In software terms, there has been a vulnerability in the constitution all along, it just had not been exploited until now.
The three branches of government are supposed to be checks and balances against each other. But turns out two of the three don't have any actual power to enforce their mandates. This has worked as long as the three branches grudgingly respected each others role. But now that the executive branch simply decided to ignore the other two whenever convenient, turns out there is no recourse.
Future people must endeavor to split up power even more, make more functions more independent and shielded from political manipulation, and prevent the rich from monopolizing and corrupting political office, government, mass media distribution, and journalism.
The founding fathers didn't see the corrupting influence of political parties on the separation of powers. It's covered quite well in this SMBC related comic:
https://www.lawsandsausagescomic.com/comic/101
The idea of branches of government being checks and balances against one another was never a good idea. A major problem is that the constitution doesn't actually encode any requirement that government represent the interests of the people, and gradually we've moved to a system where we're told what we're supposed to support is "the constitution" rather than any actual principles. It's all about supporting certain arbitrary procedures and content-free mechanisms.
You can’t make an unbreakable system, or, at least, it’s very difficult.
The problem is that a big percentage of the population is ok with this, and in that case it doesn’t matter if it’s illegal or not. There is a reason why, even if allowed, governments didn’t do these kind of things: population didn’t want it.
Unless that "big" percentage is an outright majority of the citizenry --- not a majority of congressional districts, not a majority of electoral college votes, not a majority of the votes in the last election, but an outright majority of the actual desires of all citizens --- then the system is broken. I'm pretty sure that is not the case; it's at least debatable. But the problem is that we've bought into a system that says that doesn't matter.
All political systems, no matter how well-designed, function largely on the basis of norms. Norms are why the UK's political system is fundamentally stable; norms (like "loyal opposition") were what kept the US system stable. It is not possible to design a system that works when people don't act like they want it to.
It has always been my impression from a distance that Americans believe the federal system was perfectly designed and is inherently robust, when in fact there have been concerns from day one about what would happen if it fell into the hands of a leader who didn't care for the law.
And that's where you are now.
But re: the executive orders, actually it is not clear that they can do this. As with many of Trump's EOs it may simply be illegal because -- newsflash -- Trump is a crook and he has no intention of following the law if it limits him.
This is a man who tried a coup and who has broad immunity for anything he does that even looks like governance, so why would he let a little thing like the law trouble him? It didn't bother him when he exported people to El Salvador without due process. It doesn't bother him that his "emergency" tariffs almost certainly lack a legal basis.
I don't think the good faith reasoning about the system being broken by design really matters: the USA is falling victim to an accelerated Hungary-style fascist restructuring.
If it's government funded it was indeed always under political control, just that some prior politicians chose to let it drift.
Having politicians exercise more direct control over this type of spending is good and as it should be. The concept of people taking money via force from other citizens yet answering to nobody is dystopian. The sort of people who support this idea are often, it seems, those who suspect their ideas and plans are so deeply unpopular that people could not be easily persuaded to fund them directly.
> If it's government funded it was indeed always under political control, just that some prior politicians chose to let it drift.
Right, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is under executive control? Is it not the case that Congress usually decides, one way or another, where the money goes, and it's the executive's job to see it does?
It is easier for politicians to do nothing, safer and ensures future election win. If someone would say anything serious about inviting those scientists, then his opponents would immediately capitalize on this by shouting from every paid tiktok shill, how he is taking European's jobs and inviting bad immigrants.
You seem to be frustrated about Romania (which has an east but not a formal eastern region designation as in Eastern Europe - are you conflating the two?) - but can you elaborate on your frustration?
How would any of his actions, if looked at objectively, differ from the actions of one who was charged with the complete destruction of the United States of America.
He doesn't want to destroy the USA. Well not quite.
He does want to fundamentally change it into an domestic empire -- a monarchical executive ruling over vassal states that have their own governments but must pay tribute.
Well... he wants it to look more like a mafia arrangement because he was jealous of those guys back when he had a mafia lawyer in the 1970s. He likes to pressure people to do him little favours in return for protection (which is literally what he was impeached for the first time). He thinks he can direct industry to do what he wants (and it looks like industry kind of agrees). It is clear he intends to meddle in state law.
