WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants • Hacker News Board

Re: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants

#261

Post by intended » Sat, May 30, 2026, 1:52 PM UTC

amazingamazing wrote: post #201

[flagged]

I think Mike Masnick said it best here:

> " Why Techdirt Is Now A Democracy Blog (Whether We Like It Or Not)"

> ...but a few asked questions regarding what Techdirt is focused on these days, and how much we were leaning into covering “politics.”

> When the very institutions that made American innovation possible are being systematically dismantled, it’s not a “political” story anymore. It’s a story about whether the environment that enabled all the other stories we cover will continue to exist.

https://www.techdirt.com/2025/03/04/why-techdirt-is-now-a-de...

The current "Tech" culture, also traces its roots to people who very much didn't like the way things were done in corporate offices in places like NY.

Thats why Google used to have statements like do no evil, and it mattered to those early recruits. Things were built, with the intention to make things better for people.

The leaders of AI companies talk constantly about democracy and other values, while new CS grads are being told they will have no jobs.

For the record, I really wish HN was not as politically active. However this change is downstream of the environment.

Re: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants

#262

Post by dfxm12 » Sat, May 30, 2026, 1:54 PM UTC

skywhopper wrote: post #203

gwerbin wrote: post #168

More of the same at this point. If you are politically connected, or stay in an narrow lane of approved work, you get your grant. But if you stray from the politically approved path, or appear disloyal to our First Citizen and the Party, then your grant will be canceled. The remaining supporters of the incumbent party like to claim that they aren't actually doing anything worse than in the past, and if anything they…

[flagged]

Remember, every accusation is an admission. It's been proven time and time again with this admin.

Re: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants

#263

Post by GuestFAUniverse » Sat, May 30, 2026, 1:54 PM UTC

reactordev wrote: post #173

gwerbin wrote: post #168

More of the same at this point. If you are politically connected, or stay in an narrow lane of approved work, you get your grant. But if you stray from the politically approved path, or appear disloyal to our First Citizen and the Party, then your grant will be canceled. The remaining supporters of the incumbent party like to claim that they aren't actually doing anything worse than in the past, and if anything they…

The Chairman will have the final say

Do you mean zombie-homelander?

Re: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants

#264

Post by chadgpt3 » Sat, May 30, 2026, 1:55 PM UTC

Spooky23 wrote: post #249

mavelikara wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A law which will be used from the opposite side just as well, as soon as the power switches hands again. This is the real test. If these changes are so bad, will someone campaign bare on overturning these? Will the “other side” change it? If they don’t, you know that they also agreed with it - this handwringing now is just for show.

You’re thinking tactically. I actually thing the democrats will try to put the Trumpist stuff back in the box. They may not be able to. The rule of law requires trust and that’s gone, and will only be rebuilt by time. The reactionary Supreme Court has changed the character of the executive. That court will live for many years. The executive branch exists to represent the will of the chief executive. We’ve normalized…

Have the Democrats ever put any power-grab instruments back in any boxes? I don't remember a time they have, and I don't think they'll start now. They are meek cowards.

Re: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants

#265

Post by GuestFAUniverse » Sat, May 30, 2026, 1:55 PM UTC

dnnddidiej wrote: post #230

tempodox wrote: post #163

If you want to stay a scientist, you have to emigrate. The art of continually licking the right asses to keep funding going is not science.

Boots. Licking boots.

These boots are made for walking!

Re: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants

#266

Post by MagicMoonlight » Sat, May 30, 2026, 1:55 PM UTC

cineticdaffodil wrote: post #251

I still think we should allow for grant hunting. If you can disprove a paper, you get the grant money attached to it. Make it a economic worthy endavour to destroy bad science.

Then you would just fake your results in order to steal someone's grant

Re: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants

#267

Post by aqme28 » Sat, May 30, 2026, 1:56 PM UTC

somenameforme wrote: post #228

coldtea wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

[flagged]

> "[broaden the] participation of underrepresented groups". [1] As if seeking out the best of the best to collaborate with... was somehow undesirable.

Are those mutually exclusive? I know that's a common argument, but it doesn't track to me. Finding the diamonds in the rough in underrepresented groups is part of finding the best of the best to collaborate with.

Re: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants

#268

Post by mlazos » Sat, May 30, 2026, 1:56 PM UTC

somenameforme wrote: post #228

coldtea wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

[flagged]

Ah, the ever present “nothing to see here” take. What this government is doing is worse than it’s ever been. At least before when you had your grant it wouldn’t be randomly cancelled at any time.

Re: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants

#269

Post by chadgpt3 » Sat, May 30, 2026, 1:57 PM UTC

libertine wrote: post #198

ChrisLTD wrote: post #186

It’s sad to watch my country commit suicide. Not only will my compatriots be poorer for it, but the rest of the world will be too.

Well it could be worse because in the end it's still a democracy, for how long that's yet to be seen. Look at Russia, they jumped off a cliff to protect a regime from democracy, and people are checked out - they take no accountability and still act confused of why Russia is being despised - all while accelerating economic and demographic decline with more than one million casualties in a special 3 day military operat…

Russia is a de-jure democracy, just like the US. In fact I'm not sure what difference there is between them.

Re: WH proposes rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants

#270

Post by SpicyLemonZest » Sat, May 30, 2026, 1:57 PM UTC

abjectai_42 wrote: post #241

How is this different than adding DEI requirements, the inability to study schedule 1 drugs, or the restrictions placed under the Dickey-Wicker amendment? Federal grants have always been subject to politics.

It's different because it explicitly prohibits deferring to peer reviewers and explicitly requires that grants must "advance the President's policy priorities". Previous restrictions were guiderails for or additional screens on top of the underlying merit-based review; now the merit-based review is secondary and the primary criterion is whether the President's minions like the proposal.