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

#431

Post by mschuster91 » Sat, May 30, 2026, 5:32 PM UTC

inglor_cz wrote: post #419

boothby wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a Canadian on a hiring committee, it's fascinating to talk to Americans who hate the political environment but still don't want to relocate.

$$$$$ > €€€ or ££ With a few exceptions like Switzerland, American levels of compensation for highly qualified people just can't be matched anywhere in the Western world. Saudi Arabia or UAE maybe, but these don't even try to pretend to be socially and politically liberal.

> With a few exceptions like Switzerland, American levels of compensation for highly qualified people just can't be matched anywhere in the Western world.

Gross compensation yes. But if you begin deducting stuff like the absurd American housing costs, private healthcare, saving up for deductibles, the need to own, insure, fuel and maintain a car to do everything because almost nothing is accessible by public transport, retirement savings, everyday stuff such as restaurants being made much more expensive than what's on the paper because of mandatory tipping, saving up for your children's academic degree while paying off your own student debt, hell saving up for having a child (just the birth will be 20k out of pocket [1]), saving up for times of un(der)employment... suddenly most of Europe becomes pretty affordable if you are not on FAANG levels of compensation.

[1] https://www.investopedia.com/how-much-does-it-cost-to-have-a...

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

#432

Post by JCTheDenthog » Sat, May 30, 2026, 5:32 PM UTC

frigidwalnut wrote: post #425

JCTheDenthog wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Private citizen fund scientific research [under threat of prison or deadly force.] I mean I'm not inherently opposed to laws or government, but I think a lot of people need to be more measured and considerate of what they are using tax money for when it is being taken from their fellow citizens at gunpoint.

I agree. This administration is ground zero for mismanagement of funds and outright corruption. Just look at the director of the FBI and former secretary of DHS. Both have used and continue to use tax payer money for personal use. It should make every tax payer livid.

It does make me livid, just as much as the waste of taxpayer money on pointless (and sometimes outright racist) research here makes me livid: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48335722

Believe it or not, it's possible to hate both Kash Patel/Kristi Noem and the unelected bureaucrats burning tax money on awful research.

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

#433

Post by bigfudge » Sat, May 30, 2026, 5:37 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…

Democracy is about more than elections. Having a functioning public sphere, justice system, and media are all part of it too. From a Northern European perspective, the US hasn't been a functioning democracy for quite a while now — it's just becoming more and more obvious now that the republicans have stopped even pretending those principles and institutions are important.

The flagrant corruption and voter suppression efforts underway at the moment make the next 2-3 years the final chance to bring it back from the brink. That doesn't just mean a Democrat winning. It means an actual democrat (lowercase) winning and building a coalition to repair what has been broken. I don't personally think that looks very likely, but I hope for all our sakes it can happen.

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

#434

Post by pstuart » Sat, May 30, 2026, 5:39 PM UTC

bayarearefugee wrote: post #54

paulryanrogers wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This Congress has deferred to the president so hard, it's difficult to see where one ends and the other begins. Based on recent primaries the R party is only becoming more sycophantic. At times they don't even cotify their subservience through the usual measures like legislation and committees, except where needed to slap down any roadblocks to the unitary executive.

They (Republicans in Congress) are all terrified of Trump, with some good reason (not that this excuses their dereliction of duty in any way). It doesn't matter how aligned you are with his worldview, how much you vote alongside his wishes, if you aren't 100% loyal to him personally at all times you're politically dead in the Republican party in much of the US. While Trump's ability to sway normal elections is next t…

The only hope for this country is the incompetence of the administration and the poor health of Dear Leader.

My hope is tempered, to say the least.

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

#435

Post by bsdetector » Sat, May 30, 2026, 5:40 PM UTC

Untagged0060 wrote: post #250

b65e8bee43c2ed0 wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

oh, don't be coy. https://nsf-gov-resources.nsf.gov/files/NSF-Terminated-Award... I wouldn't even need to cherry pick.

The first item on the list is 44M for quantum materials. Can you please explain why cancelling it is in the national interest of the US? Other than the fact that Harvard didn't admit Daddy's favorite boy?

https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/show-award/?AWD_ID=1231319&a...

Appears it didn't receive any funds since 2022 after being extended for years (so your "daddy" is Biden) and wouldn't get any more money so was canceled to get it off the books.

