Patrice has already written about the constantly evolving terms of these deals using an elaborate Star Wars analogy that casts the cowardly Biglaw firms as Lando Calrissian:

And what are the firms gonna do about it? Other than privately mumble that “This deal is getting worse all the time!” they’re going to go along with it because they’re already pot committed at this point. Reversing course now doesn’t get them anything but an even harsher executive order that they’ve already told the whole market they don’t have the courage to fight…”


Elite Universities Form Private Collective to Resist Trump Administration. WSJ – no paywall, April 28, 2025. Separate from public dissent, group of school leaders strategize behind scenes about how to respond and push back against White House. Leaders of some of the nation’s most prestigious universities have assembled a private collective to counter the Trump administration’s attacks on research funding and academic independence across higher education, according to people familiar with the effort. The informal group currently includes about 10 schools, including Ivies and leading private research universities, mostly in blue states. Strategy discussions gained momentum after the administration’s recent list of demands for sweeping cultural change at Harvard, viewed by many universities as an assault on independence. The collective, as some are calling it, represents a separate, quiet and potentially more potent effort than recent public resolutions from university-aligned groups. The group comprises figures at the highest levels, including individual trustees and presidents. Maintaining close contact, they have discussed red lines they won’t cross in negotiations and have gamed out how to respond to different demands presented by the Trump administration, which has frozen or canceled billions in research funding at schools it says haven’t effectively combated antisemitism on their campuses. The group’s aim is to avoid the fate of some top law firms, where one deal led to others following suit. The universities want to make sure other schools don’t go so far as to strike deals that create a worrisome precedent that others would be under pressure to follow, say the people familiar with the effort….


New database tracks canceled N.S.F. research grants, The University Daily Kansan. April 25, 2025. A crowdsourced database is helping researchers at the University of Kansas and other institutions in the U.S. make sense of contradictory information put out by news agencies and the National Science Foundation after the federal government began canceling N.S.F. research grants last week. The public database, compiled by Noam Ross, executive director of the nonprofit rOpenSci, and Scott Delaney, a researcher at Harvard University, was launched on Friday night and tracked over 430 terminated grants within days, all of which had been cancelled last week. “Word has gotten out and a lot of people have gotten information to us,” Ross said. He and Delaney used Bluesky, LinkedIn, Reddit and email networks to share the database with researchers who could self-report their terminated grants, which they then vetted. Based on available information, Ross said he thinks the list is comprehensive. Ross and Delaney began compiling a similar list on cancelled NIH grants a few weeks ago, he said. Confusion began last Wednesday when the scientific journal Nature reported that the N.S.F. was freezing all grants that had been approved for funding but not yet awarded. On Friday, however, the N.S.F. clarified that it was only freezing those grants that did not align with the Trump administration’s executive orders on “diversity, equity and inclusion” (D.E.I.) and “misinformation.” Ashley Muddiman, a professor and researcher at KU who has studied political misinformation, said that the reasons for grant cancellations have been vague and confusing, leaving many researchers in the dark. In an FAQ, the N.S.F. said that it “will not support research with the goal of combating ‘misinformation,’ ‘disinformation,’ and ‘malinformation’ that could be used to infringe on the constitutionally protected speech rights of American citizens.” Another researcher at KU who studies misinformation declined to be interviewed for this story, citing legal concerns surrounding their terminated grant. “There’s absolutely a chilling effect,” Muddiman said. Ross said his database is helping get this information out, and that when a researcher fills out the form to add their cancelled grant to the list, they are asked if they would be willing to speak to the media. Some do and some don’t, for various reasons, he said, including the protection of legal appeals. “There is a mix,” he said, “but there is a climate of fear.” Ross and Muddiman were both clear about the effect these cancellations have on students as well as researchers. “It’s hovering over everyone,” Muddiman said. “It’s affecting researchers. It’s affecting students because if the research isn’t getting done, we can’t share that knowledge with students on campus.” Ross said the message he gets from this data is that students will suffer the greatest impacts from these grant terminations.


Race information disappeared from the federal government’s HR website that displays statistics for the public on about 2.3 million federal employees. Bloomberg Law News, April 17, 2025. The Office of Personnel Management deleted the section of its FedScope website that showed data about federal employees’ race. The site now displays an error message. For decades, OPM has provided Congress, federal agencies, and academics with personnel data that helped shape policies, funding, and staffing decisions. Without the race information, those groups will not be able to easily track how President Donald Trump’s workforce cuts affect minority race groups, including Black and Asian employees, academics said. Federal agencies began deleting data from their websites shortly after Trump took office and directed them to eliminate “diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility” programs. Pages tracking flu cases and HIV statistics across the US vanished in the first days of the administration. A federal judge later ordered the administration to restore health data online. A spokeswoman for Acting OPM Director Chuck Ezell did not immediately respond to a request for comment Thursday. The future of OPM’s recordkeeping on federal employees is in doubt. Nearly all the half-dozen analysts and statisticians who compiled HR data for 2.3 million federal employees have been laid off or took resignation incentives to leave, Bloomberg Law previously reported.


Robert H. Hubbell: “Five law professors come to the aid of law firms targeted by Trump. Five preeminent law professors from Boston University, Cornell, and Georgetown, all of whom are experts in ethics, have filed a brief in support of Wilmer Hale (one of the Trump targets that refused to capitulate). All I can say is, “Shut the front door! Do not provoke ethics experts.” Joyce Vance (of Civil Discourse on Substack) ably summarizes the arguments made by the five law professors. In short, the capitulating law firms face ethical conflicts whenever they represent a client in a case involving the government. Worse, as summarized by Joyce Vance, “Those firms may have violated federal anti-bribery laws. “[T]he law firms may fall within what counts as bribery under federal law: offering or promising something of value to a federal official in hopes of influencing an official act—here, withdrawing the executive orders against the firms.” It appears the Capitulating Firms did not carefully consider the ramifications (or legality) of giving Trump a political victory in exchange for forestalling official government action…The “agreements” between the Capitulating Firms and Trump have been a mystery. Who were the parties to the agreements? What were the terms of the agreements? Are they enforceable? Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo appears to have discovered the answers to the above questions—and they aren’t pretty. It appears that the “agreements” are little more than the press releases by the firms and Trump’s posts on Truth Social (descriptions that do not always match). Worse, it appears that the agreements were negotiated by Boris Epshteyn—who does not represent the US government. Rather, Epshteyn is Trump’s personal attorney. So, if Epshteyn is Trump’s personal attorney, then Trump (rather than the government) is the counterparty to the agreement. It appears that Trump’s personal lawyer was convincing the firms to give up hundreds of millions of dollars in pro bono services to benefit Trump’s political standing in exchange for the cancellation of an official government action, i.e., the executive orders. If true, such a corrupt exchange is why the five ethics experts suggest that the deals may violate federal anti-bribery statutes. See Josh Marshall, Talking Points Memo, For Big Law: Is That Your Final Answer? At some point in the future, representatives of the law firms will be called to explain the nature, terms, and intent of the agreements. Those firms should already be preparing those answers with the assistance of high-powered criminal defense lawyers. I am not suggesting that there was a criminal violation, but as cautious attorneys, the Capitulating Firms know that you don’t want to get close to that line. But that is where the amateurish, reckless deals placed once-proud and respected firms—too close to a line that could end careers and personal liberties…”


