Donald Trump has "paused all external communications" from the CDC, NIH, and FDA, effectively muzzling them

[LGR4GM]

 

Trump officials have paused all external communications at health agencies like CDC, FDA, NIH. No health alerts and the famed MMWRs (morbidity and mortality weekly); no updates to key websites or social media posts. And no indication how long the pause will last.

https://www.cnn.com/2025/01/21/health/hhs-cdc-fda-trump-pause-communication/index.html

 

 

[SABRES 0311]

Not a good start IMO. Coming out of the COVID years and halting external communication doesn’t help build trust in the administration or those agencies.

Needs to give a reason for this sooner than later.

[LGR4GM]

8 minutes ago, SABRES 0311 said:

Not a good start IMO. Coming out of the COVID years and halting external communication doesn’t help build trust in the administration or those agencies.

Needs to give a reason for this sooner than later.

Reason is simple, he doesn't want them to say or do anything he doesn't want. It is about regurgitating his beliefs or his admins beliefs and if the science contradicts that it must be silenced. 

[K-9]

Another major embarrassment and he’s only two days in. These organizations are the preeminent organizations of their kind in the world and to muzzle them is to negatively impact the vital information shared by scientists across multiple disciplines worldwide. But Trump doesn’t want to be undone by another pandemic, so it’s best to just silence them. 

Silencing is key though. Just like 1930s Europe. He just might break that 53 day mark after all. 

[LGR4GM]

Letter sent out to NASA and every other Federal agency by order of the president. Wait until DEI turns into "disparages the current administration"

Edited January 23 by LGR4GM

[LGR4GM]

Multiple reports that NIH (National Institute of Health) staff have been told they can't travel to conferences or give talks until further notices.

NIH also shutdown their grant reviews according to multiple scientists in the field "until further notice". NIH funding helps over 300k people across roughly 2,500 institutions including at major universities. With the grant review panel shut down, this will impact the ability of the United States to due research on very real and ongoing problems from pandemic's to biomedical engineering. 

Read all about it: https://www.science.org/content/article/trump-hits-nih-devastating-freezes-meetings-travel-communications-and-hiring#:~:text=Donald Trump's return to the,such as grant review panels.

Quote

Today, for example, officials halted midstream a training workshop for junior scientists, called off a workshop on adolescent learning minutes before it was to begin, and canceled meetings of two advisory councils. Panels that were scheduled to review grant proposals also received eleventh-hour word that they wouldn’t be meeting.

I notice how quiet the responses here have been. Hard to defend the Trump admin already, isn't it?

Edited January 23 by LGR4GM

[Weave]

1 hour ago, LGR4GM said:

Multiple reports that NIH (National Institute of Health) staff have been told they can't travel to conferences or give talks until further notices.

NIH also shutdown their grant reviews according to multiple scientists in the field "until further notice". NIH funding helps over 300k people across roughly 2,500 institutions including at major universities. With the grant review panel shut down, this will impact the ability of the United States to due research on very real and ongoing problems from pandemic's to biomedical engineering. 

Read all about it: https://www.science.org/content/article/trump-hits-nih-devastating-freezes-meetings-travel-communications-and-hiring#:~:text=Donald Trump's return to the,such as grant review panels.

I notice how quiet the responses here have been. Hard to defend the Trump admin already, isn't it?

We will always have “thoughts and prayers”.

[LTS]

1 hour ago, Weave said:

We will always have “thoughts and prayers”.

Those are no longer allowed either.

[Weave]

1 minute ago, LTS said:

Those are no longer allowed either.

If they cancel science AND religion it could get very entertaining.

[K-9]

They’re effectively cancelling science already. Just the way the fanatical, fundamentalist right wants it to be. 

[LGR4GM]

Had a coworker today in NLM training, this training was a 4 week sequence, once a week, and they met last week for part 1. Part 2 was canceled this morning because the NLM was told they can't do trainings. 

[K-9]

I’m curious, instead of brown, I wonder what color Trump will choose for his shirts.

[LGR4GM]

Donald Trump, in accordance with the Project 2025 playbook he is following, has said he wants to get rid of FEMA and let the States do it. 

