Move Fast and Break the Government; The Bulwark, January 28, 2025

SAM STEIN AND 

BENJAMIN PARKER

, The Bulwark; 

Move Fast and Break the Government

"A letter from the Office of Management and Budget, obtained last night by The Bulwark, instructed federal agencies that they were to “temporarily pause all activities related to obligation or disbursement of all Federal financial assistance,” effective “on January 28, 2025, at 5:00 PM.”

What, exactly, does this mean? The note was vague, stating that the pause was for activities that “may be implicated by [Trump’s] executive orders, including, but not limited to, financial assistance for foreign aid, nongovernmental organizations, DEI, woke gender ideology, and the green new deal.” But immediate speculation among those scrutinizing the letter was that things like food assistance, financial aid to students, grants for university-based research, and many other government functions could come to a stop. The scope of what could be impacted was honestly hard for them to comprehend.

“Nobody knows,” said one person on the receiving end of the memo, when asked the extent of the federal aid that would stop.

Perhaps that’s the point.

In recent days, agency officials and those dependent on government contracts have described being left in a state of darkness by the administration they now serve; like families cowering in their basement shelters waiting to go out to see the damage the tornado has caused. Getting guidance on what was now allowed and what was prohibited was hard to do, in part lobbyists and even Congress were no better informed.

Federal health and research agencies appear to be particularly confused. Over the weekend, several people posted online about their clinical cancer trials having come to an abrupt halt as the National Institutes of Health imposed restrictions on hiring, travel, communication, and other functions. The scientific and medical community was, rightfully, alarmed at the possibility that people suffering from deadly diseases would be denied treatment by their own government.

By Monday, the NIH finally issued some guidance. In another letter obtained by The Bulwark, acting NIH Director Matthew Memoli assured colleagues that, “Clinical trials at NIH or NIH-funded institutions are ongoing,” and that “travel restrictions do not apply to research participants traveling to NIH to participate in a clinical trial or protocol.”

A victory? Yes. But a limited one. In that same letter, Memoli said that no money would be available for “new studies, new equipment, or research services unrelated to the studies that were started prior to Jan. 20, 2025.” In other words, don’t make future plans.

And it’s not just at the NIH, either. Two people directly familiar with the matter told The Bulwark on Monday that the National Science Foundation abruptly canceled peer review panels. “All review panels scheduled for the remainder of this week, 1/28-1/31 will be rescheduled to a future date as appropriate,” read the guidance given. The NSF did not return repeated requests for comment. Nor has the White House over the past few days.

The breakneck speed of Trump’s orders could quickly turn into an acute constitutional crisis, with the executive branch essentially usurping the power of the purse from the legislative body. Certainly, it has already had profound political and psychological effects. Federal employees described utterly dispirited workplaces, where paranoia is creeping in. There is a belief that the new administration is set on turning the government into a tool for Trump and searching for the pretext to fire anyone unwilling to go along. It did not go unnoticed that the statement from the DOJ official announcing the firings on Monday noted that “Acting Attorney General James McHenry made this decision because he did not believe these officials could be trusted to faithfully implement the President’s agenda” (emphasis ours).

But it’s also not hard to see how the tremors being sent throughout the government could hurt Trump in the long run. It starts with small examples of over-compliance with the vague orders that the administration has to walk back, like the Air Force removing videos honoring the Tuskegee Airmen from training materials because they believe those videos violated the administration’s anti-DEI push. They move to larger problems, like prison guards who are responsible for securing ISIS militants no longer turning up for work because their salaries have been cut. And then they become disasters on your watch, like infants dying because water was cut off in the foreign aid freeze.

That’s the thing about moving fast and breaking things. Sometimes you end up breaking things you wish you hadn’t and can’t repair."

The NIH and Moderna Are Fighting Over Who Owns Their Vaccine; Intelligencer, November 10, 2021

Matt Stieb, Intelligencer; The NIH and Moderna Are Fighting Over Who Owns Their Vaccine

"While last year the government was calling the shot the “NIH-Moderna COVID-19 vaccine,” the biotech giant filed a patent made public this week in which it found that “only Moderna’s scientists” designed the vaccine. The patent, filed in July, is specific to the genetic sequence creating spike proteins, which allow vaccine recipients to build antibodies to block the virus when the body is actually exposed. As the New York Times reports, the NIH was surprised by the attempt at a solo effort. If the two parties cannot figure out a way to split the credit, the government will have to determine if it will take the expensive step of going to court. Already, the U.S. has paid $10 billion in taxpayer funds for Moderna to help create the vaccine, test its efficacy, and provide shots for the federal government."