Law Firms Made Deals With Trump. Now He Wants More From Them [no paywall]. The New York Times, April 16, 2025. To avoid retribution, big firms agreed to provide free legal services for uncontroversial causes. To the White House, that could mean negotiating trade deals — or even defending the president and his allies. When some of the nation’s biggest law firms agreed to deals with President Trump, the terms appeared straightforward: In return for escaping the full force of his retribution campaign, the firms would do some free legal work on behalf of largely uncontroversial causes like helping veterans. Mr. Trump, it turns out, has a far more expansive view of what those firms can be called on to do. Over the last week, he has suggested that the firms will be drafted into helping him negotiate trade deals. He has mused about having them help with his goal of reviving the coal industry. And he has hinted that he sees the promises of nearly $1 billion in pro bono legal services that he has extracted from the elite law firms — including Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison; Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom; and Willkie Farr & Gallagher — as a legal war chest to be used as he wishes. “Have you noticed that lots of law firms have been signing up with Trump: $100 million, another $100 million for damages that they’ve done,” Mr. Trump said at an event last week with coal miners, without specifying what he meant by damages. None of the firms have acknowledged any wrongdoing. They were targeted with punitive executive orders or implicit threats for representing or aiding Mr. Trump’s political foes or employing people he sees as having used the legal system to come after him. The deals have been widely criticized, as they are seen by many in the legal community as unconstitutional and undemocratic. Four firms whom Mr. Trump leveled executive orders against have fought them in court, all quickly receiving rulings from federal judges who temporarily halted them. But now that nine firms have agreed to deals and committed to nearly $1 billion worth of pro bono legal work, some Trump advisers have started having discussions about a range of options for what the firms’ lawyers can be deployed to work on, according to two people briefed on the matter. That work could include sending the lawyers to help Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency or deploying them to aid the Justice Department, they said.


Science, April 11, 2025. Trump seeks to end climate research at premier U.S. climate agency See also The New York Times – free link White House Plan Calls for NOAA Research Programs to Be Dismantled. A Trump administration budget proposal would essentially eliminate one of the world’s foremost Earth sciences research operations. “White House aims to end NOAA’s research office; NASA also targeted. President Donald Trump’s administration is seeking to end nearly all of the climate research conducted by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA), one of the country’s premier climate science agencies, according to an internal budget document seen by Science. The document indicates the White House is ready to ask Congress to eliminate NOAA’s climate research centers and cut hundreds of federal and academic climate scientists who track and study human-driven global warming. The administration is also preparing to ask for deep cuts to NASA’s science programs, according to media reports today. The proposed NOAA cuts—which could be altered before the administration sends its 2026 budget request to Congress in the coming weeks—would cut funding for the agency’s research arm, the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR), to just over $171 million, a drop of $485 million. Any remaining research funding from previously authorized budgets would be moved to other programs. “At this funding level, OAR is eliminated as a line office,” the document states. If approved by Congress, the plan would represent a huge blow to efforts to understand climate change, says Craig McLean, OAR’s longtime director who retired in 2022. “It wouldn’t just gut it. It would shut it down.” Scientifically, he adds, obliterating OAR would send the United States back to the 1950s—all because the Trump administration doesn’t like the answers to scientific questions NOAA has been studying for a half-century, according to McLean. The administration’s plan would “eliminate all funding for climate, weather, and ocean laboratories and cooperative institutes,” says the document, which reflects discussions between NOAA and the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) about the agency’s 2026 budget request. Currently, NOAA operates 10 research labs around the country. They include influential ocean research centers in Florida and Washington state; five atmospheric science labs in Boulder, Colorado, and Maryland; and a severe storm lab in Oklahoma. It also operates the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in New Jersey, the birthplace of weather and climate modeling, as well as a lab in Michigan devoted to the Great Lakes. The agency further funds cooperative institutes, which support a large collection of academic scientists who work closely with the NOAA labs. The proposal would cut NOAA’s competitive climate research grants program, which awards roughly $70 million a year to academic scientists. It would end support for collecting regional climate data and information, often used by farmers and other industries. And it would terminate the agency’s National Oceanographic Partnership Program and college and aquaculture sea grant programs, which support a host of research efforts…”


Law Dork, April 13, 2025: “…More capitulators – On Friday, multiple law firms threw their hat — and their employees — into the capitulation wing of how law firms are responding to the Trump administration’s attack on the rule of law. In a social media post, President Donald Trump announced that Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, LLP (Cadwalader) had reached an agreement to provide $100 million in “pro bono Legal Services … to causes that President Trump and Cadwalader both support,” similar to those reached with Trump by Paul Weiss (which was for $40 million in pro bono work), Skadden Arps, Milbank, and Willkie Farr. President Donald Trump also announced that Allen Overy Shearman Sterling US LLP (A&O Shearman), Kirkland & Ellis LLP (Kirkland), Latham & Watkins LLP (Latham), and Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP (Simpson) had all reached an “agreement“ with Trump similar to the prior capitulating firms — with the alteration that these firms, aside from Cadwalader, agreed to provide $125 million “in pro bono and other free Legal services“ each. Apparently, $25 million is the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission add-on cost. The acting chair of the EEOC, Andrea Lucas, asked 20 law firms for detailed information about their diversity-supporting efforts — despite lacking a quorum and her letter having other procedural problems. Trump said that this “arrangement” purports to end that letter campaign — and any potential claims that might have come from it. (Whatever that means.)
The EEOC-inclusive deals feel somehow even less defensible to me than the others — particularly with the $25 million add-on and Trump’s clear effort. Additionally, the language for the legal services is slightly, but significantly, different. They agreed to provide “pro bono and other free Legal services,“ whereas, for example, Cadwalader agreed to provide “pro bono Legal Services.”
As Walter Olson — of the Cato Institute — put it, “EEOC agrees to drop pending enforcement letters against law firms that pledged major dollars to Trump ‘pro bono’ fund. We now live in a country where making a payment to the ruler’s slush fund lets you buy your way out of regulatory difficulty.“ The letters sent within the firms were as disingenuous and weak as the others. “We made the decision to pursue this solution because at our very core our mission is to protect and support our people and our clients, and this agreement does both,” Kirkland’s “Firm Committee” wrote. Latham’s Richard Trobman wrote that the decision was “made with great care,” adding, “I know that some of you may not agree with this outcome, and I respect those views. But I am confident that the strength of our culture will help us move forward together. Thank you for your dedication to one another and your commitment to our clients.“ Alden Millard at Simpson, though, took the cake. “We know and understand that this development may weigh heavily on some of you,” he wrote — apparently excluding himself — and adding tnat “we appreciate how unprecedented and challenging recent events in the legal industry have been.“ Despite that tacit acknowledge that this is — at best — a decision that is fundamentally upsetting to “some” in the firm, he concluded it similar to how Skadden’s Jeremy London had done, writing, “This decision does not change who we are as a Firm. As we move forward, we are grateful for your unwavering dedication to the Firm, our clients and each other.”..


Above the Law, April 11, 2025. Associates Beg A&O Shearman Not To Be The Next Collaborator. At this point, signing a Trump deal is just dumb Biglaw firms keep folding under White House pressure, thinking that they’re just committing millions in pro bono payola to worthwhile veteran issues. Meanwhile, Donald Trump — with a characteristic lack of subtlety — publicly describes these deals as blank checks for free legal work on anything he dreams up — up to and including personal legal work based on his most recent statement. It’s the real life version of Lando’s deal with Darth Vader, except Lando didn’t have an army of fancy law degrees that should help a global law firm recognize when it’s getting conned. A&O Shearman is reportedly next on the Quisling block, and the rank-and-file are having none of it.  Formed in last year’s Voltron merger of Allen & Overy and Shearman & Sterling, A&O Shearman was probably overdue for a good bonding moment. Turns out, uniting behind the fear that firm leadership might sell off the firm’s credibility to authoritarian bullying can really bring people together! An open letter prepared last night and sent to leadership moments ago, already has over 500 A&O Shearman associates, counsel, and staff raised their hands to say, “Maybe don’t actively sell our firm to authoritarians?” A&O Shearman has around 650 attorneys in the United States, underscoring the profound unpopularity of the rumored capitulation. Honestly, it’s one thing to have signed up early — Paul Weiss and Skadden at least had the luxury of (an admittedly weaksauce) plausible deniability. Back then, leadership could pretend they were just agreeing to redirect a few volunteer hours to less-woke causes in exchange for getting the White House off their backs. After the White House publicly bragged that these firms “bent the knee” and Trump announced that he will “assign” the firms to apply this pro bono work to everything from coal leasing to tariff enforcement, there’s no more illusion. The deal isn’t for traditional pro bono work, it’s a commitment to do otherwise billable work for Trump for free like he’s turning in a coupon for a free sandwich.


