An organization of scientists and allies, incl @ NIH NSF affected by the Great Science Collapse of 2025. We work to chart a new course for vibrant US science and academia, backed by democracy and supported by the public. www.scienceandfreedomalliance.org
776 followers 202 following 278 posts
view profile on Bluesky
Vought is destroying NIH from the inside without need for budget cuts, via layers of political review, OMB tricks (see @bbkogan.bsky.social thread today), multiyear funding abruptly, blocking NOFOs, interfering with FACA committees, firing grants and contract staff, and illegally terminating grants.
Why do we need this fight, why support Democrats to use this leverage they will have on Sept 30? Because Vought is destroying NIH from the inside and in our system Congress can stop him.
Thus, NIH and science are just one piece of a coordinated fascist threat: occupying cities, attacking education, universities, marginalized people, immigration, diversity, equality and pluralism. Science cannot flourish without fixing all those things.
A1 above the fold in the @nytimes.com. The message is getting through. Keep pushing everyone. We can save the #CDC, save the #NIH from the clutches of #RussellVought #StephenMiller and #DonaldTrump. Keep the pressure up on your members of Congress and the media (letters to editors, op-eds).
And especially this: How can we act now, what can we do about this? The Sept 30 CR/budget fight is our moment and our point of leverage. We must support Senate Democrats to make a stand then.
This is correct. Thank you! A bit more here and 1/2
This is very good news. BUT, as we saw this year when NIH was operating under a flat budget, Trump and Russell Vought can effectively destroy NIH even if Congress holds the budget flat. To stop Vought and make sure NIH can function, Congress must go much further than “no cuts to budget.” 1/
Good to see a bipartisan group of former CDC Directors raise alarms in the NY Times about RFK Jr. dismantling US public health. And I can’t help but feel frustrated that they didn’t do this last year when public health was on the ballot—nor did NYT frame it that way—when we had a chance to stop it.
❤️
Good question! For a rider to matter the bill has to pass both houses and be signed by the president. The approps bill is not guaranteed to pass, and probably will not. But the CR is a must-pass. Here's some info on that: scienceandfreedomalliance.substack.com/p/democrats-...
Well, well, well. Rachael Bade at Politico is asking Dems to fold again. No way, no how. We want Democrats to stand up and fight. Fight for #NIH and biomedical research and democracy. Stop Vought, and stop Trump. #NoFlinch, #NoFold
Counterpoint: no. They shouldn’t flinch, they should fight. Fight for American democracy, biomedical research, freedom, and the immigration and multiculturalism our nation was founded on.
Therefore, we agree with this piece: “The struggle to save public health and biomedical research in the US must be seen as part of a global battle against antidemocratic forces.” Yes. Let’s stand together for freedom and equality, and a strong scientific and medical system. /end
Thus, NIH and science are just one piece of a coordinated fascist threat: occupying cities, attacking education, universities, marginalized people, immigration, diversity, equality and pluralism. Science cannot flourish without fixing all those things.
Above is one part of the NSF presidents’ budget (Vought/MAGA budget). Other parts of that budget doc describe slashing the number of US basic scientists by 50% or more. Vought and MAGA, if the Seven Mountains mandate is to be believed, want to use science to crush universities.
And Vought and the White House have ALREADY announced they want to kill American science. The president’s budget says so. Nothing stops them from implementing this via impoundment or ignoring other laws even if Congress passes no cuts.
Plus, American science depends on free speech and free ideas, on scientists being able to follow data w/o polticial interference. It also depends on a diverse and strong scientific workforce. All of these are being killed by Trump. Young people are dropping out, great scientists are leaving the US.
What can Congress do? Democrats in Congress have a lever on Sept 30th. We must encourage them to use it and back them.
Even if the LHHS approps bill passes both houses and is signed by the president, Trump and Vought can still kill off NIH research, and universities, by interfering through the exec branch if Congress doesn’t stop them. /3
Vought is destroying NIH from the inside without need for budget cuts, via layers of political review, OMB tricks (see @bbkogan.bsky.social thread today), multiyear funding abruptly, blocking NOFOs, interfering with FACA committees, firing grants and contract staff, and illegally terminating grants.