They, the people around him, believe in what amounts to a unitary executive that converges on a form of monarchy. It's more or less central to the belief structure of a far-right guru, Curtis Yarvin (who is an ex tech guy and a nasty little racist dweeb):
There are many Yarvinists in the executive branch. There are also many in the AI community, and Musk consulted Yarvin about The America Party.
Asserting control over academia is a Yarvin thing (and also a Viktor Orbán thing, because the model here is Hungary, quite deliberately, which is why e.g. Tucker Carlson and CPAC hang out there). That is what is going on here. They are injecting the executive into every part of academic life.
Yes, not quite. But all that would obliterate the idea of the good ol' USA quite well: "I see a new nation ready to take its place in the world; not an empire, but a republic; and a republic of laws, not men."
This year is definitely the beginning of the end for American scientific leadership. The damage being done is incalculable.
The best and brightest simply aren't going to want to come to the U.S. for an uncertain future where they'll be harassed at the airport every trip and then defunded or deported at any time for "political" reasons (a.k.a. racism, bigotry, religion, ignorance and anti-intellectualism).
Amazingly, we're only 200 days into this administration.
We have 3 years, 5 months and 12 days left, assuming we still have free and fair elections in 2028.
For the next several years, the administration is going to continue to dismantle our country's foundations brick by brick, enabled by Congress and SCOTUS. The attack on immigrants is in full swing, but the total takeover of science, public education, universities and mass media is actually just beginning.
Personally I'm not very confident even in the next free and fair election things will change materially. Trump is the public face but the reason he's in office and also has control of congress is because Americans voted that way. It's not very clear that if elections were held tomorrow, that the result would go any different.
But but but American Exceptionalism! Americans are the best and brightest! The rest of the world can't compete! /s
Those doing and supporting what's happening a) care only about power, b) honestly think they and America is superior, c) both and d) think this time is different assuming they are educated and know history.
Whether it's real or just poor communication a lot of the country felt like the scientific institutions had been weaponized against them. Maybe the constituents of those institutions even believed either making themselves an enemy of the public or creating PR indicating they were was moral but the practical reality of public institutions is that they must have the trust of the public or they will come to an end.
This ends USA, full stop. Not this particular executive order, but his orders in general. It's been half a year and that orange turd has completely overtaken USA legislative branch with this "economic emergency", while bobbleheads in the Congress just signed it away voluntarily. And now he is taking preliminary shots at the judicial branch, trying to eradicate judges who aren't bending the knee. All the while testing through his minions if it would be possible to tear down constitution too and remain in power permanently.
Trump governs literally as any corrupt leader in any poor country does since ages: he feeds the people with cheap, superficial lies that they like to hear (we call it, he lets them suck a pacifier) while secretly stuffing his mates with money and power.
But that happens in unprecedented amounts in a developed and organised country, maybe soon developing...
- science funding is controlled by the state (and thus politics) in many leading countries, especially China. Doesn't seem to hold them back
- the US pays people vastly more than other countries, and will continue to have the ability to fund expensive research more than others. Maybe it will regain the political will to do so in coming years
You're right that uncertainty is deadly to investment, and signing up for 5 years of a PhD is certainly an investment. But it's hard to see this turn into an actual brain drain, if only for lack of a better place to go.
In a completely isolated bubble I’d be inclined to agree that scientific research might not do so badly, but the current set of politics completely rejects generally-accepted scientific norms.
After all, why bother doing research when the guy ultimately responsible for choosing your funding will take a sharpie to any data you collect if it looks bad?
Probably not. Grants were always under political control, right? This is just shifting political control from one part of a government agency to another part of the government agency.
> Individual grants will also require clearance from a political appointee and "must, where applicable, demonstrably advance the President’s policy priorities."
> The order also instructs agencies to formalize the ability to cancel previously awarded grants at any time if they're considered to "no longer advance agency priorities."
Most of my friends got grants from industry. Relying on federal grants to build up a generation of grad students in any field seems like a recipe for disaster. This change might actually bring a higher standard of tax-payer funded research if it enables the public to have faster feedback mechanisms when research stagnates or is misaligned with the public interest.
