Trump

trump-admin-defiles-even-the-“out-of-office”-email-auto-reply

Trump admin defiles even the “out of office” email auto-reply

Well—not “Democrats,” exactly, but “Democrat Senators.” The use of the noun “Democrat” as an adjective (e.g., “the Democrat Party”) is a long-standing and deliberate right-wing refusal to call the opposition by its name. (If you visit the Democrats’ website, the very first words below the site header are “We are the Democratic Party”; the party is run by the “Democratic National Committee.”) Petty? Sure! But that’s a feature, not a bug.

Similar out-of-office suggestions have been made to employees at the Small Business Administration and the Department of Health and Human Services. Such messages appear to be violations of the Hatch Act, which prohibits partisan speech from most executive branch employees while they are on duty, since these people represent and work for all Americans.

The Office of Special Counsel, which is supposed to prosecute violations of the Hatch Act, notes in a training flyer that most executive branch workers “may not engage in political activity—i.e., activity directed at the success or failure of a political party.”

Employees may also not “use any e-mail account or social media to distribute, send, or forward content that advocates for or against a partisan political party.”

When asked about its suggested out-of-office message blaming Democrats, the Department of Health and Human Services told CNN that yes, it had suggested this—but added that this was okay because the partisan message was accurate.

“Employees were instructed to use out-of-office messages that reflect the truth: Democrats have shut the government down,” the agency said.

Truly, as even a sitting Supreme Court justice has noted, the “rule of law” has now become “Calvinball.”

Websites, too

Department websites have also gotten in on the partisan action. The Department of Housing and Urban Development’s site now loads with a large floating box atop the page, which reads, “The Radical Left in Congress shut down the government.” When you close the box, you see atop the main page itself an eye-searingly red banner that says… the same thing. Thanks, I think we got it!

Trump admin defiles even the “out of office” email auto-reply Read More »

the-ai-slop-drops-right-from-the-top,-as-trump-posts-vulgar-deepfake-of-opponents

The AI slop drops right from the top, as Trump posts vulgar deepfake of opponents

AI poses an obvious danger to the millennia-long human fight to find the truth. Large language model “hallucinations,” vocal deepfakes, and now increased use of video deepfakes have all had a blurring effect on facts, letting bad actors around the globe brush off even recorded events as mere “fake news.”

The danger is perhaps most acute in the political realm, where deepfake audio and video can make any politician say or appear to do anything. In such a climate, our most senior elected officials have a special duty to model truth-seeking behavior and responsible AI use.

But what’s the fun in that, when you can just blow up negotiations over a budget impasse by posting a deepfake video of your political opponents calling themselves “a bunch of woke pieces of shit” while mariachi music plays in the background? Oh—and did I mention the fake mustache? Or the CGI sombrero?

On Monday night, the president of the United States, a man with access to the greatest intelligence-gathering operation in the world, posted to his Truth Social account a 35-second AI-generated video filled with crude insults, racial overtones, and bizarre conspiracy theories. The video targeted two Democratic leaders who had recently been meeting with Trump over a possible agreement to fund the government; I would have thought this kind of video was a pretty poor way to get people to agree with you, but, apparently, AI-generated insults are the real “art of the deal.”

In the clip, a deepfake version of Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) utters a surreal monologue as his colleague Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) looks on… in a sombrero.

The AI slop drops right from the top, as Trump posts vulgar deepfake of opponents Read More »

in-2022,-the-world-axed-a-disease-name-seen-as-racist-us-just-switched-back.

In 2022, the world axed a disease name seen as racist. US just switched back.

Switching names

In November 2022, the WHO decided to change the name. The United Nations health agency noted that it had received reports from individuals and countries about the “racist and stigmatizing language online, in other settings, and in some communities.” The WHO decided to switch to the name “mpox” with a one-year grace period.

The agency also clarified its authority to make such a change, saying: “Assigning names to new and, very exceptionally, to existing diseases is the responsibility of WHO under the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) and the WHO Family of International Health Related Classifications through a consultative process which includes WHO Member States.”

The WHO does not, however, have the authority to change the names of viruses. That power belongs to the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses, which has not changed the name of the virus.

While the virus remains the same, the world has shifted to using mpox to discuss the disease. The US CDC followed suit, changing its websites and health information to use the new name.

This month, however, the CDC reverted to monkeypox. The change was first reported by NPR. When journalists have asked about the change, the Department of Health and Human Services (which includes the CDC) has responded only by saying “Monkeypox is the name of the viral disease caused by the monkeypox virus,” which is not accurate.

