16
votes
Weekly US politics news and updates thread - week of January 27
This thread is posted weekly - please try to post all relevant US political content in here, such as news, updates, opinion articles, etc. Extremely significant events may warrant a separate topic, but almost all should be posted in here.
This is an inherently political thread; please try to avoid antagonistic arguments and bickering matches. Comment threads that devolve into unproductive arguments may be removed so that the overall topic is able to continue.
White House pauses all federal grants, sparking confusion
This is fucking insane. Completely self-immolating our status in science and technology (among 1000 other things Federal grants go towards, I'm just citing the one I am most familiar with)
EDIT:
Related https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-00266-1
This is now blocked by a federal judge until February 3rd
Also all states are/we're blocked from Medicaid portals as of 1/28.at like 3pm, lack of clear guidance meant that wasn't explicitly excluded from the list of assistance. Unsure if that's been fixed yet
I've been trying to find more information about this. When I first started seeing folks talk about it, they made it seem like it was Eligibility & Enrollment portals that were down, but those are all state run and all the ones that I checked were up. I did see something posted by the AP that indicated it might be some kind of HHS or CMS portal that the states use to request FMAP disbursements? Which would make more sense but is very worrying considering how much of some states' Medicaid budgets come from federal matches.
Yeah it was the federal portal AFAIK. There has since been an update from the white house that this was not intentional, just that they didn't explicitly exempt it and they fucked up. They're now saying it was an "unrelated website error" so yeah.
Here's an IL PBS article on it
I keep seeing that ruling referenced, but when I go to our Award Cash Management $ervice portal, where we draw down funding from the National Science Foundation, I get this error response. So... yeah, I'm not confident anything is working.
Also for reference, this is the direct outreach I've had from NSF:
They've also allegedly partially rescinded the order sort of. Idk how it'll actually work, and I won't be surprised if they defy the judge's order. It's a clusterfuck
They're basically trying to hard reboot the federal government into a fascist regime.
Step 1: Turn everything off
Step 2: Install new fascist firmware
Step 3: Turn everything back on
I assume (hope) if you're in a blue, wealthy, and potentially self-sufficient state things won't get too bad. Poor people in poor states however... outlook doesn't look good.
Trying to figure out if this applies to federal student grants and loans. I see some people claiming that they're provided directly into the individual so they're exempt, but they're definitely dispersed through the institutions.
Maybe no one knows yet and IDK how much of our budget are grants but I've been concerned about what the institution will do if financial aid is put on the line versus trans rights or DEI, or anything.
I do not trust the institution not to sacrifice their trans students and staff in the name of the "needs of the many"
Student loans and Pell grants are federal assistance agreements awarded to the individual and are exempt from the order. They are not granted to the institution, the recipient is not a subawardee.
That said, granting programs that are found to run a foul of the EO's regarding DEI will be realigned with updated eligibility requirements. But things like Pell grants, which are need based, would not be affected by the current batch of orders.
However, all research, public health surveillance, and other public benefit grants and cooperative agreements, across all departments are on hold, even in departments you don't normally associate with grants. Each department is conducting their own assessment against the EO's.
Yeah it's the method of disbursement that made me concerned. That and everything being concerning I suppose. I don't trust Trump not to fuck it up further... On purpose or not
"Realigned with eligibility requirements" meaning likely revoked from projects they don't like. And issuing new ones.
And each department has to put the oversight for this into the hands of a political appointee.
There are things mentioned in the articles like Marxism that aren't even in the EOs, so they're going beyond that as far as I can tell.
We don't get a ton of our funding from grants, so I don't know the ripple effect on faculty.
Something to keep in mind is scale. There are relatively few political appointments, even including second and third level appointments relative to the size of many of these departments. Using the VA as an example, they have 13 political appointees, a federal workforce of 450,000, and a total workforce including contractors of over 600,000. Most of those 13 positions are likely being filled with interim personnel at the moment. So the thousands of cooperative agreements the VA issues aren't being reviewed by those 13 positions. Heck, one of those positions is their CIO. Most likely, their general counsel and senior leaders and reviewing template agreements, revising then if needed, and then issuing guidance to their acquisitions department.