April 11, 2025. AP – President Donald Trump announced deals Friday with five law firms that will allow them to avoid the prospect of punishing executive orders and require them to together provide hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of free legal services for causes his administration says it supports. The resolutions reflect the Republican president’s continued success in bending prominent law firms to his will as they seek to cut deals with his administration to avoid being targeted by White House sanctions like the ones confronting others in the legal community. The White House said that the firms of Kirkland & Ellis LLP; Allen Overy Shearman Sterling US LLP; Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP; and Latham & Watkins LLP would each provide $125 million in free legal work for causes including veterans affairs and combatting anti-Semitism. As part of the agreement, the administration agreed to withdraw letters from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission demanding information about whether the firms were engaged in discriminatory hiring practices.


April 10, 2025. Northwestern professors are suing Congress [U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Education and Workforce, U.S. House Member Tim Walberg, in his official capacity as Committee Chair, U.S. House Member Burgess Owens, in his official capacity as Subcommittee Chair (collectively the “Committee”)]. Leveling threats to Northwestern’s federal funding, and based on an investigative pretext, the Committee has demanded that Northwestern University’s Pritzker School of Law and its Bluhm Legal Clinic produce information about how they teach their students, represent their clients, and fund their work. The effort is part of the federal government’s ongoing attack on academic freedom, legal professionals, and the rule of law. The Committee’s demands exceed its authority and have no valid legislative purpose; they are an attempt to investigate, intimidate, and punish institutions and individuals that the Committee has deemed “left-wing;” and they violate the federal Constitution. Immediate relief is necessary to prevent irreparable harm..”


Bloomberg April 10, 2025 – “Large law firms plan to refuse to give the Trump administration information on their clients’ diversity initiatives as part of federal discrimination investigations. The 20 firms facing questions from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission will reject the agency’s inquiries related to clients over confidentiality concerns, according to two people familiar with the matter. The EEOC wants the firms to name clients that require them to hit diversity targets for staffing on legal matters and to detail any incentives earned by meeting certain metrics. The agency cited Microsoft Corp.’s diversity program for the tech company’s law firms as an example. Kirkland & Ellis, Latham & Watkins, and Simpson Thacher & Bartlett are among firms hit March 17 with EEOC letters. Their responses are expected to start a legal tug of war with the agency, which President Donald Trump directed to police major firms for bias in diversity programs. “It’s core to our profession to not disclose things about your clients or communications with your clients,” said Joshua Roffman, a Washington lawyer who advises companies on diversity initiatives. “You don’t even want to open the door a little bit to that.” William Burck, a litigator at Quinn Emanuel who has emerged as a go-between for firms facing retribution from Trump, and Gibson Dunn lawyer Jason Schwartz are separately advising several of those hit with EEOC inquiries. Allan Bloom, the co-chair of Proskauer’s labor and employment group, and Washington attorney David Fortney are also advising some of the firms. The firms plan to respond by the April 15 deadline in the letters, in which the EEOC also requested details about hiring and promotions, job applicants, and individual attorneys, the people said. They’ve decided not to challenge Andrea Lucas, the EEOC’s Trump-appointed acting leader, despite questions about her authority to investigate firms via public letters. Those on the EEOC list determined that ignoring the letters or refusing to turn over any information could get them more unwanted attention from the administration, according to the people. The EEOC investigations are part of the administration’s attack on the legal industry. The White House has issued executive orders targeting firms and extracted deals from others for $340 million in services for Trump-aligned causes. Those directives and agreements have ensnared nine law firms so far. The EEOC typically polices workplace discrimination by investigating charges filed by workers against their employers. The agency’s commissioners can self-initiate charges to launch investigations, but those charges usually are not made public. Lucas’ top priorities include “rooting out unlawful DEI-motivated race and sex discrimination,” she said in a Jan. 20 statement when she was tapped for the acting role. She told the firms in the letters that she is “concerned” that their DEI programs and policies “may entail unlawful disparate treatment in terms, conditions, and privileges of employment” based on race and sex in violation of federal law. An EEOC spokesperson declined to comment…”


April 8, 2025 update – Bloomberg, March 26, 2025. Years of Climate Action Demolished in Days: A timeline [no paywall] of Trump’s environmental directives are gutting basic protections for Americans and the agencies designed to deliver them. We’ve long known President Donald Trump is a climate-change denier. And we knew that, during last year’s campaign, Trump promised to make the dreams of fossil-fuel tycoons reality if they bankrolled his candidacy. But nothing could have prepared us for the breadth or intensity of the assault on climate action that Trump has unleashed during his first months back in office.

There’s a chance you’ve seen one or 20 news reports in recent weeks detailing some of this activity. Far more likely is that you don’t even know the half of it. Here are just a few of the highlights:

52 Days of the Trump Administration’s Climate Onslaught

Every agency with any connection to the climate (meaning basically all of them) has been involved, from the Environmental Protection Agency to the Defense Department. International cooperation by NASA scientists, UN diplomats and more has been forbidden, and Trump appointees are meddling in state and local efforts to manage their own environments. Elon Musk’s crew, intent on dismantling the apparatus of government, has frozen research and funding and put vital expertise on the street.

Climate Actions Targeted All Areas of America’s Well-Being

 

Trump claims his climate demolition will benefit the country. He and his mouthpieces have argued that ignoring climate will lower energy costs for consumers, help the economy and secure “energy dominance” for the US. The truth is much different…”

April 4, 2025 update: Welcome to Safeguarding Research & Culture (SRC) — Distributing Cultural Memory! AWS Services for NOAA will be going offline as soon as tomorrow night. (April 4th). Things affected to include:

Claimed:

Completed:

Uploaded: Container dataset, upload to the relevant dataset part:

Help very much needed. Some tips…

  • Instructions for scraping from SciOp
  • If you begin working on an archive, please mention that you’ve claimed it in a reply to this thread and then edit your reply with an update when it’s completed and/or uploaded
  • If you archive a resource but can’t upload it to SciOp, that’s okay, just let us know
  • Possible third-level domains based on certificate issuances (thank you, @jenniferplusplus)
  • Possible sites/datasets based on the master NOAA github account (thank you, @Catladylilia)

How Donald Trump Throttled Big Law – The New Yorker, March 27 2025 [no paywall]. The President has two goals: to seek revenge and to intimidate lawyers challenging his agenda. Is a top firm’s deal with him a necessary act of survival or a damaging blow to the entire profession? …It took the Trump Administration only three weeks to accomplish this subjugation. First, they came for Covington & Burling, the storied Washington firm that had the temerity to represent, pro bono, the former special counsel Jack Smith—“deranged Jack Smith,” in the words of Trump, who has called for Smith to be jailed. An executive order issued on February 25th yanked the security clearance for Smith’s lawyer, the Covington partner Peter Koski, threatening, as Trump well understood, Smith’s constitutional right to counsel; Trump’s own lawyers needed clearances in order to represent him in the Mar-a-Lago classified-documents case. The next firm targeted was Perkins Coie, based in Seattle and with a long history of representing Democratic Party entities and candidates. In 2016, as part of its work for the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s Presidential campaign, the firm commissioned what came to be known as the Steele dossier, an opposition-research report into the then candidate Trump’s ties to Russia. Trump sued Perkins Coie over the Steele dossier, in 2022, and lost, but he is not one to drop a grudge. The Perkins executive order, issued on March 6th, claimed that “the dishonest and dangerous activity of the law firm . . . has affected this country for decades,” and went on to invoke the dossier…”