This is very good news. BUT, as we saw this year when NIH was operating under a flat budget, Trump and Russell Vought can effectively destroy NIH even if Congress holds the budget flat. To stop Vought and make sure NIH can function, Congress must go much further than “no cuts to budget.” 1/
@thefarce.org will you follow for DM?
And here are some actions you can take. More in the post.
Here is one thing that should be included in a Fighting CR at the end of September: statutory language to tell OMB to stop its illegal impoundment budget cuts.
What can you do to help? Here is a list of actions! Please share.
The way to stop Vought's lawless and unconstitutional behavior is for Congress to step up and re-assert its power as a co-equal branch.
What can we do? Well, we have one major point of leverage, at the end of September. cc: @bbkogan.bsky.social
This would be funny if it wasn't so serious.
that Congress (Parliament) has the power of the purse. This dates back to the 17th century.
This is VERY. BAD. Russell Vought at OMB wants to rip away Congress' most important power, the power to set the budget, and put it in the hands of a president-king. This illegal impoundment stuff runs contrary to the most important principle of Anglo-American gov't—
Enjoy the holiday! At this time of unprecedented attack on our freedoms and liberty in America, let’s remember the labor mvt that fought for average people and for this holiday. The path forward is in community and solitary. Equality, diversity, and pluralism are how we build a great society. 💪✊
🚨 on this Labor Day: We have a moment of leverage in Congress at the end of September. Democrats in Congress can use this to stop Trump’s lawlessness. But we all have to start acting NOW. This is a public fight and D politicians need our help. New from us. “Democrats: Stand Up and Shut Trump Down”
Agree on this. The dynamic here is RFK Jr is one of the few cabinet secretaries that actually has their own power. The others were chosen for loyalty to the autocrat and Trump can flush them instantly if they do things he doesn’t like. But Trump thinks RFK adds some voters to Trump’s support.
Yes! It is @chriscmooney.bsky.social. The book is excellent and was prescient. We may need to give out some Cassandra awards in the near future.
"Why this attack on science? It’s just politics. Which means scientists can’t avoid taking political sides: the sides have been taken for us."
Chris Mooney’s 2005 book got it right. His book can be read alongside “What’s the Matter With Kansas.” The two phenomena—attacks on average people and attacks on science— are driven by the same Republican forces. @chriskmooney.bsky.social
Yes! As Karl Rove said two decades ago, the science enterprise has become an opponent of this Republican Party. Not because of what scientists did, but because R’s are a billionaire-led party, opposed to education, expertise, and even facts.
“Trump announced that he’ll unilaterally take back money already appropriated for foreign aid. This new so-called pocket rescission totals $4.9 billion.” So. This is the big one. If Vought floats this for foreign aid and it flies, science agencies are next.
Vought’s plan *probably* will not work. But he’s trying because he hopes to catch us off guard and because he is probing to see if Congress will fold. We cannot let that happen. No illegal impoundments, not for foreign aid (forget the stupid polling), not for anything.
And no matter what rescission packages Vought tries to send up to Congress, Vought and his Project 2025 effort are still impounding support for cancer and medical research, by stuffing NIH with political layers of “review” and choking off spending.
Ref
Definitely illegally impounding cancer, Alzheimer’s and lots of other critical medical research. Vought is stopping cures and harming the economy.
“Trump announced that he’ll unilaterally take back money already appropriated for foreign aid. This new so-called pocket rescission totals $4.9 billion.” So. This is the big one. If Vought floats this for foreign aid and it flies, science agencies are next.
Yep. No reason to obey in advance
Ok people, @cdelawalla.bsky.social is correct about the ducks. We are in a media environment that often calls for trolling to drive attention. And with attention we can educate. See @aaronhuertas.bsky.social on that:
can we talk about the Made-Up Questions Doctrine next? 😂
Just tried watching Ezra Klein’s latest NYT podcast episode on how the U.S. got to this point where vaccines are so politicized. It’s pretty clear that Klein and his guests—David Wallace Wells and Rachael Bedard—really do not understand why/how the political right turned on vaccines.