The government largely does its best to follow lawful orders even when the individuals disagree with them. Civil servants in DC are fairly apolitical in the execution of their duties. There's exceptions of course, but I suspect after about a week or so most of these agreements will resume.
I'm aware of how civil service works. This is not a good thing, and I am not non-partisan outside of my own work*, so I don't feel the need to pretend to be. My concern was the fact that student loans go to the institutions to be disbursed to the individuals and that felt like a possible loophole.
I am not going to use neutral language to describe the acts of this administration or what the civil service employees are being told to do.
*The work is political so being "apolitical" is an impossibility. As long as the existence of my students is political, so am I. I know you're saying they do their job, I am a state employee so I'm plenty aware.
What a tremendously rude response to someone who was trying to give an assurance that things (and money) would probably resume flowing before too long, for the good of the recipients.
I didn't make any argument or position, simply outlined that the factors that I think lends themselves to a resumption in federal assistance agreements, and why student enrollments shouldn't be impacted.
Wow.
I would like to know what is rude about my response? /Gen
I'm not going to get sucked into a back and forth, tit-for-tat, and I don't know what /Gen means. That said, assuming good faith, I'll answer the question.
Statements like "I'm aware" tend to come across as defensive, especially when a comment is led with them. E.g.
Given that no point of argument was made up to this point, it felt that offense was being taken about something presumed in the reply. Additionally, I recall from prior conversations that you work as an assistant director(?) in residence or student support at a state university. I have spent time as a federal GS, then went to state and higher ed for a couple decades, then back to federal government in a senior executive role. The difference between state and federal is sometimes quite stark, especially for those who haven't been in the federal space.
This seems to continue the defensiveness. It reads like you were taking my comments about the federal GS workforce and taking them as a personally directed comment. Which comes across as combative given that nothing previously was personally directed.
And the reason I replied initially is that as someone who oversees billions of dollars in federal assistance awards, I wanted to allay concerns amongst my recipients that things will continue once we have a chance to comply with higher office directives. Though I do not have insight into the Whitehouse decision making nor is this an official statement.
These sorts of declarative statements seem... combative. No one said to use neutral language. I am using neutral language to answer a specific question in an evolving situation in a complicated and regulated space.
You do you. I'm just trying to maximize public benefit through federal assistance agreements and strong public-private partnerships.
Take that for what you will. You asked, I answered. It's subjective.
/Gen is a tone tag indicating genuine, which I used since if someone thinks I'm being rude they probably will assume my response is also rude, and I am not upset with you answering. I appreciate the clarification though still don't think my reply warranted the level of reaction in your previous comment. But at leat I understand where you're coming from.
I understand you interpreted my statements as implying I was taking offense, I wasn't. I'm attempting to be direct and laying out where I stand. That isn't inherently in counter to your position, but it is in counter to the administration's actions. I'm sorry those wires got crossed and it impacted you. As for me, I've had several roles as a state employee and contractor, I'm sure federal is different in many ways, but I don't feel like what you described was one of those ways?
I could tell you were attempting to be reassuring about money flowing again, but I don't actually find that reassuring at all. First, my concern wasn't immediately about student enrollment, it's about the use of these sorts of tactics to pressure higher education institutions to change policies. Student assistance would be an un-ignorable lever in that. And I do appreciate your answering that that aid is currently exempt. That matched what I could find online.
Second I understand your intent behind using neutral language and maybe it's even an obligation, but it's the opposite of reassuring, because it feels more like white washing what's happening. Removing trans people from the military will certainly be realigning with the priorities of this administration but that significantly undersells the situation. Hell, the administration isn't even using neutral language as a cover. This is a bad thing, and while some recipients will have their money flowing, other, equally crucial funding needs will be unmet because they are perceived to be "DEI." I can think of a large number of very necessary programs, services and research that fall into that category. The extent of the harm is unknown until those decisions are made.
And, as you noted, civil service professionals are often just doing their jobs in a relatively neutral manner, but the budget control is explicitly being taken out of their hands and being put into the hands of political appointees, meaning that this will not be mitigated. Your language didn't reassure me that that isnt happening. But I'm not one of your recipients, so I can understand why they might, presuming theyre not on the hit list, feel better.