In 2022, the world axed a disease name seen as racist. US just switched back. Read More »

anti-vaccine-allies-cheer-as-trump-claims-shots-have-“too-much-liquid”

Anti-vaccine allies cheer as Trump claims shots have “too much liquid”


Why babies don’t pop like water balloons when they get vaccines—and other info for Trump.

President Donald Trump, flanked by senior health officials, speaks during a news conference on September 22, 2025 inside the Roosevelt Room at The White House in Washington. Credit: Getty | Tom Brenner

When the bar is set at suggesting that people inject bleach into their veins, it’s hard to reach a new low. But in a deranged press event on autism Monday evening, President Trump seemed to go for it—sharing “rumors” and his “strong feelings” not just on Tylenol but also his bonkers views on childhood vaccines.

Trump was there with his health secretary, anti-vaccine activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr., to link autism to the use of Tylenol (acetaminophen) during pregnancy. While medical experts condemn the claim as unproven and dangerous (which it is), Kennedy’s anti-vaccine followers decried it as a distraction from their favored false and dangerous explanation—that vaccines cause autism (they don’t).

Pinning the blame on Tylenol instead of vaccines enraged Kennedy’s own anti-vaccine organization, Children’s Health Defense. In the run-up to the event Monday evening, CHD retweeted an all-caps defense of Tylenol, and CHD President Mary Holland called the announcement a “sideshow” in an interview with Steve Bannon.

But fear not. The rift was short-lived, as their big feelings were soothed mere minutes into Monday’s event. After smearing Tylenol, the president’s unscripted remarks quickly veered into an incoherent rant linking vaccines to autism as well.

At one point in his comments, he rattled off a list of anti-vaccine activists’ most vilified vaccine components (mercury and aluminum). But his attack largely ignored the content of vaccines and instead surprisingly focused on volume. Overall, his comments were incoherent, but again and again, he seemed to swirl back to this bizarre concern.

Wut?

If you piece together Trump’s sentence- and thought-fragments, his comments created a horrifying picture of what he thinks childhood vaccinations look like:

They pump so much stuff into those beautiful little babies. It’s a disgrace. I don’t see it. I think it is very bad. They’re pumping. It looks like they’re pumping into a horse. You have a little child, little fragile child, and you get a vat of 80 different vaccines, I guess, 80 different blends and they pump it in.

It seemed that Trump’s personal solution to this imagined problem is to space out and delay vaccines so they are not given at one time:

Break it up because it’s too much liquid. Too many different things are going into that baby at too big a number. The size of this thing, when you look at it, it’s like 80 different vaccines and beyond vaccines and 80. Then you give that to a little kid.

From Trump’s loony descriptions, you might be imagining an evil cartoon doctor wielding a bazooka-sized syringe and cackling maniacally while injecting a baby with a vat’s worth of 80 different vaccines until it inflates like a water balloon ready to burst.

But this cuckoo take is not how childhood vaccinations go in routine well-baby doctor’s visits. First, most vaccines have a volume of 0.5 milliliters, which is about a tenth of a teaspoon. And babies and children do not get 80 different vaccines ever, let alone at one time. In fact, no recommendations would see anyone get 80 different types of vaccines cumulatively.

By age 18, it’s recommended that people get vaccinated against 17 diseases, including seasonal flu and COVID-19. And some vaccines are combination shots, knocking out three or four diseases with one injection, such as the measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) vaccine or the Diphtheria, tetanus, & acellular pertussis (DTaP) vaccine. And again, even those combination shots are 0.5 mL total.

Modern vaccines

Trump’s claim of 80 vaccines doesn’t even stand up when you count vaccine doses rather than different vaccines. Some childhood vaccines require multiple doses—MMR is given in two doses, and DTaP is a five-dose series, for example. According to current recommendations, by age 18, kids should have 36 vaccine doses against childhood diseases. If you add in a flu shot every year, that’s 54 doses. If you add in a COVID-19 vaccine every year, that’s 72.

While 72 might seem like a big number, again, that’s spread out over 18 years and includes seasonal shots. And medical experts point to another key fact—the vaccines that children get today are much more streamlined and efficient than vaccines of yore. A helpful myth-busting info sheet from experts with Yale’s School of Public Health points out that in the mid-1980s, children under age 2 were vaccinated against seven diseases, but those old-school vaccines included more than 3,000 germ components that can spur immune responses (aka antigens). Today, children under age 2 get vaccinated against 15 diseases, but today’s more sophisticated vaccine designs include just 180 antigens, making the protection more targeted and reducing the risk of errant immune responses.