It’s not as cool as @altcdc.altgov.info ‘s walkout, but refusing to comply with illegal orders can be an impactful way to slow down the harms, for those able to take the risk.
Yes. Not an endorsement of Nancy Reagan!
"They could be doxxed, targeted by social media mobs, their mortgage records disclosed by Trump political appointees, or even raided or prosecuted by a weaponized Justice Department. No one should be judged for choosing not to take these risks. "
Yes. IF you are in a personal position to do so. "The Risks Are Real, But You’re Not Alone Let’s be absolutely clear: No one should feel pressured to take this path. NIH staff who refuse illegal orders may face severe retaliation from the Trump administration. They could lose their jobs..."
this is freedom content 💪
Oligarchy is bad for building things, and is bad for innovation. And oligarchs have captured the US court system.
This is fine, and we certainly support science, innovation, and building new things. But we have to first engage with the fact that wealth and power have captured the Supreme Court and use litigation to harm science and innovation!!
it is old! thank you
And if you're not an NIH employee there are ways you can help. This week's events at the CDC make it clear that US science and heath are in deep trouble. There's never been a better time to speak up about NIH, HHS, CDC, and the US science, medical, university, and health systems. /end
No one should feel pressured to take this path. The risks are real.
NIH and other science agency people are not used to evaluating the law and refusing illegal orders. But doing so is their right and even their responsibility.
"gobbedlygook," "a mess," "Calvinball": The Supreme Court majority isn't doing law. And their pretzel logic is bad enough that their decision last week doesn't weigh in on the merits of terminations. There is no legal requirement to terminate NIH grants, and NIH employees can say that.
"Just Say No, NIH": new post from us. If and when NIH employees are ordered to terminate grants, besides complying or resigning they have a third option: they can just say no. There is great personal risk. But as lower court judges and KBJ said, the terminations are illegal. 1/
Also have people looked at their economy, their science industry, and their rightwing party in power? Homogeneous, non-pluralistic societies do not create the conditions for science to thrive, they harm tech and university-driven economic power, and they lead towards autocracy
Yes. Impeach RFK Jr.
All our best to everyone at CDC, and everyone who will be affected by these attacks on public health— every American. 💪❤️ @altcdc.altgov.info has good info tonight.
We have a post coming tomorrow about this - about what government employees might now do. Tonight, we’re as outraged as everyone about the attacks on science at CDC. This is RFK Jr and Russ Vought at OMB. They are out to destroy US science for profit and political advantage.
True at CDC, NIH, NSF, and every science agency.
Here’s our thread on the bad no-good SCOTUS decision about NIH last week. This administration terminated thousands (!!) of research projects. As KBJ notes, “NIH terminated fewer than six grants midstream in the 13 years from 2012 to January 20, 2025.”
Prosecute and jail him for these violations of criminal law, right?
A lovely FT writeup is here: www.ft.com/content/727d... And the full research paper is here: iacmr.org/wp-content/u..., showing that Trump is following the standard populist playbook, undermining courts, the media, and institutions.
You could call Kavanaugh a Calvinball DEI hire.
Kavanaugh is a SCOTUS justice not because of his talent, or morals, or vision. He was put on the Court, and formerly was put on the DC Circuit, because he’s willing to play Calvinball.
Yes, as business barons and billionaires throughout history have tried to get what they want from fascism. And the SCOTUS majority is purely a tool of billionaires — even if Brett Kavanaugh doesn’t realize why he is on the Court (it’s not for his massive legal talent.)
Exactly. We should all hold up Charles Sumner as very much one of the founders of the US. The reconstruction amendments are vital parts of our constitution and parts that this Supreme Court, with its partisan agenda, aims to write out of the document.
Exactly. District and circuit judges are clear about what’s going on. If we are lucky, some will read this from Gorsuch and get very angry.
this is why gorsuch is complaining about lower courts defying SCOTUS. a lot of communication between SCOTUS and lower courts is informal, especially in re: shadow docket cases, and SCOTUS has been sending unmistakably clear signals to roll over for trump. and lower courts have responded “make me”
Try reading this without anger at Neil Gorsuch, aspiring king. "Lower court judges may disagree with this Court’s decisions, but they are never free to defy them. Rather than follow that direction..." Now district judges must divine intent of shadow docket half-explained orders?!!?
![SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 25A103 NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH, ET AL. v. AMERICAN PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOCIATION, ET AL. ON APPLICATION FOR STAY [August 21, 2025] JUSTICE GORSUCH, with whom JUSTICE KAVANAUGH joins, concurring in part and dissenting in part. Lower court judges may sometimes disagree with this Court’s decisions, but they are never free to defy them. In Department of Ed. v. California, 604 U. S. ___ (2025) (per curiam), this Court granted a stay because it found the government likely to prevail in showing that the district court lacked jurisdiction to order the government to pay grant obligations. California explained that “suits based on ‘any express or implied contract with the United States’” do not belong in district court under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), but in the Court of Federal Claims under the Tucker Act. Id., at ___ (slip op., at 2) (quoting 28 U. S. C. §1491(a)(1)). Rather than follow that direction, the district court in this case permitted a suit involving materially identical grants to proceed to final judgment under the APA. As support for its course, the district court invoked the “persuasive authority” of “the dissent[s] in California” and an earlier court of appeals decision California repudiated. Massachusetts v. Kennedy, ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, ___ (Mass. 2025), App. to Application 232a (App.). That w](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:f7wkbi5jbnsyv3qpsh333aqr/bafkreid4jvuvdx5k5pnlaawx5mvgipvuqxnyswfisun3hxeaoakezelrcy@jpeg "Click to view full size")
The only real questions now are (1) who will lead us to fight to stop it and (2) after we stop it, what we rebuild in its place.
“The United States, just months before its 250th birthday as the world’s leading democracy, has tipped over the edge into authoritarianism and fascism. In the end, faster than I imagined possible, it did happen here.” Always read @vermontgmg.bsky.social.
An important thing now is that CONGRESS can overrule SCOTUS and check the Court’s lawlessness. For example, in the coming CR fight at the end of September, Democratic Senators could withhold their votes unless there is language in the CR to overrule the Court on this stay.
“For a long time, members of the public and the coordinate branches of government have accepted the Supreme Court’s rulings because they assumed, from the outside looking in, that it is a legitimate body to be taken seriously. Jackson is showing why it is not.”
She did. And she's right.
It is not science that activated the Republican Party base against science. Science was politicized by Republican media outlets like WSJ Opinion, and pundits happy to take money and attention from Republicans: people like Jay Bhattacharya, Scott Atlas, Steven Pinker, Marty Makary, and Vinay Prasad.
Always remember that science should not be partisan. But like all societal choices, science depends on public sentiment and intersects power. And therefore science is political. From @kwu.bsky.social
This and Sonia and Elena should be embarrassed for not joining her dissent.
"Jackson’s dissent is not a mere disagreement with a colleague’s judgment. She is demonstrating that what her colleagues are doing isn’t even judging; laws have little to no bearing on the outcome of their decisions, which are determined instead by Republican policy goals." 🎯
She did. And she's right.
Noooooo! So sorry to hear this, you have done such amazing work.
Exactly, and thank you for stating it plainly, @michaelemann.bsky.social
Russ Vought is a “master regulator” in multiple senses of the term and it is 😭😭 that scientists now have to know that meaning too
Ooh interesting!
Wondering about KBJ’s Calvinball reference? Here’s an example!
The whiplash is dizzying. “Just a few hours before the Supreme Court decision, I got an e-mail that I was able to resume spending,” one researcher tells @dangaristo.bsky.social and @maxkozlov.bsky.social. Now, the grant is likely to be cut again. “It’s heartbreaking.” www.nature.com/articles/d41...
Hi @raskin.house.gov ! Have you seen this @safa-science.bsky.social work on SCOTUS? We would love to talk to you and your office about this. DM open. scienceandfreedomalliance.substack.com/p/tell-the-s...
Justice Jackson mentioned that the conservative block of SCOTUS justices were playing “Calvinball” with their decisions, in her dissent yesterday in the Supreme Court nih grant termination decision….
Yes! It was KBJ!