There’s a reason we don’t know much about AI; Politico, September 16, 2019

Arthur Allen, Politico; There’s a reason we don’t know much about AI

The U.S. government used to study new technologies to flag ethical or social problems. Not anymore. 

"Though many university professors and tech-funded think tanks are examining the ethical, social and legal implications of technologies like Big Data and machine learning, “it’s definitely happening outside the policy infrastructure,” said John Wilbanks, a philosopher and technologist at the Sage Bionetworks research group.

Yet these technologies could have profound effects on our future, and they pose enormous questions for society...

As it happens, there is a good precedent for the federal government stepping up to examine the ethical and legal issues around an important new technology. Starting in 1990, the National Institutes of Health set aside 5 percent of the funding for its Human Genome Project for a program known as ELSI—which stood for the ethical, legal and social implications of genetics research.

The ELSI program, which started 30 years ago, “was a symbol that NIH thought the ethical issues were so important in genomics that they’d spend a lot of money on them,” says Isaac Kohane, chief of the Harvard Medical School’s Department of Biomedical Informatics. “It gave other genetics researchers a heads-up—police your ethics, we care about them.”

ELSI’s premise was to have smart social scientists weigh the pros and cons of genetic technology before they emerged, instead of, “Oops, we let the genie out of the bottle,” said Larry Brody, director of Genomics and Society program at the National Human Genome Research Institute."

Navy Official: Concerns About Intellectual Property Rights Becoming More 'Acute'; National Defense, NDIA's Business & Technology Magazine, November 29, 2018

Connie Lee, National Defense, NDIA's Business & Technology Magazine;

Navy Official: Concerns About Intellectual Property Rights Becoming More 'Acute'

"Capt. Samuel Pennington, major program manager for surface training systems, said the fear of losing data rights can sometimes make companies reluctant to work with the government.
“We get feedback sometimes where they’re not willing to bid on a contract where we have full data rights,” he said. “Industry [is] not going to do that because they have their secret sauce and they don’t want to release it.”
Pennington said having IP rights would allow the Defense Department to more easily modernize and sustain equipment.
“Our initiative is to get as much data rights, or buy a new product that has open architecture to the point where [the] data rights that we do have are sufficient, where we can recompete that down the road,” he said. This would prevent the Navy from relying on the original manufacturer for future work on the system, he noted.
The issue is also being discussed on Capitol Hill, Merritt added. The fiscal year 2018 National Defense Authorization Act requires the Pentagon to develop policy on the acquisition or licensing of intellectual property. Additionally, the NDAA requires the department to negotiate a price for technical data rights of major weapon systems."

The U.S. government recruited black men to watch them die; The Washington Post, July 3, 2018

[Podcast]  Retropod, The Washington Post; The U.S. government recruited black men to watch them die 

"The Tuskegee syphilis experiment is a horrific piece of American history."

Can Europe Lead on Privacy?; The New York Times, April 1, 2018

Tom Wheeler, The New York Times; Can Europe Lead on Privacy?

"The United States government has a lot of explaining to do. Why is it that American internet companies such as Facebook and Google are required to provide privacy protections when doing business with European consumers but are free to not provide such protections for Americans? Why is it that Americans’ best privacy hope is the secondary effect of interconnected networks rather than privacy protections designed for Americans? Why shouldn’t Americans also be given meaningful tools to protect their privacy?"

One Way To Force Down Drug Prices: Have The U.S. Exercise Its Patent Rights; NPR, March 16, 2017

Alison Kodjak, NPR; 

One Way To Force Down Drug Prices: Have The U.S. Exercise Its Patent Rights

"...Trump already has a weapon he could deploy to cut the prices of at least some expensive medications.

That weapon is called "march-in rights."...

...[L]ower prices could also make drug companies less eager to invest lots of money in new medications.

That's the trade-off the government has always had to wrestle with. But it's one Trump could very well decide is worthwhile.

"Perhaps we as a country would rather have lower drug prices and a little less innovation," [Sara Fisher] Ellison [an economist at MIT] said."

Medical Ethics Have Been Violated at Detention Sites, a New Report Says; New York Times, 11/4/13

Denise Grady and Benedict Carey, New York Times; Medical Ethics Have Been Violated at Detention Sites, a New Report Says: "A group of experts in medicine, law and ethics has issued a blistering report that accuses the United States government of directing doctors, nurses and psychologists, among others, to ignore their professional codes of ethics and participate in the abuse of detainees in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. The report was published Monday by the Institute on Medicine as a Profession, an ethics group based at Columbia University’s College of Physicians and Surgeons, and the Open Society Foundations, a pro-democracy network founded by the billionaire George Soros. The authors were part of a 19-member task force that based its findings on a two-year review of public information. The sources included documents released by the government, news reports, and books and articles from professional journals."