PBS News March 27, 2025: ‘Daniella Fodera got an unusually early morning call from her research adviser this month: The doctoral student’s fellowship at Columbia University had been suddenly terminated. Fodera sobbed on phone calls with her parents. Between the fellowship application and scientific review process, she had spent a year of her life securing the funding, which helped pay for her study of the biomechanics of uterine fibroids — tissue growths that can cause severe pain, bleeding and even infertility. Uterine fibroids, an underresearched condition, impact up to 77 percent of women as they age. “I’m afraid of what it means for women’s health,” Fodera said. “I’m just one puzzle piece in the larger scheme of what is happening. So me alone, canceling my funding will have a small impact — but canceling the funding of many will have a much larger impact. It will stall research that has been stalled for decades already. For me, that’s sad and an injustice.” Fodera’s work was a casualty of new federal funding cuts at Columbia University, one of several schools targeted by the Trump administration. The administration is also reducing the workforce at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the agency that oversees public health research, while trying to slash NIH funding to universities. Researchers say threats to federal research funding and President Donald Trump’s promise to eliminate any policy promoting “diversity, equity and inclusion” are threatening a decades-long effort to improve how the nation studies the health of women and queer people, or improve treatments for the medical conditions that affect them. Agency employees have been warned not to approve grants that include words such as  “women,” “trans” or “diversity.”


Union of Concerned Scientist, March 27, 2025: “Yet another resource that belongs to us, the US public, has disappeared down the Trump administration’s memory hole. I just learned from the valiant Environmental Data and Government Initiative that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has removed the 2024 Climate Literacy Guide from https://www.climate.gov (though a data savior has preserved it here). Now, no one can access a fundamental federal resource that helps the public understand climate change updated and released by US Global Change Research Program in 2024.

Who needs the Climate Literacy Guide? Trump’s Signal crew, that’s who. Anyone who wishes to understand what’s happening to our world—why we keep stacking hottest year on hottest year, why wildfires are so intense, why some hurricanes strengthen so rapidly—can learn from the Climate Literacy Guide. But some key national security officials could use a new Signal chat, this time discussing the literacy guide to better understand essential principles of climate change science, impacts, and solutions. Bonus: None of this information is classified!

And if an accidental invitation is available, I’d love to join officials who notably do use Signal: Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who has just ordered the “elimination of climate defense planning,” scrapping years of Pentagon policy that identified climate as a major and mounting threat to national security.

  • Vice President JD Vance, who does not acknowledge human-caused climate change.
  • Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who again can’t quite figure out where he’s supposed to be in the (climate) conversation.
  • Director of National Security Tulsi Gabbard, who apparently okayed the omission of climate change from the US intelligence community’s annual threat assessment report for the first time in 11 years.
  • Homeland Security Advisor Stephen Miller, who during the previous Trump administration wasn’t “interested in climate change” even after an internal report showed it was a driver of migration to the US (along with driving enormous human suffering). At the moment, Miller “is more powerful [on immigration] than ever…”

The Guardian, March 25, 2025. Trump’s ‘climate’ purge deleted a new extreme weather risk tool. We recreated it | The Guardian has recreated a searchable climate future risk tool developed by Fema but then deleted. The Guardian is now helping resurrect and display the short-lived tool, which was keenly awaited within Fema as the first free, localized resource showing how much climate change impacts will cost American communities. Drawing data from across federal government agencies, the index has county-by-county information on projected annual losses this century from threats including extreme heat, coastal flooding , wildfires, hurricanes and drought, all of which are worsened by human-caused global heating. Each county was also given an overall risk rating, which ranked how vulnerable its particular population is to climate shocks. Such information is crucial for planning by local governments, insurers, utilities and others that look to Fema to help contend with a growing list of disasters now rending American communities, according to Victoria Salinas, who was deputy administrator of resilience at Fema during Joe Biden’s administration. “It doesn’t matter if you call it climate change or not, the consequences are getting worse and so we were trying to play catch-up,” said Salinas. […] The Future Risk Index was initially restored to public view by Fulton Ring, a software and data company. The company’s founders, Rajan Desai and Jeremy Herzog, said they were aghast at the Trump administration’s removal of online climate data and didn’t want taxpayer-funded work to go to waste. “We knew this was in the crosshairs because other tools like it have been shut down,” said Herzog. “We felt this would be a high-integrity action to take, more impactful than just protesting. People should be asking why these datasets are being taken down for political motivations.”


March 25, 2025. NPR. NASA website axes a pledge to land a woman and a person of color on the moon. Nearly four years ago, NASA announced that its Artemis III mission would include a lot of firsts: it would be the first to land on the moon since the end of the Apollo era, the first to touch down near the moon’s rugged south pole and the first to put both a woman and a person of color on the lunar surface. But in deference to President Trump’s anti-diversity, equity and inclusion directive, the space agency has removed language about the diverse composition of the crew from some webpages. On one page originally published in 2023, NASA proclaimed that it would “land the first woman, first person of color, and first international partner astronaut on the Moon using innovative technologies to explore more of the lunar surface than ever before.” Now, however, the language has been expunged According to the Wayback Machine, a digital library that tracks changes to internet sites, the edit occurred on March 16 and was first reported days later by the Orlando Sentinel. As of Tuesday, however, another webpage about the mission — which has been delayed and is now slated to land no earlier than mid-2027 — still reads: “For the benefit of all humanity, NASA and its partners will land the first woman and first person of color on the surface of the Moon with Artemis.”



March 17, 2025. The Hill. President Trump today signed an executive order eliminating diversity programming at the State Department, wiping out the Biden administration’s initiative to remove barriers to employment for underrepresented groups. Trump’s order directs the State Department to remove the “‘Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Accessibility’ Core Precept from Foreign Service tenure and promotion criteria.”  The order further directs the U.S. government to not base foreign service recruitment, hiring, promotion or retention decisions on an individual’s race, color, religion, sex or national origin. “Relevant agencies shall identify and take appropriate action regarding any Foreign Service Officer who knowingly and willfully engaged in illegal discrimination,” the order reads.


March 16, 2025 update – Empty Wheel [excerpted] Trump’s Legal Blackballing Effort Selectively Protects Jones Day. I’m working on a post on the Administration’s efforts to blackball law firms with ties to Trump’s imagined enemies. As I’ll show, the effort builds on Trump’s Orwellian “Weaponization” effort; the two fact sheets involved in this effort (Perkins CoiePaul Weiss) repeat Trump’s false claim that 51 spooks claimed Hunter Biden’s laptop “was part of a Russian disinformation campaign.” Each fact sheet then airs some personal grievances of Trump’s.

  • Then, Section 1 the Executive Orders (Perkins Coie; Paul Weiss) summarize that grievance. Based on that grievance, the order does the following:
  • Section 1: Purpose (airing of grievance)
  • Section 2: Security Clearance Review (in effect, suspension of any clearances held by firm attorneys)
  • Section 3: Contracting (stripping of federal contracts)
  • Section 4: Racial discrimination (accusing the firms of racial discrimination)
  • Section 5: Personnel (prohibiting the hiring of lawyers from targeted firms and prohibiting access to government facilities)
  • Most of scheme (and even more of DOJ Chief of Staff Chad Mizelle’s attempt to defend it in a hearing before Beryl Howell last week) rests on a national security claim, in turn built off the Section 2 Security Clearance order.
  • But a big part of it attempts to enforce Trump’s federal segregation efforts in private law firms. For each, the grievance section accuses the firm of “discriminat[ing] against its own attorneys and staff.”
  • In other words, Donald J. Trump has blackballed two law firms in significant part because they aim for diversity in their hiring practices.
  • Which led me to check the website for Jones Day, still the counterpart to what Perkins Coie used to be for Democrats, the law firm serving the Republican party.
  • And lo and behold, the Jones Day website looks like Federal government sites did until inauguration day.
  • Jones Day has a page celebrating its diversity firsts.
  • They have a page listing affinity groups the likes of which Trump has eliminated from Federal government.
  • And there are several other pages, including a 1L conference focused on diversity.