Quote

Trump: "We're looking at the whole concept of FEMA. I like, frankly, the concept when North Carolina gets hit, the governor takes care of it. When Florida gets hit, the governor takes care of it. Meaning the state takes care of it ... I'd like to see the states take care of disasters."

 

[K-9]

By silencing critical health agencies and threatening to eliminate FEMA, this administration is a threat to the health and safety of the American people; a clear and present danger to the citizenry. And we are only five days in. 

[LTS]

53 minutes ago, K-9 said:

By silencing critical health agencies and threatening to eliminate FEMA, this administration is a threat to the health and safety of the American people; a clear and present danger to the citizenry. And we are only five days in. 

I'm not sure i have a problem with dissolving FEMA.  Is it really not a situation that states can handle themselves? I don't usually hear positive stories about FEMA involvement anyway. 

The money that funds FEMA comes from the entirety of the United States, yet certain geographic regions are more prone to disasters that require FEMA assistance. It seems that if people want to live in states that experience greater amounts of disasters the state itself should take care of its citizens and the cost of living in those areas should reflect that.

This is very different than blocking national health initiatives. FEMA is an emergency response team.  There's plenty of emergency response in this country that has nothing to do with the federal government. The states have national guard which is often used as well.  Utility companies send workers across multiple states to help recovery.

Also, people need to learn how to protect themselves. Far too many people look to the government. If a nationwide large scale disaster hits FEMA will be useless and those sitting around waiting for help will end up dead.  Interrupt the supply chain nationwide for 5 days and see what FEMA does to alleviate that.

[Weave]

2 hours ago, LTS said:

I'm not sure i have a problem with dissolving FEMA.  Is it really not a situation that states can handle themselves? I don't usually hear positive stories about FEMA involvement anyway. 

The money that funds FEMA comes from the entirety of the United States, yet certain geographic regions are more prone to disasters that require FEMA assistance. It seems that if people want to live in states that experience greater amounts of disasters the state itself should take care of its citizens and the cost of living in those areas should reflect that.

This is very different than blocking national health initiatives. FEMA is an emergency response team.  There's plenty of emergency response in this country that has nothing to do with the federal government. The states have national guard which is often used as well.  Utility companies send workers across multiple states to help recovery.

Also, people need to learn how to protect themselves. Far too many people look to the government. If a nationwide large scale disaster hits FEMA will be useless and those sitting around waiting for help will end up dead.  Interrupt the supply chain nationwide for 5 days and see what FEMA does to alleviate that.

The counter to that is, FEMA are subject matter experts for disaster management.  By moving it to the states we now have to develop 51 subject matter expert teams to handle, making the overall cost to the country higher.  Each state will have to fund leveling up their game to account for no federal response.  even states that historically have low need for federal response will need to up their budgets significantly for the “just in case”.  That’s pretty inefficient overall.

I don’t really have a strong opinion regarding FEMA beyond the economy of scale to having a national organization expert at disaster response.

[K-9]

2 minutes ago, Weave said:

The counter to that is, FEMA are subject matter experts for disaster management.  By moving it to the states we now have to develop 51 subject matter expert teams to handle, making the overall cost to the country higher.  Each state will have to fund leveling up their game to account for no federal response.  even states that historically have low need for federal response will need to up their budgets significantly for the “just in case”.  That’s pretty inefficient overall.

I don’t really have a strong opinion regarding FEMA beyond the economy of scale to having a national organization expert at disaster response.

Not to mention that states typically harder hit by disasters are often those red states that already take in far more federal dollars than they contribute in taxes. 

[LTS]

5 hours ago, Weave said:

The counter to that is, FEMA are subject matter experts for disaster management.  By moving it to the states we now have to develop 51 subject matter expert teams to handle, making the overall cost to the country higher.  Each state will have to fund leveling up their game to account for no federal response.  even states that historically have low need for federal response will need to up their budgets significantly for the “just in case”.  That’s pretty inefficient overall.

I don’t really have a strong opinion regarding FEMA beyond the economy of scale to having a national organization expert at disaster response.

So I've heard and yet in every disaster all I seem to read is how they are not good at actual disaster management.