I genuinely don't understand this. This is due to my lack of experience in University since I never went, and my experience with laboratories, since I've only ever been in one, much to the annoyance of my best friends girlfriend at the time, who was studying Chinook and their spawning behavior.
My understanding is the grants you're talking about are generally for small student salaries as they work on a given project simultaneously with their continued education. Is there not another way to fund these projects? Is there not a better way to engage students into these projects? I don't recall most students having a wide array of choices when it comes to taking on these opportunities.
Is this not a chance to improve a rather ancient and clumsy system?
> Is this not a chance to improve a rather ancient and clumsy system?
I seriously doubt that there is any will to improve the system.
> My understanding is the grants you're talking about are generally for small student salaries as they work on a given project simultaneously with their continued education.
Grants cover a much larger part of the work at labs. Basically, a grant could be paying anything except tenured salaries and administrative costs.
Grants are usually for projects. Projects may include a portion for postgraduate students, but also pay a lot of other things such as running costs for a lab, travel, conference fees, etc. The costs of running, say, a biology lab are very high (lots of equipment, need to employ technicians as well).
There's a reason the Americans discovered how to make atomic weapons first and it's because their researchers were living under a less oppressive state that wasn't motivated by anti-intellectualism and dumb ideology.
While I agree in spirit on the concern about political interference in science, the Manhattan Project was actually one of the most secretive, tightly controlled government programs in US history.
In addition many scientists involved (like Oppenheimer) later faced political persecution during the McCarthy era.
American atomic research succeeded despite, or perhaps because of, intense state control and funding
The "raw material" of the Manhattan Project was a flourishing community of researchers, including many European exiles; "secretive, tightly controlled" management is simply the only reasonable way to run such a military program.
Consider that at the same time the Third Reich also had a nuclear weapons research program, and it went nowhere.
Well, many of the researchers would have been killed if they stayed in Germany. It kinda helps being alive when researching how to build a nuclear bomb.
The Manhattan project was an engineering project, not so much a scientific one. It was only made possible because the science and theories behind it were discovered first.
Yeah it probably isn't the best project to highlight the sentiment, but it was well known one and immediately came to mind in a period that had the contrasting factor.
I don't particularly think that the secrecy or control of a single group really reflects on the overall culture however. We wouldn't call phreakers authoritarian just because they weren't publishing their exploits in the newspaper or letting any new person fully into their circle.
Also the prosecution and harassment of communists/leftists and minorities in the US during that era is why I stipulated less oppressive rather than unoppressive.
An Australian nuclear scientist working for the UK Rutherford (New Zealander) labs | Tube Alloys | MAUD program told them how to.
It took a while to convince the US scientists who were mainly interested in making big hot piles for power.
The actual building of atomic weapons (Trinity, Fat Man and Little Boy) took place under a fully authoritarian ultra secret State directed militarily controlled program that cost a significant chunk of national GDP.
The example you chose appears to be both incorrect and the very opposite of whatever point you wanted to make.
The jingoist dream of America is falling apart. It must seem, to some who are very dependent on it existing, as if the sky actually is falling. Perhaps it's just a good opportunity for them to study history that has been untouched by North American propaganda.
Anyways, we have the Internet, I'm not sure it matters _where_ innovations are created anymore. It certainly does not seem to be stopping China on any level.
America is going to have to give up the "World Police" (a.k.a. The Military Industrial Complex) badge and move into it's relative political middle age with a little more care and aplomb than the last 6 decades have allowed for. The haze of WW2 is far behind us now.
Interesting. How about we replace the USA (I mostly highlighted the US because that's where this site and the population that use it is based) with the Allies. And being authoritarian isn't about having secretive or highly controlled group (which makes sense given what they were working on and the stakes), but rather the general cultural interpretation of freedom perceived by those who are likely to be doing research. And while you can argue that the USA had authoritarian overtones then as well, the key point is that they weren't as overt as having to greet everyone with good tidings for your supreme leader and keep all your opinions strictly in line with the party's. Notes released from the German scientists (I think Heisenberg comes to mind?) revealed they weren't highly motivated by the regime's philosophy despite supporting it outwardly while those who were the most invested into the Nazi ideology never published much of note.