The documentation targeting Perkins Coie and Paul Weiss also target the firms for their pro bono work — the former for representing some trans service members challenging the DOD ban, and the latter because Jeannie Rhee represented DC in a lawsuit against January 6 culprits that DC recently dismissed with prejudice (in fact, there were three other Paul Weiss attorneys on the case, as well as a bunch from Dechart, but Rhee was the only one identified, even indirectly, in the backup to the blackballing attempt). Update: EEOC sent out letters demanding info on DEI practices from 20 firms not named Jones Day…


March 17, 2025 update Above the Law: Donald Trump wasn’t lying when he said he was going after Biglaw. The onslaught continues with 20 Biglaw firms receiving letters from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Acting Chair Andrea Lucas informing them they’re being investigated by the agency. Lucas writes the agency is “concern[ed] that some firms’ employment practices, including those labeled or framed as DEI, may entail unlawful disparate treatment in terms, conditions, and privileges of employment, or unlawful limiting, segregating, and classifying based on race, sex, or other protected characteristics, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII).” All because the firm has at any point made public statements or programs in support of diversity in the profession.

The following firms have received letters from the EEOC thus far:

1. A & O Shearman
2. Debevoise & Plimpton
3. Cooley
4. Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer
5. Goodwin Procter
6. Hogan Lovells
7. Kirkland & Ellis
8. Latham & Watkins
9. McDermott Will & Emery
10. Milbank
11. Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
12. Morrison & Foerster
13. Perkins Coie
14. Reed Smith
15. Ropes & Gray
16. Sidley Austin
17. Simpson Thacher & Bartlett
18. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
19. White & Case
20. WilmerHale

Notably Paul, Weiss is not on the list of Biglaw firms that have been notified of an EEOC investigation, despite the recent Executive Order targeting the firm for a bunch of reasons including their support of DEI. I guess their letter will be in the next tranche to drop — because Trump’s fight with the legal industry is far from over.


The New York Times, March 15, 2025 – podcast: After engaging in a campaign of retribution against his enemies within the federal government, President Trump is turning to those outside of it. Michael S. Schmidt, an investigative reporter for The New York Times, explains what that retribution has looked like for a single law firm — and the impact it has had on the entire legal profession.

  • The law firm Perkins Coie has sued the Trump administration over an executive order that would make it all but impossible for the firm to advocate for its clients.
  • The president’s use of government power to punish law firms is seen by some experts as undercutting a basic tenet: the right to a strong defense.

March 7, 2025 updates – Wired: The US Army Is Using ‘CamoGPT’ to Purge DEI From Training Materials. Developed to boost productivity and operational readiness, the AI is now being used to “review” diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility policies to align them with President Trump’s orders. The United States Army is employing a prototype generative artificial intelligence tool to identify references to diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) for removal from training materials in line with a recent executive order from President Donald Trump. Officials at the Army’s Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC)—the major command responsible for training soldiers, developing leaders, and shaping the service’s guidelines, strategies, and concepts—are currently using the AI tool, dubbed CamoGPT, to “review policies, programs, publications, and initiatives for DEIA and report findings,” according to an internal memo reviewed by WIRED. The memo followed Trump’s signing of a January 27 executive order titled “Restoring America’s Fighting Force,” which directed Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to eliminate all Pentagon policies seen as promoting what that the commander in chief declared “un-American, divisive, discriminatory, radical, extremist, and irrational theories” regarding race and gender, a linguistic dragnet that extends as far as past social media posts from official US military accounts.

AP, March 6, 2025: War heroes and military firsts are among 26,000 images flagged for removal in Pentagon’s DEI purge. References to a World War II Medal of Honor recipient, the Enola Gay aircraft that dropped an atomic bomb on Japan and the first women to pass Marine infantry training are among the tens of thousands of photos and online posts marked for deletion as the Defense Department works to purge diversity, equity and inclusion content, according to a database obtained by The Associated Press. The database, which was confirmed by U.S. officials and published by AP, includes more than 26,000 images that have been flagged for removal across every military branch. But the eventual total could be much higher. One official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to provide details that have not been made public, said the purge could delete as many as 100,000 images or posts in total, when considering social media pages and other websites that are also being culled for DEI content. The official said it’s not clear if the database has been finalized. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had given the military until Wednesday to remove content that highlights diversity efforts in its ranks following President Donald Trump’s executive order ending those programs across the federal government.


This is a March 2, 2025 update to Trump’s escalating actions to eliminate diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility throughout institutions of higher learning.

Colleges and universities around the country, private and public, have moved to close all programs related to diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility, including freezing and or firing all the staff working on these matters, as well a faculty members. Loans to college and graduate students have been eliminated, as well as funding for college and post graduate students pursuing work in these fields that is based within the science and medical disciplines.

Axios: “Colleges have been a conservative target for years. Under President Trump, it’s total warfare on all aspects of higher education — from student life to hiring to athletics.

Why it matters: Universities are scrambling to steel themselves for an onslaught of investigations. Even if some cuts are undone by future administrations or some directives don’t hold up in the courts, many colleges are rushing to make changes they won’t be able to undo easily.

  • “The federal government is coming for higher education,” says Jeremy Young, the Freedom to Learn program director for PEN America. “And if you are one of America’s 4,000 college presidents, and you stick your neck out, it’s going to get cut off.”

Driving the news: In a letter to schools last month, the Education Department said they could lose funding if they have policies related to race and diversity. And though the letter doesn’t have the force of law, many institutions are acting quickly to comply — with moves big and small.

  • Colorado State University is shifting employee roles, tweaking HR policies and scrubbing websites, Axios Denver’s Alayna Alvarez reports.
  • The University of Pennsylvania has edited websites — or removed them altogether, notes Axios Philadelphia’s Mike D’Onofrio. Penn’s medical school is looking at cutting programs that help diversify its student body, The Philadelphia Inquirer reports.
  • The Ohio State University is shutting down two campus offices focused on DEI and cutting more than a dozen staff positions. It’s renaming the Office of Institutional Equity to the Office of Civil Rights Compliance.
  • Several colleges had already started cutting programs, shuttering cultural centers and changing up course catalogs even before Trump took office — either to prepare for the administration’s changes, or in response to state-level action.

Zoom out: DEI is making headlines, but the chaos is wider.

  • Stanford, MIT, Columbia and Vanderbilt are already freezing hiring or cutting back on the number of Ph.D. students they’ll accept as they hear of DOGE’s proposed cuts to federal medical research…”

See also New Ed. Dept. Guidance on Race and DEI Tells Colleges Which Programs It Might Consider Illegal Colleges got another signal over the weekend of how President Trump might crack down on identity-based programs and diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts. The Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights on Saturday issued a guidance document of “frequently asked questions about racial preferences and stereotypes” — describing the Trump administration’s interpretation of Title VI, the federal law barring discrimination in education based on race, color, and national origin… The Trump administration has repeatedly threatened to investigate colleges over DEI efforts. The Q&A builds on a bombshell Dear Colleague letter, issued February 14, asserting that the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling outlawing the consideration of race in college admissions should apply more broadly to other aspects of campus life. The letter gave colleges until Friday to come into compliance. The American Council on Education issued a statement last week on behalf of more than 60 higher-ed associations, asking the Education Department to rescind the Dear Colleague letter. “Efforts to build inclusive and diverse campus communities are neither discriminatory nor illegal,” Ted Mitchell, ACE’s president, said.