Have been hearing a lot of chatter about Calvinball. Yes this is really from Calvin and Hobbes! For ex
Have been hearing a lot of chatter about Calvinball. Yes this is really from Calvin and Hobbes! For ex
And, KBJ con't: "The Court opts to make it as difficult as possible to [uphold] the rule of law and prevent manifestly injurious [Trump] action." "Calvinball" "This Administration always wins."
![Cite as: 606 U. S. ____ (2025) 17 Opinion of JACKSON, J. (slip op., at 8, 15). Today’s exercise of equity flips that proposition on its head. Non-plaintiffs might see some benefit from district courts’ vacatur of unlawful directives because agencies will not be able to rely on them to cancel grants going forward. But the plaintiffs who filed the lawsuit will see none. In a broader sense, however, today’s ruling is of a piece with this Court’s recent tendencies. “[R]ight when the Judiciary should be hunkering down to do all it can to preserve the law’s constraints,” the Court opts instead to make vindicating the rule of law and preventing manifestly injurious Government action as difficult as possible. Id., at ___ (JACKSON, J., dissenting) (slip op., at 21). This is Calvinball jurisprudence with a twist. Calvinball has only one rule: There are no fixed rules.6 We seem to have two: that one, and this Administration always wins.7 III This Court has an obligation to balance the equities before issuing the “extraordinary” relief of a stay pending appeal, Graves v. Barnes, 405 U. S. 1201, 1203 (1972) (Powell, J., in chambers), by “‘explor[ing] the relative harms to applicant and respondent, as well as the interests of the public at large,’” Barnes v. E-Systems, Inc. Group Hospital Medical & Surgical Ins. Plan, 501 U. S. 1301, 1305 (1991) (Scalia, J., in chambers) (quoting Rostker v. Goldberg, 448 U. S. 1306, 1308 (1980) (Brennan, J., i](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:f7wkbi5jbnsyv3qpsh333aqr/bafkreiezzqj3irrbmfm4mupxishblisbddb2d7n4vmvroxtpnx5tehlppu@jpeg "Click to view full size")
More great clear assertions from Jackson: "This novel reading of the Tucker Act .." "This means, it seems, that the Claims Court cannot reinstate unlawfully terminated grant funding" "This result, it should be evident, is also impossible to reconcile with the Court’s recent pronouncements."
![today, however, no court can reinstate the plaintiffs’ grants—apparently, the Tucker Act “impliedly forbids” it. 5 U. S. C. §702. This novel reading of the Tucker Act undermines not only Bowen’s holding but also the basic remedial principles underlying it. Forget complete relief— the reasoning of today’s order might leave plaintiffs unable to obtain any effective relief at all. To be specific: “Unlike the district courts, . . . the [Claims Court] has no general power to provide equitable relief against the Government or its officers.” United States v. Tohono O’odham Nation, 563 U. S. 307, 313 (2011); see also United States v. King, 395 U. S. 1, 3 (1969) (Claims Court lacked jurisdiction over claim that was “not limited to actual, presently due money damages” but rather sought a declaratory judgment that governmental action “was legally wrong”). This means, it seems, that the Claims Court cannot reinstate unlawfully terminated grant funding—a distinct remedy from the money damages that JUSTICE BARRETT suggests are still available in the Claims Court. See ante, at 4, n. 1. And while the Claims Court does have authority to award money damages for a breach of contract, it is not clear that it could do so here, where the right the plaintiffs seek to vindicate “is not a contract right” but a statutory one. See Crowley Govt. Servs., Inc. v. General Servs. Admin., 38 F. 4th 1099, 1110 (CADC 2022).5 This result, it should be evident, is also impossible to reconcile with the Court’s recent pronouncements. Not so long ago, the Court insisted that “the party-specific principles that permeate our understanding of equity” instruct courts to award “complete relief ” to plaintiffs and no relief to nonplaintiffs. CASA, Inc., 606](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:f7wkbi5jbnsyv3qpsh333aqr/bafkreicacuj6rb3sqooabytr4kvv4mtbr6dat7xgjnwsu5inun5mgo3vte@jpeg "Click to view full size")
Here's the link to the order and opinions
more context from us here, especially on the Court and what we can do now. scienceandfreedomalliance.substack.com/p/tell-the-s...