The Manhattan project succeeded because it was consuming a significant portion of the US GDP at the time, the scientists were forced to live on site with their families and every word they said was monitored.
Projects such as these consume large sums of money no matter who funds them. But the scientists that worked on it were not forced to work on it, a large number of them were refugees from exactly the kind of regime that the OP contrasts the United States with, which at the time, side-by-side would definitely be favorable for the US.
Military projects, especially making the most powerful weapon in history for use in the largest war up to that point, are always done with as much secrecy as is feasible. Living on-site was also practical: the reason the site was as isolated as it was was in part because of secrecy, the families being there was both to improve security and for convenience. Finally, yes, every word they said was monitored. But they were scientists and their families working on top secret machinery of war, which ended up changing the course of history in a significant way, they quite literally ushered in a new age. They knew they were monitored and that this was one part of the price to pay for working on that project.
In contrast with that age: now all our words are monitored, even inane ones that are exchanged between people who would have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Nationalist populism sacrifices academics and intellectuals to create a divide between “the people” and the presumed said “elite,” which is then weaponized for political gain by the actual “elite” (political, economical, etc). These movements rely on emotional resonance and simplified narratives, as opposed to educated, informed discourse.
My crude take on the underlying root cause is resentment, discontent, and similar feelings. Happiness is reality minus expectations, and a whole lot of folks are unhappy life did not turn out how they thought it would.
Nice revisionism you got there. It wasn't Americans that discovered it. It was mostly German scientists working in the US after they fled their own more oppressive state.
Do you really think WWII America was a less oppressive state? Do you know much harder it was to get porn back then? Or be a trans? Japanese internment? Food ration cards? Office of Censorship? Smith Act? The draft? Curfews and blackouts?
All that stuff was bad, especially Japanese internment, but this feels like a whole different category. It's a full-blown ceding control of the country to one man.
Lol what? At the time that was done we were drafting people to fight in foreign wars, taxes were extraordinarily high (after having zero income tax just recently) and those weapons were built specifically to support that.
I truly cannot understand the people that support this administration. I know I certainly wouldn’t have chosen to defund education and healthcare while simultaneously running up the national dept to pay for a private police force loyal only to the president. I used to think there was some way to bridge the divide, but I just have no patience or respect for the other side anymore.
Maybe it's just Twitter's algorithm that only serves me the decent replies - but these at least have a point, antisemitism is running utterly rampant in academia these days. In no relation to Qatari funding, one might assume...
All bureaucrats do this sort of thing: shut down something innocent to serve as a rallying cry.
UCLA has $8 billion in endowments and the state universities in total have $30 billion in endowment funds. How many years could they fund Tao and his institute if they really wanted to?
The govt has frozen about $584 million in grants to UCLA. The endowment won't last very long if they spent it to replace that. Furthermore, endowment money often has conditions that prevent it being spent freely + it is used for other things.
Readit News
That is the case with so much of what is happening now. If these things are possible, the system was already broken.
The three branches of government are supposed to be checks and balances against each other. But turns out two of the three don't have any actual power to enforce their mandates. This has worked as long as the three branches grudgingly respected each others role. But now that the executive branch simply decided to ignore the other two whenever convenient, turns out there is no recourse.
Future people must endeavor to split up power even more, make more functions more independent and shielded from political manipulation, and prevent the rich from monopolizing and corrupting political office, government, mass media distribution, and journalism.
The problem is that a big percentage of the population is ok with this, and in that case it doesn’t matter if it’s illegal or not. There is a reason why, even if allowed, governments didn’t do these kind of things: population didn’t want it.
It has always been my impression from a distance that Americans believe the federal system was perfectly designed and is inherently robust, when in fact there have been concerns from day one about what would happen if it fell into the hands of a leader who didn't care for the law.
And that's where you are now.
But re: the executive orders, actually it is not clear that they can do this. As with many of Trump's EOs it may simply be illegal because -- newsflash -- Trump is a crook and he has no intention of following the law if it limits him.