See also Business Wire: “The Chronicle of Higher Education today announced its updated DEI Legislation Tracker, which is following 49 bills in 23 states to restrict efforts to improve diversity, equity, and inclusion and prohibiting colleges from a range of DEI initiatives. Republican politicians in early 2023 launched an assault on colleges’ diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts to recruit and retain faculty and students of color. While college administrators say DEI efforts are an effective strategy to repair decades of exclusionary policies and practices that repelled people of color from their campuses, Republican leaders say the practices violate free speech, break anti-discrimination laws, and are a misuse of public money. Proposed rollbacks include prohibiting DEI offices and staff; banning mandatory diversity training; prohibiting institutions from using diversity statements in hiring and promotion; and prohibiting colleges from using race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in admissions or employment. The Chronicle identified bills from the 2023 and 2024 legislative sessions that would affect DEI efforts and supplemented those efforts by searching for relevant legislation covered by local media outlets. This is the most comprehensive analysis to date of Republican efforts to restrict DEI programs on college campuses. The bills vary in scope: some propose limited versions of the bans outlined in model legislation, while others cover far more ground. Several of the bills have drawn criticism from academics and defenders of academic freedom and diversity initiatives, although opinions – even on the same side of the political spectrum – vary on specific proposals, such as prohibiting diversity statements.”


Trump’s War on ‘Woke’ and DEI: Incubated by a Nazi Eugenics Foundation. Mainstream American conservative icons Christopher Rufo, Peter Boghossian, and Richard Hanania – who inspired Trump’s assault on diversity – were bankrolled by the funder of a Nazi eugenics foundation: “…An Influential Trio. This is not merely the culmination of years of ‘culture war’ campaigning by lobbying groups. As I explore in my book, Alt Reich: The Network War to Destroy the West From Within, the ‘war on woke’ has been shaped by an organisation harbouring direct ties to Nazi officials in Adolf Hitler’s regime.  This includes three of the American conservative movement’s most prominent critics of ‘diversity’: Peter Boghossian, Christopher Rufo, and Richard Hanania. Their ideas have had a huge influence on the Republican Party. And all of them are part of a nexus of organisations tied to an obscure but powerful Nazi eugenics foundation established in the 1930s. Documents dissected in Alt Reich reveal that Boghossian, Rufo, and Hanania have each been bankrolled by the top funder of this foundation. The same donor has financed several other major right-wing culture war organisations, white supremacist groups, and Holocaust denial platforms, illustrating ideological alignment between this Nazi-inspired worldview and the new conservative ‘war on woke’…”


Unprecedented Government Document Purge Begins in 2025

Beginning on January 20, 2025, a sweeping and unprecedented purge of government information and data from public access websites maintained by federal government agencies. This has happened for such data as climate, weather, environment, energy resources, health and medical and resources. Concurrently, the Trump administration has withdrawn from global climate initiatives, further undermining U.S. government engagement in climate research. Research, development and deployment of climate related applications, tools, services, resources and impactful monitoring capabilities had been fundamentally integrated into our country’s critical scientific infrastructure. Yet today we have no mechanism to respond to the lightning fast removal of taxpayer funded, mission focused climate science information from government sites, along with the deletion of thousands of datasets from repositories managed by federal government agencies, departments and government-sponsored enterprises. The cumulative cost of purging and discontinuing long standing collaborative government, academic and private sector funded climate and health related research is incalculable. The burden of the elimination of programs, jobs and services are immediate. This unilateral attack impacts all states, Red and Blue. See CRS Report, Current Federal Civilian Employment by State and Congressional District. Updated December 20, 2024. “The federal government employs more than 2 million civilians who live and work in every state and U.S. territory. This report provides a snapshot of recent statistics for U.S. government civilian employment in each state and territory, as well as estimates for how many civilian federal workers live in each congressional district. These figures do not include uniformed military personnel or federal contractors.”

As TruthOut stated about attacks on just one pivotal agency data repositories:

When DOGE barged into the offices of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency (NOAA) this week, the scrutiny from Musk’s unelected and unaccountable team added to fears that the collection of agencies the nation relies on to manage fisheries, track climate change, forecast hurricanes and issue severe weather warnings will be gutted and privatized under Trump. Musk reportedly staffed DOGE with young, inexperienced engineers from Silicon Valley.

On February 15, 2025, the Washington Post article See inside DOGE’s playbook for eliminating DEI [unpaywalled] detailed the systemic action plan to censor and purge publically available government documents, and immediately fire large numbers of federal government employees. The Post also published this companion article, Records show how DOGE planned Trump’s DEI purge — and who gets fired next. A DOGE team plans to fire federal workers who are not in DEI roles and employees in offices that protect equal rights, internal documents show. [unpaywalled]

Documents obtained by The Washington Post detail step-by-step plans the U.S. DOGE Service developed to purge federal agencies of diversity, equity, and inclusion workers and offices. DOGE, which stands for Department of Government Efficiency, aims next to target hundreds of non-DEI workers and what they called “corrupted branches” of offices required by law, which protect civil and employment rights. Reproduced below are selected portions of the documents, which were last edited in mid-January, and outline DOGE’s strategy from Day 1 to Day 180 of the administration. The plan is divided into three phases. Phase 1 focuses on rescissions of Biden administration executive orders related to DEI and shutting down targeted agencies. Phase 2 consists of placing on leave employees in non-DEI roles — who DOGE determines are somehow tied to DEI — as well as other employees working at offices whose existence is mandated by law. Phase 3 is slated to include large-scale firings, the documents show. The nation is now in DOGE’s Phase 2, which is scheduled to last until Wednesday, according to the documents..The ultimate goal is to fire all employees identified as doing DEI-related work, the documents make clear.

And Politico reported, “The layoffs are expected to intensify in the coming days and weeks, according to officials in the White House and across agencies, as additional agencies finalize workforce reduction plans.” The scope of firing federal government employees extends far beyond employees whose work is engaged with DEI and EEOC. Estimates of the number of illegally fired employees to date is 200,000 and includes: researchers, doctors, lawyers, financial experts, nuclear safety engineers, federal aviation administration employees, National Park Service employees, Treasury, IRS and Bureau of Fiscal service professionals responsible for America’s payment systems including Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Head Start, SNAP, and so many more.

It is important to clarify the facts now and repeatedly respective to illegal purges of government employees, their duties and work product. These factors are inexorably linked. DEI, science, climate and related research and jobs were the first targets. This administration, mimicked by much of media, claims that vested federal employees as well as employees with one or less years of federal employment at one specific agency, are layoffs or terminations for cause, or part of government wide reductions. To be clear, employees have not been terminated in accordance with federal law. The facts on firing federal employees are highlighted in this February 13, 2025 CRS In Focus paper, Reductions in Force (RIFs): An Overview. The timing and subject matter could be construed as an official effort to justify the law, process and procedure to “separate” federal employees. This paper, written by federal employee subject matter experts, at the direction of members of Congress, does none of these things:

In the federal government, layoffs are referred to as reduction in force (RIF) actions, as authorized under current law (5 U.S.C. §§3501-3504). When an agency eliminates positions, RIF regulations (contained in Title 5, Part 351, of the Code of Federal Regulations) “determine whether an employee keeps his or her present position, or whether the employee has a right to a different position.” The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is responsible for issuing guidance for agencies on RIF procedures. Since 2017, OPM’s Workforce Reshaping Operations Handbook has provided detailed guidance on the RIF process…” [Author’s Note – this Reshaping handbook was used as a basis for round one of the Trump administration illegal firing of federal employees in 2018. These events largely were unreported despite efforts by fired employees to seek redress and public accountability. During that time, a RIF took 4 months to complete per the process and procedures outlined in the ‘reshaping’ handbook. In contrast, this illegal firing spree is predicated upon immediate action, often within minutes of email or verbal receipt of notice of a firing notice.]

This administration is “firing the next generation of scientists from the US workforce.”