In all, the facts should dash any worries of nefarious doctors inflating children with vast volumes of noxious concoctions. But for those who may hew closely to the cautionary principle, Trump’s “space the shots out” plan may still seem reasonable. It’s not.

At most, children might get five or six vaccines at one time. But again, the number of antigens in those shots is far lower than those in vaccines children received decades ago. And the number of antigens in those vaccines is just a fraction of the number kids are exposed to every day just from their environments. If you’ve ever watched a kindergartener touch every surface and object in a classroom and then shove their fingers in their nose and mouth, you understand the point.

Vaccinations don’t overwhelm children’s immune systems. And there’s no evidence that spacing them out avoids any of the very small risks they pose.

Data against dogma

After Trump shared his personal feelings about vaccines, the American Academy of Pediatrics rushed to release a statement, first refuting any link between vaccines and autism and then warning against spacing out vaccine doses.

“Pediatricians know firsthand that children’s immune systems perform better after vaccination against serious, contagious diseases like polio, measles, whooping cough, and hepatitis B,” the AAP said. “Spacing out or delaying vaccines means children will not have immunity against these diseases at times when they are most at risk.”

Such messages make no impact on the impervious dogma of anti-vaccine activists, of course. While medical experts and organizations like AAP scrambled to combat the misinformation and assure pregnant people and parents that Tylenol was still safe and vaccines don’t cause autism, anti-vaccine activists cheered Trump’s comments.

“We knew today was going to be about acetaminophen,” CHD President Mary Holland said, speaking on Bannon’s podcast again after the event. “We didn’t know if he’d touch on vaccines—and he was all over it. It was an amazing, amazing speech.

“I’m happy to say he basically gave parents permission not to vaccinate their kids—and definitely not to take Tylenol.”

In a new pop-up message on Tylenol’s website, the maker of the common pain reliever and fever reducer pushed back on Trump’s feelings.

Tylenol is one of the most studied medications in history–and is safe when used as directed by expecting mothers, infants, and children.

The facts remain unchanged: over a decade of rigorous research, endorsed by leading medical professionals, confirm there is no credible evidence linking acetaminophen to autism.

The same is true for vaccines.

Photo of Beth Mole

Beth is Ars Technica’s Senior Health Reporter. Beth has a Ph.D. in microbiology from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and attended the Science Communication program at the University of California, Santa Cruz. She specializes in covering infectious diseases, public health, and microbes.

Anti-vaccine allies cheer as Trump claims shots have “too much liquid” Read More »

supreme-court-chief-justice-lets-trump-fire-ftc-democrat,-at-least-for-now

Supreme Court Chief Justice lets Trump fire FTC Democrat, at least for now

1935 Supreme Court is key precedent

The key precedent in the case is Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, a 1935 ruling in which the Supreme Court unanimously held that the president can only remove FTC commissioners for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office. Trump’s termination notices to Slaughter and Bedoya said they were being fired simply because their presence on the commission “is inconsistent with my Administration’s priorities.”

The Trump administration argues that Humphrey’s Executor shouldn’t apply to the current version of the FTC because it exercises significant executive power. But the appeals court, in a 2-1 ruling, said “the present-day Commission exercises the same powers that the Court understood it to have in 1935 when Humphrey’s Executor was decided.”

“The government has no likelihood of success on appeal given controlling and directly on point Supreme Court precedent,” the panel majority said.

But while the government was found to have no likelihood of success in the DC Circuit appeals court, its chances are presumably much better in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court previously stayed District Court decisions in cases involving Trump’s removal of Democrats from the National Labor Relations Board, the Merit Systems Protection Board, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission.

In a 2020 decision involving the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the court said in a footnote that its 1935 “conclusion that the FTC did not exercise executive power has not withstood the test of time.” If the Supreme Court ultimately rules in favor of Trump, it could throw out the Humphrey’s Executor ruling or clarify it in a way that makes it inapplicable to the FTC.

But Humphrey’s Executor is still a binding precedent, Slaughter’s opposition to the administrative stay said. “This Court should not grant an administrative stay where the court below simply ‘follow[ed] the case which directly controls,’ as it was required to do,” the Slaughter filing said.

Supreme Court Chief Justice lets Trump fire FTC Democrat, at least for now Read More »

congress-and-trump-may-compromise-on-the-sls-rocket-by-axing-its-costly-upper-stage

Congress and Trump may compromise on the SLS rocket by axing its costly upper stage

There are myriad questions about how NASA’s budget process will play out in the coming weeks, with the start of the new fiscal year on October 1 looming.