My existence is currently being framed as not just invalid but deceitful and a mental illness. I didn't make that political, they did and continue to insist on it. My work supporting students is defined by them as political as much as I'd love that not to be a consideration.
Anyway, this was not an attempt to go back and forth, just an attempt to more explicitly elaborate upon where I am. I'm not upset with you nor have I taken offense. I'm just not reassured about anything other than the fact that federal financial aid is not included.
I appreciate the clarification. To clarify my situation and response:
The first sentence of your first comment was:
That's all I was responding to. It's a good reminder to be more clear in what I am addressing in a response. All I can say is the facts as I know them, which is that student aid is exempted as far as I know, and that I expect other forms of federal assistance to resume sooner rather than later, addressing your faculty concern. Soft money folks are rightfully nervous.
Here the tone was to answer a technical policy question, and when giving an example about a department that I have not worked in. Other times I use a neutral tone when dealing with technical or legal matters beyond my direct expertise, e.g. ICJ determinations . Finally, I rarely comment about my work, and if I do I use neutral third person where possible. I am not allowed to publicly comment on department policy, and I am subject to strict financial and ethics oversight. Additionally, I keep things fairly neutral in the event that my accounts are compromised or I am doxxed to prevent political targeting.
You will almost never get information about a regulation or policy in this space from someone with applied knowledge that isn't in a neutral tone. Be suspicious of non neutral policy clarifications.
I do appreciate the fear that folks experience regarding these issues, but that isn't what I was addressing in my post. No one has the answer to that question at this point, and all anyone can do is game theory them out or apply some of Dr. Tetlock's method to make predictions.
Edit: final note: federal GS is very different culturally than state university, or even state agency civil service.
I get that (I typed "I'm aware that" but figured that'd flag, they're interchangeable to me) there are restrictions on what you can say, and I'm not asking you to say anything! It wasn't the policy description or clarification that the neutral language bothered me on, but the attempt at reassurance. And bothers is probably wrong, it's just the opposite of the intended goal.
And i obviously don't have federal experience to know but the "doing your job regardless of the admin" part I am used to. Appreciate the indication that it lands different.
🙂 appreciate the follow up discussion. Cheers!
#offtopic
Just want to say I appreciate both of you genuinely asking each other for clarification and more information over a stressful topic in a stressful time. I'd tag this entire exchange as Exemplary if I could give more than one a day, but I'll refrain so it doesn't highlight only one side of the conversation. This is the kind of thing that makes Tildes great. Thank you both.
also tagging @DefinitelyNotAFae
You get 1 every 8 hours so if you're quick ʘ‿ʘ
But no worries, I would far rather have people ask me my intention than assume it, and talk it out so if I did misstep I can correct it. Sometimes the wrong person gets the teeth and I cannot call the past week anything close to stable.
Much appreciated, and kudos to Fae as well!
In their earliest statement, Fae wrote about being concerned that this threat to funding will be used as leverage to try to end DEI and rights of trans students as policy at universities.
My interpretation of reading Fae's posts and comments in the past is that these issues are ones that they are deeply invested in.
I believe Fae knows and works with trans students that they see as at risk of suicide.
I appreciate your insight, thank you. My goal wasn't to address aspects of trans issues, but rather the question:
I appreciate that folks are personally invested in social issues. I have many closely held beliefs. That doesn't necessarily change my social expectations regarding conversations answering technical regulatory questions. But I do appreciate the reminder of what folks are worried about.
I think it's best to lean towards giving others the benefit of the doubt, tone is very hard to read over text. I think comments like yours take away from tildes. Even if they were being short, or rude saying that the comment is tremendously rude is clearly over the top. I think you need to step back and reassess how you came to that conclusion.
You are welcome to your opinion.
The commenter and myself have had our own follow up discussion, as you can see. Likewise, there is a fuzzy line on the spectrum of giving the benefit of the doubt vs enabling less social behavior. I won't get into a blow by blow of my thought process, because I don't want to belabor the point or undermine other follow-up. However, the long and short of it is that a specific question was asked, I answered, and the response I received felt combative towards the things I didn't address and didn't try to address, which felt unfair. And making people with expert knowledge feel less inclined to answer questions for fear of being sucked into arguments they don't want to have isn't good for Tildes either.