Award winning scientists previously hired by our government after a rigorous merit-based job application process were processing the impact of their illegal terminations today. These scientists were the next generation leaders of STEM in our country and the world. With years of experience and demonstrated track records of success in solving real world problems for growers and in managing human and livestock health problems, these individuals were running successful labs doing cutting edge research to protect our nation’s livestock and crops against pests, disease and noxious weeds. They had a stakeholder base who relied on them for deliverables. Probationary periods for these scientists is 3 years. Some were one year in, others almost three. These were not low productivity workers doing low productivity jobs. I know many of them personally for years as friends, mentees and collaborators. These are people who were working 100 hour + weeks for YEARS for no overtime pay, putting in what it takes to make it to the top – a scientist position in the U.S. Govt. These brilliant individuals were expected to simply walk away from a complex, multi-phasic research program that we hired them to develop by COB today. There was no discussion with the government’s intellectual property attorneys, no planning to continue the work on funded grants or other contracts, no chance to distribute biological collections to colleagues across the world. No time to discuss data management. There was no time for questions asked about papers or grant proposals that may be under review. There was no order or dignity to this process. The government ghosted the cream of the crop. Unbeknownst to them, these scientists were ineligible for the deferred resignation program all along. By the time a scientist advances in their career to the stage where they can run their own program, they have already benefitted from years of taxpayer investment in their training. They were at the point in their career where the taxpayers were getting a return on their investment. The impact of losing this talent cuts deep, well beyond the individuals who were fired today. Their postdocs, students and other trainees were left without a principal investigator and trusted mentor. Most scientists in these roles are in their 30s who endured years of personal sacrifice and low pay to have the kind of impact that makes them competitive for a federal scientist position.”

DOGE Hacks Protected Federal Government Data

Concurrently, the monumental cyber crimes associated with the purging, scrubbing and removal of these data are under reported. As technology and security experts Bruce Schneier and Davi Ottenheimer write in Foreign Policy Magazine, DOGE Is Hacking America, “The U.S. government has experienced what may be the most consequential security breach in its history.” The individuals tasked with entering our federal agencies to delete public data from government websites are not federal government employees, federal government contractors or legitimate federal government personnel on details. They have not been subject to FBI background checks, delivered financial disclosure reports, nor have they been employed using the merit based appointment or hiring process. Their identities, knowledge, skills and abilities (KSAs) were not provided to any career federal government employees including career supervisory personnel for review and approval to gain access to enterprise network systems. ‘DOGE staff, all from the private sector, were granted authority by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, styled as DOGE, to bypass all requisite government authorizations, policies and procedures. The actions by Musk and DOGE correspond to what is called ‘State Capture’ – when individuals or groups capture different pieces of the U.S. government and turn the state into a tool for wealth extraction. This state capture scenario includes self authorizing access to federal government agency servers, networks and data. The actions of DOGE constitute a cyberattack that has comprised the integrity and security of our nation’s vast data resources, the personal identifying information (PII) managed on the breached systems, and of our national security. Another cybercrime by DOGE occurred on February 14, 2025 when the site openly posted details about the headcount and budget for the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), an intelligence agency responsible for designing and maintaining U.S. intelligence satellites, on a public server, over which there is no authenticated oversight. The media and public response was muted at best.

Has America Become a Proto-authoritarian State

An overarching, detailed and substantive academic’s description of current events is found in this matrix for what are termed proto-authoritarian states. This is a real time road map for the rapid, systemic and unconstitutional dismantling of our system of separation of powers, the fundamental principle of democracy.

This reference is to the work of Professor Christina Pagel, Prof of Operational Research in Health Care, University College London [via Kottke.org] “who has mapped the actions of the Trump administration’s first few weeks into a Venn diagram with “five broad domains that correspond to features of proto-authoritarian states”:

  • Undermining Democratic Institutions & Rule of Law; Dismantling federal government
  • Dismantling Social Protections & Rights; Enrichment & Corruption
  • Suppressing Dissent & Controlling Information
  • Attacking Science, Environment, Health, Arts & Education
  • Aggressive Foreign Policy & Global Destabilization

This diagram is available as a PDF and the information is also contained in this categorized table. Links and commentary from Pagel can be found on Bluesky as well.”

Executive Order Empowers DOGE Censorship of Government Documents

In addition to hacking networks and purging data, there is a third objective tasked to the DOGE staff who have sweeping control government websites and data repositories. They have been directed to actively scan all federal government documents and webpages with the goal of deleting a long list of words and phrases now deemed illegal, by way of President Trump’s Executive Order on DEI, Ending Radical And Wasteful Government DEI Programs And Preferencing. The administration’s stated objective is to eliminate not only all DEI related programs, events and staffing, but to delete all DEI related descriptive language [metadata] across all government documents, including bios, job description, reports, research papers and presentations. This directive extends to all the language in documents, data, presentations, research, contracts, grants and contract documents, pertaining to climate and health sciences [including the words – “climate science,” “climate crisis,” “clean energy” and “pollution.”] [Note – This is what the law actually stipulates – 10 U.S. Code § 986 – Policy regarding identification of gender or personal pronouns in official correspondence – The Secretary of Defense may not require or prohibit a member of the armed forces or a civilian employee of the Department of Defense to identify the gender or personal pronouns of such member or employee in any official correspondence of the Department.] Examples of targeted biased words are: women, female, females, identity. Katrina Miller and Roni Caryn Rabin wrote in the New York Times, February 9, 2025: [m]any organizations initiated D.E.I. programs as a way to correct historical under representation in the sciences. According to one report, in 2021, just 35 percent of STEM employees were women, 9 percent were Black and less than 1 percent were Indigenous. “If we want to be the best country for the world in terms of science, we need to leverage our entire population to do so,” said Julie Posselt, an associate dean at the University of Southern California. D.E.I. programs, she added, “have ensured that the diverse population we have can make its way into the scientific work force.”

The wrecking ball tactic of threatening government agencies with firings and even closure, was deployed at the Department of Education, which was forced to direct schools to eliminate all race-based programs and hiring within two weeks. Failure to comply will result in the loss of federal funding.

The Department will no longer tolerate the overt and covert racial discrimination that has become widespread in this Nation’s educational institutions. The law is clear: treating students differently on the basis of race to achieve nebulous goals such as diversity, racial balancing, social justice, or equity is illegal under controlling Supreme Court precedent.

The immediate impact of the strategy of expunging science data, ordering an end to public and private DEI initiatives is to completely obstruct and specifically obstruct the ongoing work of women, persons of color, young scholars of color and indigenous persons in STEM research, and also to delete access to their work. The impact of these actions remain largely muted by the daily “flood the zone with shit” strategy touted by Trump loyalist and strategist Steven K. Bannon. The tactic is now emphatically employed by DOGE and Trump, based in large part on the well publicized Project 2025 Text: Mandate for Leadership (searchable). Stephen Miller, the deputy White House chief of staff for policy, wields this tactic in his role as lead actor in pursuing the imposition of the Trump agenda to destroy norms, standards, and legal guardrails, and to bestow this president sole power over all branches of the federal government.

Big Banks and Big Tech Are Scrubbing Their Public Mentions of DEI

The broad scale objectives of the Trump anti DEI directive quickly extended beyond the federal government into the corporate sector. The Wall Street Journal reported “Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan, Citigroup and others start to remove or water down language to avoid possible litigation and federal probes.” [Note – unpaywalled access to this article available via MSN]

U.S. banks are scaling back their public support for diversity and inclusion to avoid winding up in the crosshairs of a legal landscape increasingly hostile toward it.Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase and Citigroup are removing or watering down public language around efforts to promote or support diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, according to people familiar with the matter. Wells Fargo and Bank of America have also started to pore over their language, some of the people said. The moves mark the beginning of a pullback from Wall Street’s push into DEI, according to bank executives and lawyers, which came after the 2020 protests over the death of George Floyd, a Black man murdered by police. The banks are joining a retreat by many other big companies that have dialed back similar efforts, including Ford, McDonald’s and Walmart. Tech giants such as Meta Platforms and Alphabet’s Google have done so, too.