For example, the Trump administration may seek to shut off dozens of science missions that are either already in space or in development. Although Congress has signaled a desire to keep these missions active, absent a confirmed budget, the White House has made plans to turn off the lights.

Some answers may be forthcoming this week, as the House Appropriations Committee will take up the Commerce, Justice, and Science budget bill on Wednesday morning. However great uncertainty remains about whether there will be a budget passed by October 1 (unlikely), a continuing resolution, or a government shutdown.

Behind the scenes, discussions are also taking place about NASA’s Artemis Program in general and the future of the Space Launch System rocket specifically.

$4 billion a launch is too much

From the beginning, the second Trump administration has sought to cancel the costly, expendable rocket. Some officials wanted to end the rocket immediately,  but eventually the White House decided to push for cancellation after Artemis III. This seemed prudent because it allowed the United States the best possible chance to land humans back on the Moon before China got there, and then transition to a more affordable lunar program as quickly as possible.

Congress, particularly US Sen. Ted. Cruz, R-Texas, was not amenable. And so, in supplemental funding as part of the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” Cruz locked in billions of dollars to ensure that Artemis IV and Artemis V flew on the SLS rocket, with the promise of additional missions.

Since the release of its budget proposal in May, which called for an end to the SLS rocket after Artemis III, the White House has largely been silent, offering no response to Congress. However that changed last week, when interim NASA Administrator Sean Duffy addressed the issue on a podcast hosted by one of the agency’s public relations officials, Gary Jordan:

Congress and Trump may compromise on the SLS rocket by axing its costly upper stage Read More »

trump-admin-issues-stop-work-order-for-offshore-wind-project

Trump admin issues stop-work order for offshore wind project

In a statement to Politico’s E&E News days after the order was lifted in May, the White House claimed that Hochul “caved” and struck an agreement to allow “two natural gas pipelines to advance” through New York.

Hochul denied that any such deal was made.

Trump has made no effort to conceal his disdain for wind power and other renewable energies, and his administration has actively sought to stymie growth in the industry while providing what critics have described as “giveaways” to fossil fuels.

In a Truth Social post on Wednesday, Trump called wind and solar energy the “SCAM OF THE CENTURY,” criticizing states that have built and rely on them for power.

“We will not approve wind or farmer destroying Solar,” Trump wrote. “The days of stupidity are over in the USA!!!”

On Trump’s first day in office, the president issued a memorandum halting approvals, permits, leases, and loans for both offshore and onshore wind projects.

The GOP also targeted wind energy in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, accelerating the phaseout of tax credits for wind and solar projects while mandating lease sales for fossil fuels and making millions of acres of federal land available for mining.

The administration’s subsequent consideration of rules to further restrict access to tax credits for wind and solar projects alarmed even some Republicans, prompting Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley and Utah Sen. John Curtis to place holds on Treasury nominees as they awaited the department’s formal guidance.

Those moves have rattled the wind industry and created uncertainty about the viability of ongoing and future projects.

“The unfortunate message to investors is clear: the US is no longer a reliable place for long-term energy investments,” said the American Clean Power Association, a trade association, in a statement on Friday.

To Kathleen Meil, local clean energy deployment director at the League of Conservation Voters, that represents a loss not only for the environment but also for the US economy.

“It’s really easy to think about the visible—the 4,200 jobs across all phases of development that you see… They’ve hit more than 2 million union work hours on Revolution Wind,” Meil said.

“But what’s also really transformational is that it’s already triggered $1.3 billion in investment through the supply chain. So it’s not just coastal communities that are benefiting from these jobs,” she said.

“This hurts so many people. And why? There’s just no justification.”

This article originally appeared on Inside Climate News, a nonprofit, non-partisan news organization that covers climate, energy, and the environment. Sign up for their newsletter here.

Trump admin issues stop-work order for offshore wind project Read More »

new-executive-order-puts-all-grants-under-political-control

New executive order puts all grants under political control

On Thursday, the Trump administration issued an executive order asserting political control over grant funding, including all federally supported research. The order requires that any announcement of funding opportunities be reviewed by the head of the agency or someone they designate, which means a political appointee will have the ultimate say over what areas of science the US funds. Individual grants will also require clearance from a political appointee and “must, where applicable, demonstrably advance the President’s policy priorities.”