But we each have our own boundaries and expectations we need to enforce where we feel it is important to do so. Fae and myself post often enough that it is probably a net benefit for us to be forthright with each other, so we can resolve issues and contribute to Tildes in our own way. Neither of us is exactly timid about wading into the fray.
Edit: also, the topic matters. A bit of a scrum in a weekly politics thread is very different than arguing in a support thread in a LGBTQ topic.
NYT
NYT: No it doesn't apply to Federal Financial Aid
Just for future reference
But many people were concerned and it was the same reason I was
I'm not up for digging up a good link right now, but Trump has banned trans youth healthcare on the federal level - he's banning federal funding, saying that they'll investigate it as genital mutilation, parental kidnapping, etc. I am not up for going through it in detail right now.
Alongside this in the trans military EO he outright calls trans people liars, that trans existence is in direct conflict with being honorable, truthful, and disciplined.
I just want to say - Motherfucker.
And
When it has been legal to be arrested just for being queer and trans, people still went to Stonewall and loved and lived and found joy.
And I don't have any other words right now that are fit for company.
Executive Order.
Mississippi continuing to live up to its horrific reputation.
Life imprisonment and the right to use them as labor.
Oh look, they've solved the food supply chain issues caused by deportation policies. At least we've stopped exploiting migrant labor.
/Dark sarcasm.
Quaker groups file suit over the end of the policy that restricted ICE from arresting people in houses of worship
Trump Effectively Greenlights Anti-Abortion Violence (Jezebel)
I missed this from last week technically (it's not like we were inundated with news)
Lauren Boebert thinks she sees Rep. McBride in the bathroom, get Nancy Mace so they can harass her/kick her out/be transphobic, but harassed a random cis woman instead.
Two points stand out
I mentioned this in another thread recently, but laws targeting trans people, while absolutely hurting them and often intentionally cruel, will also always be turned on cis people who don't or can't "perform" gender to the mythical standard set by the transphobes. For every 1 trans girl banned from sports how many girls will be publicly mocked, viciously harassed, and have their genitals speculated over for daring to play sports while tall, muscular or just being skilled enough to play well
Many conservatives claim "you can always tell" and they're always wrong, and often show themselves to be wrong by harassing cis people, or accusing trans men of "never being able to be a woman," etc. Obviously this demonstrates their ignorance as well, but even people who are regularly around trans folks will not "clock" all trans people. Some folks are really happy just to avoid standing out and risking this harassment. (Caveat: One's trans identity is not validated by "passing.")
(3. Boebert and Mace are horrible awful people and deserve to have one of those moments where your whole spine hurts because you just took a step off the curb, but for no other particular reason but now everything hurts because you're old now... Every day of their lives. )
California Independence Could Be on 2028 Ballot (Newsweek)
Yeah this is just dumb political theater and honestly helps no one. It's fucking stupid when texas politicians trot this shit out, and it's just as dumb now. Ignoring the fact that it's simply just not legal it's just another step towards actual violence. There's so many fucking problems if something like this actually "passes".
Yeah, personally if this or anything similar from other states starts gaining real traction I’ll take it as my cue to start feeling around for the seat eject lever.
Indiana is trying to poach IL rural/downstate counties so there's that. But every now and then assholes from downstate pull that shit and everyone tells them to shut up.
Thankfully no one in Illinois wants to be a Hoosier even if they hate Chicago I guess.
Similar stuff in the PNW with the “greater Idaho” nonsense. I don’t know how many people in Washington or Oregon want to actually be part of Idaho, it’s hard to tell with the rural counties all being solid red.
Illinois at least has blue cities throughout the state, even some county governments turning or already being regularly blue. So it's not so consistently red south of I 80 (and plenty of suburbs lean red too ) but yeah.
Living in a small town now doesn't make me feel super great but at least we're not leaving the state.
Actually from what I read, the counties held a vote and it passed with most feeling favorable to moving under Indiana control, iirc.
Still a dumb and illegal action.