If anything this shows the list includes regular grants that were canceled for normal reasons, which further demonstrates the cuts were not of real science.

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

#436

Post by izacus » Sat, May 30, 2026, 5:41 PM UTC

notahacker wrote: post #380

izacus wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now that's double standard here, isn't it? Putting up questions on forms that require you to reveal your political pole and follow the politics of one party to answer isn't really kosher in any academic environment. Trying to reframe them as "we didn't REALLY mean it!" (while also insulting a race and sex) doesn't help your case. This is what the communist leads of universities did here in eastern europe and it was d…

Yeah, me pointing out the people exactly like me totally can and do fill in boxes like this and secure grants is totally "insulting a race and sex". I thought it was supposed to be the libs who were grievance mongers desperate to feel discriminated against... Honestly, if filling in those boxes with anything other than a diatribe against the suitability of women and minorities and poor people to do research is "follo…

If filling those boxes was so easy, you won't have issues filling up republican boxes with content they want to hear to get funding, right?

That's what happens when academia politicizes themselves - they become part of the game. And that means begging for scraps of who ever is currently on the top.

It's horrible... but you said yourself - you just need to fill some boxes correctly.

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

#437

Post by parineum » Sat, May 30, 2026, 5:42 PM UTC

OtherShrezzing wrote: post #208

Jerry2 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Emigrate where? And why do you assume that the country you're gonna emigrate to will have the funds necessay to fund the research? US grants are the biggest and most generous in the world. I think the USG spends over $900 Billion every year. Europe spends about 1/10th of that. Other option is China but as a foreigner, you will never get a grant there unless you work for someone else.

> I think the USG spends over $900 Billion every year. Europe spends about 1/10th of that Do you mean that the EU spends 1/10th that, rather than Europe ? Because France, Germany and the UK all spend €100-150bn each in grants depending on how you set your definition, and that’s atop the EU’s grant money. Just eyeballing the figures across different countries, it looks like the USG distributes approximately the same a…

You're comparing the sum of those European countries to the US.

Scientists have two easy avenues if they are currently in the US, the US or their home country. Immigration to work in a foreign nation is not always easy and takes time.

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

#438

Post by swed420 » Sat, May 30, 2026, 5:43 PM UTC

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #377

swed420 wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One big difference is that the US has been led by four different people since 2000 instead of one. But those four puppets served the same ruling class interests, and they manufactured consent for each other the whole time.

What do you mean by "manufactured consent for each other the whole time"? I'm familiar with the Noam Chomsky book Manufacturing Consent , but this book was about the dynamics that shape coverage decisions in mass media, not some concrete process which Person X could perform "for" Person Y. I also struggle to see how it can be that different Presidents with often directly contradictory policies could both be serving t…

> What do you mean by "manufactured consent for each other the whole time"?

> I also struggle to see how it can be that different Presidents with often directly contradictory policies could both be serving the same ruling class interests.

Using the polarizing topic of COVID (whose risks remain in 2026) as an example, we can answer both of your questions:

https://www.thegauntlet.news/p/how-the-press-manufactured-co...

Which ultimately led to:

https://web.archive.org/web/20240802024326/https://docs.hous...

This can be applied to virtually any topic. The party of "good cop" and the party of "bad cop" promise no change from the status quo. Of course, anybody easily distracted by the culture wars will not see the commonality between both corporate parties, by design. These people see a close election and use that as "proof" we still have a functioning democracy.

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

#439

Post by jballer » Sat, May 30, 2026, 5:45 PM UTC

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…

This cuts both ways: grants are more valuable as political favors when they are immune to cancellation, and grants with objectively-established value are harder to terminate without political blowback.

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

#440

Post by bigfudge » Sat, May 30, 2026, 5:45 PM UTC

flohofwoe wrote: post #291

chadgpt3 wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Captain Obvious here, but the number of defenestrations (or generally mysterious "suicides" of people not agreeing enough with the government) is much higher in Russia than in the US. In the US you might get your funds cancelled, in Russia you'll get your life cancelled instead - and not in the metaphorical sense. Also as incompetent as the current US government is, the incompetence of the Russian government is on a…

They have a head start on you, but you're catching up quickly! Worth remembering they have been shooting peaceful protestors recently in the US too.

Trump and Hegseth are explicit in their admiration for Putin and Xi. So being technically right here is largely to miss the point. The trajectory the US is on is pretty clear.