Several additional examples of corporate America aligning with the government purge of DEI: “Federal Communications Chair Brendan Carr is seeking to open an investigation into Comcast and NBCUniversal’s diversity, equity, and inclusion programs for potential violations of equal employment opportunity laws, Newsmax has learned…” And as reported by Business Insider, “Disney and Goldman Sachs are two of the latest firms to pull a U-turn on programs and pledges previously made supporting DEI initiatives in recent years. Disney’s chief human resources officer Sonia Coleman told employees in a memo that its DEI efforts were shifting to support business goals and company values. (You can read the full memo here.) That includes DEI’s less prominent role in evaluating executive compensation and scrapping a digital hub for amplifying underrepresented voices…As for Goldman, the Wall Street powerhouse is ditching its 2021 policy that required IPO clients to have at least two diverse board members…” And CBS News reported, “Google’s online calendar has removed default references for a handful of holidays and cultural events — with users noticing that mentions of Pride and Black History Month, as well as other observances, no longer appear in their desktop and mobile applications….But social media users and product experts posting to online community boards have pointed to several holidays and cultural observances that they’re not seeing anymore. In addition to the first days of Pride Month and Black History Month, that includes the start of Indigenous Peoples Month and Hispanic Heritage Month, as well as Holocaust Remembrance Day…”

Capitulating in Advance and the Disappearing Data Tactic

The Trump authorized and DOGE executed ‘Disappearing Data’ tactic has a counter balance in Timothy Snyder’s dictum, Do Not Obey in Advance. Marie Snyder, in her article, Stand Out: How to Prevent Obeying in Advance, advises that we should read and understand the first chapter of his 2017 book, On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century. Obeying in advance describes the current response of major national organizations, institutions and groups, in public, private, academic and military sectors, who have demonstrated immediate capitulation, without hesitation, to directions by Trump and DOGE. Many of these edicts are the subject of litigation, and in a number of cases, under order to pause and or reverse and replace, for example, purged website data. One such example is – UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DOCTORS FOR AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 25-322 (JDB) – OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT et al., Defendants. Case 1:25-cv-00322-JDB Document 11 Filed 02/11/25 Page 1 of 2. ORDER Upon consideration of [6] Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order, [8] Plaintiff’s supplemental declarations, [9] Defendants’ opposition, [10] Plaintiff’s reply, the hearing on February 10, 2025, and the entire record herein, and for the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby ORDERED that 1. Defendants Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Disease Control, and Food and Drug Administration (hereinafter “defendants”) shall, by not later than 11:59 pm on February 11, 2025, restore to their versions as of January 30, 2025, each webpage and dataset identified by Plaintiff on pages 6–12 of its Memorandum of Law in Support of the Motion for a Restraining Order [ECF No. 6-1]; 2. Defendants shall, in consultation with Plaintiff, identify any other resources that DFA members rely on to provide medical care and that defendants removed or substantially modified on or after January 29, 2025, without adequate notice or reasoned explanation; and defendants shall, by February 14, 2025, restore those resources to their versions as of January 30, 2025.

But as Popular Information wrote on February 11, 2025

The Trump administration is still prohibiting National Institutes of Health (NIH) staff from issuing virtually all grant funding, an NIH official tells Popular Information. The ongoing funding freeze is also reflected in internal correspondence reviewed by Popular Information and was reiterated to staff in a meeting on Monday. The funding freeze at NIH violates two federal court injunctions, two legal experts said. The funding freeze at NIH puts all of the research the agency funds at risk. As the primary funder of biomedical research in the United States, NIH-funded research includes everything from cancer treatments to heart disease prevention to stroke interventions. On January 27, the Trump administration, through the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), issued a memo requiring federal agencies to “temporarily pause all activities related to obligation or disbursement of all Federal financial assistance,” including “grants and loans” beginning at 5 PM on January 28. The purpose of the spending freeze was to ensure compliance with President Trump’s Executive Orders prohibiting funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion, or “DEI,” and “woke gender ideology. The Trump administration quickly faced two federal lawsuits, one filed by the National Council of Nonprofits and another filed by 22 states. On January 28, a judge in he National Council of Nonprofits case issued an administrative stay preventing the funding freeze from going into effect. In an attempt to head off the litigation, the OMB rescinded the memo on January 29. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, however, posted on X that the memo was only rescinded to evade the court’s order and the “federal funding freeze” was not rescinded and would be “rigorously implemented.” As the US government removes health websites and data, here’s a list of non-government data alternatives and archives..

On February 12, 2025, Popular Information reported, “NIH leadership distributed a memo, obtained by Popular Information, acknowledging that its funding freeze was illegal and directing staff to resume issuing grants. The memo was written by Michael Lauer, the NIH Deputy Director for Extramural Research, and Michelle Bulls, the NIH Chief Grants Officer. It states that the NIH will “effectuate the administration’s goals over time,” but such considerations cannot factor “into funding decisions at this time.” The memo acknowledges that NIH programs “fall under recently issued Temporary Restraining Orders” by federal courts…” Although this is positive news, it is likely only a very temporary rollback of the ban on research grant funding. Court orders such as these have been ignored, and in other cases, announcements have been delayed resulting in critical gaps in funding and scholarship. Along with the document purges, updates highlight the Trump administration to fire thousands at health agencies.

Judd Legum @juddlegum.bsky.social‬ – UPDATE February 12, 2025: A purge of experienced career staff has begun at NIH. The staff was just informed that Deputy Director Lawrence Tabak, who has worked at NIH for 25 years is “retiring.” Grant funding remains frozen, in violation of two federal court orders.

Dear Colleagues, With gratitude for his strong leadership and commitment, I announce National Institutes of Health (NIH) Principal Deputy Director Lawrence A. Tabak, D.D.S., Ph.D., retired from federal service effective Feb. 11, 2025, after 25 years of service. Dr. Tabak has held critical NIH leadership roles since 2000, most notably in his current role as the second in command since August 2010, and two years as the Acting NIH Director from December 2021-November 2023. He has helped shape important policy decisions at NIH over four administrations. He has guided NIH through complex issues and will be sorely missed.

Government Sponsored Science and Medical Research Compromised

For at least the upcoming four years, America’s ongoing public research and reporting in the sciences, health and medicine will be curtailed. Our country’s research matrix is indelibly interconnected between government and private industry. The impact of the suppression and cessation of government privately funded publications in the fields of medicine, health and sciences will have a calamitous and multi faceted impact on our country, and the world. The immediate response focuses on initiatives to archive all current research and data that has been purged. In addition, there are efforts to shift government sponsored research to the sponsorship of non government funded organizations in the U.S., as well as partners abroad. America may well not be the leader in research and development in the sciences and medicine moving forward. This outcome can be somewhat mitigated if the American public, Congress, the courts, and media acknowledge and engage with the ramifications of Trump’s sweeping campaign of censoring democracy, scholarship, and deleting entire federal agencies. Groups on local and national levels are considering what actions as citizens they can and must exercise in the forthcoming days and months.

Conclusion

Since January 20, 2025 America has been catapulted into an unimaginable inflection point. Do we stand by and submit to the real time dismemberment of our democratic institutions and the mass dismissal of federal employees who work to provide the American public with vital services, or do we choose to defend our democratic government, and the protection and promotion of our collective rights, interests, and welfare? There has as yet been little more than tactic acknowledgement by Congress, the American people, and media in response to the Trump and DOGE attacks against our government that clearly and unequivocally violate the rule of law, and seek as its replacement the ‘law of the ruler(s).’

Those Who Have Stood Up – To Help

For the tens of thousands of federal employees who have been fired, there is a new site, Fed Layoffs, A caring community resource to help federal employees navigate their next chapter. You’re not alone in this journey. [We are not selling anything, we just want to help]

 And see also this continuously updated GoogleDoc – Crowdsourcing advice for federal employee

Posted in: Climate Change, Constitutional Law, CRS Reports, Cybercrime, Cybersecurity, Digital Archives, Economy, Education, Ethics, Financial System, Government Resources, Healthcare, Legal Research, Privacy, United States Law