Seven counties voted to "consider seceding" which tbh will go away again just like the other previous moves to split the state IMO. But idk maybe we've all lost the plot
As an Indiana politician said, "we aren't funding our rural hospitals now"
Question for you - how would you feel about our governor making a bid for presidency?
I don't want to lose him as governor but yeah, I'd vote for him. I think he'd do a good job based on his performance here. There are even odds he's incredibly corrupt given it being IL I suppose, but this might be one of the times where his wealth means he doesn't have to be.
I'll take these things seriously when they come with provisions to instruct all residents to stop paying federal taxes.
Treasury official quits after resisting Musk's requests on payments
Given that Musk and his henchman are all unelected, unappointed officials, who are taking over government systems to control the disbursements of congressionally appropriated funds in a targeted way, this is beginning to feel like a serious crisis (or coup).
Yes.
In rare move, Florida Republicans defy DeSantis on immigration
...
I propose we ban naming Acts/Laws.
Just like how House Bills and Senate Bills get numbers, Laws get numbers now.
ETA:
Emphasis mine.... because the undocumented immigrants are working in ag? Is that the argument? That... is still a choice. That cannot be the logical person to give this to, but maybe I'm just unaware of something about FL politics
The Dumbest Trade War in History (Wall Street Journal)
Also posted as its own post:
https://tildes.net/~society/1lpr/us_president_donald_trump_announces_25_tariffs_against_canada_mexico_starting_tuesday_10_against
Gift link - Which Federal Programs Are Under Scrutiny? The Budget Office Named 2,600 of Them.
All 2,600 programs called out for special scrutiny to test for trans and other beneficiaries. Programs listed by department with some annotations.
Personal opinion: it's hard to pick a most shameful inclusion but I'm going with the $40k annual VA allowance for coffins and urns for service member beneficiaries. Remember, someone added each of these to a spreadsheet with questions to answer, and funding was supposed to be halted until it was reviewed. Special places and all that, but I'm too tired at those point to write much more.
New York Doctor Indicted in Louisiana for Sending Abortion Pills There
The doctor was indicted by a grand jury. She's the same doctor being civilly sued by Texas unless I misread.
There's an added element that the pregnant person was allegedly a minor and that prosecutors arrested the mother and claimed the child didn't want the abortion. Of course they'd arrest the mother for providing the medication as well, and I don't trust them, but it wouldn't be the abuse of parental power either.
Either way, as far as I can tell Dr. Carpenter did her job
Trump administration fires prosecutors involved in Jan. 6 cases and moves toward ousting FBI agents
Trump offers buyout to all federal employees.
The full page with offer details
I hope some folks that were eyeing retirement are able to take them up on this. I hope the well qualified folks who get regular offers elect to stay to help things function for the greater good. I hope that the less qualified but overly optimistic folks don't get themselves in trouble taking the resignation and then struggling to get a job.
What a mess, and it's only Tuesday.
Does anyone have any current insight into the management hole that was building up in the civil service in the early 2000’s? Basically, boomers weren’t retiring, so the people next in line couldn’t progress in rating as expected. The thought was that when the boomers did finally retire, it would happen almost all at once. There would then be nobody with the experience to perform the higher rated jobs because they had missed out on the middle rating jobs. Also at that time people were leaving because they couldn’t get promoted.
Has this played out? Was it entirely FUD?
I don't have data, but I'll try and find it tomorrow. I suspect that there is still a lot of grey in the federal workforce.
They get paid for 8 months. ugh I don't blame someone for taking it but I wish they wouldn't.
Ending Radical Indoctrination In K-12 Schooling
Parents who agree with this are almost certainly current or future members of the missing missing reasons club.
I actually laughed my way through this EO. It’s just so backwards. Incredible.
Holy shit, the details are terrifying.
They are absolutely going to use parts of it like this to ban teaching about the nasty parts of US history.
‘There will be many casualties’: Panama girds for war as Rubio opens talks (Politico)
Ford 'ripping up' Ontario's $100M contract with Elon Musk's Starlink in wake of U.S. tariffs (CBC)
I guess it belongs more in the "Weekly Canada politics news and updates thread", but there isn't one, and the front page doesn't really need any more Musk, so I'm posting it here.