The order also instructs agencies to formalize the ability to cancel previously awarded grants at any time if they’re considered to “no longer advance agency priorities.” Until a system is in place to enforce the new rules, agencies are forbidden from starting new funding programs.

In short, the new rules would mean that all federal science research would need to be approved by a political appointee who may have no expertise in the relevant areas, and the research can be canceled at any time if the political winds change. It would mark the end of a system that has enabled US scientific leadership for roughly 70 years.

We’re in control

The text of the executive order recycles prior accusations the administration has used to justify attacks on the US scientific endeavor: Too much money goes to pay for the facilities and administrative staff that universities provide researchers; grants have gone to efforts to diversify the scientific community; some studies can’t be replicated; and there have been instances of scientific fraud. Its “solution” to these problems (some of which are real), however, is greater control of the grant-making process by non-expert staff appointed by the president.

In general, the executive order inserts a layer of political control over both the announcement of new funding opportunities and the approval of individual grants. It orders the head of every agency that issues grants—meaning someone appointed by the president—to either make funding decisions themselves, or to designate another senior appointee to do it on their behalf. That individual will then exert control over whether any funding announcements or grants can move forward. Decisions will also require “continuation of existing coordination with OMB [Office of Management and Budget].” The head of OMB, Russell Vought, has been heavily involved in trying to cut science funding, including a recent attempt to block all grants made by the National Institutes of Health.

New executive order puts all grants under political control Read More »

trump-claims-europe-won’t-make-big-tech-pay-isps;-eu-says-it-still-might

Trump claims Europe won’t make Big Tech pay ISPs; EU says it still might

We asked the White House and European Commission for more details today and will update this article with any new information.

If the White House fact sheet’s reference to network usage fees has at least some truth to it, it may refer only to a tentative agreement between Trump and von der Leyen. The overall trade deal, which includes a 15 percent cap on tariffs for most EU exports into the US, is not final, as the European Commission pointed out in its announcement.

“The political agreement of 27 July 2025 is not legally binding,” a European Commission announcement said. “Beyond taking the immediate actions committed, the EU and the US will further negotiate, in line with their relevant internal procedures, to fully implement the political agreement.”

Big Tech hopeful that usage fees are dead

The European Union government sought public input on network fees in 2023, drawing opposition from US tech companies and the Biden administration. While European ISPs pushed for new fees from online companies that accounted for over 5 percent of average peak traffic, the Biden administration said the plan “could reinforce the dominant market position of the largest operators… give operators a new bottleneck over customers, raise costs for end users,” and undermine net neutrality.

As tech industry analyst Dean Bubley wrote today, the White House statement on network usage fees is vague, and “the devil is in the detail here.” One thing to watch out for, he said, is whether Europe prohibits back-door methods of charging network usage fees, such as having the government regulate disputes over IP interconnection.

Bubley speculated that the EC might have “received a boatload of negative feedback” about network usage fees in a recent public consultation on the Digital Networks Act and that the trade deal provides “a nice, Trump-shaped excuse to boot out the whole idea, which in any case had huge internal flaws and contradictions—and specifically worked against the EU’s own objectives in having a robust AI industry, which I’d wager is seen in Brussels as much more important.”

Trump claims Europe won’t make Big Tech pay ISPs; EU says it still might Read More »

trump’s-claims-of-a-coca-cola-agreement-quickly-go-flat-as-nutritionists-groan

Trump’s claims of a Coca-Cola agreement quickly go flat as nutritionists groan

The cloying praise for the still-unconfirmed switch that Coca-Cola has, in fact, not announced was doused with some cold reality from Coca-Cola. While continuing not to confirm the agreement, the soda maker seemed to respond to the “artificial” bit in Fox’s post, saying that HFCS is “just a sweetener made from corn. It’s safe; it has about the same number of calories per serving as table sugar and is metabolized in a similar way by your body.”

The beverage maker also said that the American Medical Association “confirmed that HFCS is no more likely to contribute to obesity than table sugar or other full-calorie sweeteners.”

A 2008 report from the AMA concluded that “Because the composition of HFCS and sucrose are so similar, particularly on absorption by the body, it appears unlikely that HFCS contributes more to obesity or other conditions than sucrose.” Though the medical association noted a lack of research directly comparing the sweeteners.

While political critics suggest that the fizzy Coke fuss is just a distraction from the president’s ongoing Epstein file scandal, health experts are shaking their heads.