As for how to handle disasters, I think they'll still share information.  It's not like states don't share information.

I understand the "just in case" scenario and efficiency. However, in the event of multiple national disasters FEMA won't be able to handle all of the response either. There's something to be said for not putting all your resources into a single organization as well.

5 hours ago, K-9 said:

Not to mention that states typically harder hit by disasters are often those red states that already take in far more federal dollars than they contribute in taxes. 

I suppose, but I'm not sure what you are getting at here. This would further support my argument wouldn't it?  Those red states are reaping the rewards of the blue state taxes?  Perhaps if FEMA didn't exist then those red states would have to fund their own emergency response?

[K-9]

38 minutes ago, LTS said:

So I've heard and yet in every disaster all I seem to read is how they are not good at actual disaster management.

As for how to handle disasters, I think they'll still share information.  It's not like states don't share information.

I understand the "just in case" scenario and efficiency. However, in the event of multiple national disasters FEMA won't be able to handle all of the response either. There's something to be said for not putting all your resources into a single organization as well.

I suppose, but I'm not sure what you are getting at here. This would further support my argument wouldn't it?  Those red states are reaping the rewards of the blue state taxes?  Perhaps if FEMA didn't exist then those red states would have to fund their own emergency response?

What I’m getting at here is that this policy would hurt a large swath of Trump’s constituents. Those states are poor and simply don’t have the tax base to mitigate big disasters over and above what they’re prepared to do currently nor would they be inclined to raise taxes high enough to fund their own disaster management organizations. And most states already have their own emergency management organizations, anyway. But there are times when a huge federal infusion of disaster aid is required.

As for the rest of it, I disagree with your take on FEMA and how effective it’s been over the years. They’re mitigating disasters that nobody pays much attention to most of the time. 

[LTS]

11 hours ago, K-9 said:

What I’m getting at here is that this policy would hurt a large swath of Trump’s constituents. Those states are poor and simply don’t have the tax base to mitigate big disasters over and above what they’re prepared to do currently nor would they be inclined to raise taxes high enough to fund their own disaster management organizations. And most states already have their own emergency management organizations, anyway. But there are times when a huge federal infusion of disaster aid is required.

As for the rest of it, I disagree with your take on FEMA and how effective it’s been over the years. They’re mitigating disasters that nobody pays much attention to most of the time. 

I agree, dissolving FEMA would predominantly impact Trump's strongest constituent states, and yet he's still doing it.

I'm not arguing that FEMA has not been able to provide some measure of its purpose. I am arguing that en masse, FEMA is a federally funded program that does not provide equal benefit to the nation it covers. I am saying that in the fact of large scale disasters it has often proven inept at handling them in a way that I would consider an organization that's sole purpose is to handle disasters would handle them. Furthermore, in the event of a true nationwide disaster, FEMA would lack the resources to respond to all locations in an effective manner. As such, pushing emergency preparedness to the states, in full, would allow for a more effective emergency response program and also allow it to be appropriately funded directly from those living in the states.

There are probably other ways to solve national disaster preparedness and response. What I know though is that most of what I have read about FEMA does not depict an agency that is well run or that responds as well as it should to events that it is specifically tasked with responding to.

Some readings I pulled quick for background (I've been reading about FEMA off and on for some time)

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/federal-disaster-management-is-a-confusing-patchwork-reforming-fema-and-improving-interagency-coordination-can-fix-it/ (2023)

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/abolish-fema/   (2006)

https://www.npr.org/2021/06/29/1004347023/why-fema-aid-is-unavailable-to-many-who-need-it-the-most (2021)

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-the-u-s-disaster-agency-is-not-ready-for-catastrophes/ (2019)

Centralized disaster response is a commonly used model by nations, but there are others as well.  In the end, FEMA is a management organization that focuses on providing information on preparedness and coordination during times of disaster. They assist in coordination of local resources and provide some funding as needed. All of which is something that could be brought closer to "home" by moving these funds to a more localized and segregated management source.