Nutrition expert Marion Nestle, professor emeritus at New York University, told Stat News that the push for cane sugar, just like the push to remove artificial dyes from processed foods, was “nutritionally hilarious.” Whether Coke is sweetened with cane sugar or HFCS, it still contains the equivalent of about 10 teaspoons of sugar per 12-ounce can and poses risks for conditions such as Type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. “It’s the kind of thing that makes nutritionists roll their eyes, because it doesn’t make any difference,” Nestle said.

Trump’s claims of a Coca-Cola agreement quickly go flat as nutritionists groan Read More »

court-rules-trump-broke-us-law-when-he-fired-democratic-ftc-commissioner

Court rules Trump broke US law when he fired Democratic FTC commissioner

“Without removal protections, that independence would be jeopardized… Accordingly, the Court held that the FTC Act’s for-cause removal protections were constitutional,” wrote AliKhan, who was appointed to the District Court by President Biden in 2023.

Judge: Facts almost identical to 1935 case

The Supreme Court reaffirmed its Humphrey’s Executor findings in cases decided in 2010 and 2020, AliKhan wrote. “Humphrey’s Executor remains good law today. Over the span of ninety years, the Supreme Court has declined to revisit or overrule it,” she wrote. Congress has likewise not disturbed FTC commissioners’ removal protection, and “thirteen Presidents have acquiesced to its vitality,” she wrote.

AliKhan said the still-binding precedent clearly supports Slaughter’s case against Trump. “The answer to the key substantive question in this case—whether a unanimous Supreme Court decision about the FTC Act’s removal protections applies to a suit about the FTC Act’s removal protections—seems patently obvious,” AliKhan wrote. “In arguing for a different result, Defendants ask this court to ignore the letter of Humphrey’s Executor and embrace the critiques from its detractors.”

The 1935 case and the present case are similar in multiple ways, the judge wrote. “Humphrey’s Executor involved the exact same provision of the FTC Act that Ms. Slaughter seeks to enforce here: the for-cause removal protection within 15 U.S.C. § 41 prohibiting any termination except for ‘inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office,'” she wrote.

The “facts almost identically mirror those of Humphrey’s Executor,” she continued. In both Roosevelt’s removal of Humphrey and Trump’s removal of Slaughter, the president cited disagreements in priorities and “did not purport to base the removal on inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance.”

Trump and fellow defendants assert that the current FTC is much different from the 1935 version of the body, saying it now “exercises significant executive power.” That includes investigating and prosecuting violations of federal law, administratively adjudicating claims itself, and issuing rules and regulations to prevent unfair business practices.

Court rules Trump broke US law when he fired Democratic FTC commissioner Read More »

judge:-you-can’t-ban-dei-grants-without-bothering-to-define-dei

Judge: You can’t ban DEI grants without bothering to define DEI

Separately, Trump v. Casa blocked the use of a national injunction against illegal activity. So, while the government’s actions have been determined to be illegal, Young can only protect the people who were parties to this suit. Anyone who lost a grant but wasn’t a member of any of the parties involved, or based in any of the states that sued, remains on their own.

Those issues aside, the ruling largely focuses on whether the termination of grants violates the Administrative Procedures Act, which governs how the executive branch handles decision- and rule-making. Specifically, it requires that any decisions of this sort cannot be “arbitrary and capricious.” And, Young concludes that the government hasn’t cleared that bar.

Arbitrary and capricious

The grant cancellations, Young concludes, “Arise from the NIH’s newly minted war against undefined concepts of diversity, equity, and inclusion and gender identity, that has expanded to include vaccine hesitancy, COVID, influencing public opinion and climate change.” The “undefined” aspect plays a key part in his reasoning. Referring to DEI, he writes, “No one has ever defined it to this Court—and this Court has asked multiple times.” It’s not defined in Trump’s executive order that launched the “newly minted war,” and Young found that administrators within the NIH issued multiple documents that attempted to define it, not all of which were consistent with each other, and in some cases seemed to use circular reasoning.

He also noted that the officials who sent these memos had a tendency to resign shortly afterward, writing, “it is not lost on the Court that oftentimes people vote with their feet.”

As a result, the NIH staff had no solid guidance for determining whether a given grant violated the new anti-DEI policy, or how that might be weighed against the scientific merit of the grant. So, how were they to identify which grants needed to be terminated? The evidence revealed at trial indicates that they didn’t need to make those decisions; DOGE made them for the NIH. In one case, an NIH official approved a list of grants to terminate received from DOGE only two minutes after it showed up in his inbox.

Judge: You can’t ban DEI grants without bothering to define DEI Read More »