Overall?  In the event of a major natural disaster FEMA is not going to help everyone. Individuals should be prepared to handle the disasters they will most commonly face and there is overlap in that preparedness (water, food, shelter, etc.).  Like any response, the first response is going to be where it drives the most assistance and that will be in the denser population centers and critical infrastructure.

 

[K-9]

3 hours ago, LTS said:

I agree, dissolving FEMA would predominantly impact Trump's strongest constituent states, and yet he's still doing it.

I'm not arguing that FEMA has not been able to provide some measure of its purpose. I am arguing that en masse, FEMA is a federally funded program that does not provide equal benefit to the nation it covers. I am saying that in the fact of large scale disasters it has often proven inept at handling them in a way that I would consider an organization that's sole purpose is to handle disasters would handle them. Furthermore, in the event of a true nationwide disaster, FEMA would lack the resources to respond to all locations in an effective manner. As such, pushing emergency preparedness to the states, in full, would allow for a more effective emergency response program and also allow it to be appropriately funded directly from those living in the states.

There are probably other ways to solve national disaster preparedness and response. What I know though is that most of what I have read about FEMA does not depict an agency that is well run or that responds as well as it should to events that it is specifically tasked with responding to.

Some readings I pulled quick for background (I've been reading about FEMA off and on for some time)

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/federal-disaster-management-is-a-confusing-patchwork-reforming-fema-and-improving-interagency-coordination-can-fix-it/ (2023)

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/abolish-fema/   (2006)

https://www.npr.org/2021/06/29/1004347023/why-fema-aid-is-unavailable-to-many-who-need-it-the-most (2021)

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-the-u-s-disaster-agency-is-not-ready-for-catastrophes/ (2019)

Centralized disaster response is a commonly used model by nations, but there are others as well.  In the end, FEMA is a management organization that focuses on providing information on preparedness and coordination during times of disaster. They assist in coordination of local resources and provide some funding as needed. All of which is something that could be brought closer to "home" by moving these funds to a more localized and segregated management source.

Overall?  In the event of a major natural disaster FEMA is not going to help everyone. Individuals should be prepared to handle the disasters they will most commonly face and there is overlap in that preparedness (water, food, shelter, etc.).  Like any response, the first response is going to be where it drives the most assistance and that will be in the denser population centers and critical infrastructure.

 

I have no problem if the federal government simply moves the funds to local authorities, which they already do as well. My concern is that when Trump says to get rid of it and let the states handle it (which they also already do with their own emergency response organizations), that he intends to cut off those critical federal funds. And I suspect he wants to cut off the funding given that he and others in his orbit have already put forth the idea of placing conditions on those funds as it is. 

[LTS]

On 1/25/2025 at 1:49 PM, K-9 said:

I have no problem if the federal government simply moves the funds to local authorities, which they already do as well. My concern is that when Trump says to get rid of it and let the states handle it (which they also already do with their own emergency response organizations), that he intends to cut off those critical federal funds. And I suspect he wants to cut off the funding given that he and others in his orbit have already put forth the idea of placing conditions on those funds as it is. 

Sure, a multi-part problem. Cut $20B and cut the federal deficit?  I'm sure we wouldn't see it as a tax break and redistributing it isn't needed.  Of course it's not as though they'd pull money from the military budget.. which they should.

The states aren't getting it either.

In the end, the states need to step up their game. The federal government needs to be smaller and less involved in a lot of things.

[K-9]

3 hours ago, LTS said:

Sure, a multi-part problem. Cut $20B and cut the federal deficit?  I'm sure we wouldn't see it as a tax break and redistributing it isn't needed.  Of course it's not as though they'd pull money from the military budget.. which they should.

The states aren't getting it either.

In the end, the states need to step up their game. The federal government needs to be smaller and less involved in a lot of things.

Yep, it’s the same old debate on allocation of tax revenues and I can respect that. But when it comes to the well being of my fellow citizens devastated by a disaster, there can be no quibbling, imo. Not every state can “up  their game” enough to effectively mitigate certain disasters. YMMV, however. 

[Hank]

I think something that gets overlooked is that many countries are smaller than the size of Texas, and they have a much narrower scope of disasters to contend with. It's much more logical for those nations to have a centralized emergency relief than a country the size of the US.