This is a man who tried a coup and who has broad immunity for anything he does that even looks like governance, so why would he let a little thing like the law trouble him? It didn't bother him when he exported people to El Salvador without due process. It doesn't bother him that his "emergency" tariffs almost certainly lack a legal basis.
I don't think the good faith reasoning about the system being broken by design really matters: the USA is falling victim to an accelerated Hungary-style fascist restructuring.
Nixon looks like a boy scout by comparison.
Having politicians exercise more direct control over this type of spending is good and as it should be. The concept of people taking money via force from other citizens yet answering to nobody is dystopian. The sort of people who support this idea are often, it seems, those who suspect their ideas and plans are so deeply unpopular that people could not be easily persuaded to fund them directly.
Right, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is under executive control? Is it not the case that Congress usually decides, one way or another, where the money goes, and it's the executive's job to see it does?
https://euraxess.ec.europa.eu/jobs#european-funding-initiati...
Wtf US
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/aug/06/jd-vance-ohi...
He does want to fundamentally change it into an domestic empire -- a monarchical executive ruling over vassal states that have their own governments but must pay tribute.
Well... he wants it to look more like a mafia arrangement because he was jealous of those guys back when he had a mafia lawyer in the 1970s. He likes to pressure people to do him little favours in return for protection (which is literally what he was impeached for the first time). He thinks he can direct industry to do what he wants (and it looks like industry kind of agrees). It is clear he intends to meddle in state law.
They, the people around him, believe in what amounts to a unitary executive that converges on a form of monarchy. It's more or less central to the belief structure of a far-right guru, Curtis Yarvin (who is an ex tech guy and a nasty little racist dweeb):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Yarvin
(He explicitly uses the word "monarch")
There are many Yarvinists in the executive branch. There are also many in the AI community, and Musk consulted Yarvin about The America Party.
Asserting control over academia is a Yarvin thing (and also a Viktor Orbán thing, because the model here is Hungary, quite deliberately, which is why e.g. Tucker Carlson and CPAC hang out there). That is what is going on here. They are injecting the executive into every part of academic life.
You can't really enroll graduate students for a 5 year PHD project if their funding can be pulled at a moment's notice like this.
The best and brightest simply aren't going to want to come to the U.S. for an uncertain future where they'll be harassed at the airport every trip and then defunded or deported at any time for "political" reasons (a.k.a. racism, bigotry, religion, ignorance and anti-intellectualism).
Amazingly, we're only 200 days into this administration.
We have 3 years, 5 months and 12 days left, assuming we still have free and fair elections in 2028.
For the next several years, the administration is going to continue to dismantle our country's foundations brick by brick, enabled by Congress and SCOTUS. The attack on immigrants is in full swing, but the total takeover of science, public education, universities and mass media is actually just beginning.
The midterms are in 2026. A swapped House (and/or Senate, but less likely) would drastically shift power.
Those doing and supporting what's happening a) care only about power, b) honestly think they and America is superior, c) both and d) think this time is different assuming they are educated and know history.
Hopefully people remember this for next time.
But that happens in unprecedented amounts in a developed and organised country, maybe soon developing...
- science funding is controlled by the state (and thus politics) in many leading countries, especially China. Doesn't seem to hold them back
- the US pays people vastly more than other countries, and will continue to have the ability to fund expensive research more than others. Maybe it will regain the political will to do so in coming years
You're right that uncertainty is deadly to investment, and signing up for 5 years of a PhD is certainly an investment. But it's hard to see this turn into an actual brain drain, if only for lack of a better place to go.
After all, why bother doing research when the guy ultimately responsible for choosing your funding will take a sharpie to any data you collect if it looks bad?
Probably not. Grants were always under political control, right? This is just shifting political control from one part of a government agency to another part of the government agency.
> The order also instructs agencies to formalize the ability to cancel previously awarded grants at any time if they're considered to "no longer advance agency priorities."
Now? One of your grad students says something a little too on the nose on Bsky, and your lab gets shut down.
Sure. In the same vein, you have always been at war with Eurasia.
Deleted Comment
Dead Comment
My understanding is the grants you're talking about are generally for small student salaries as they work on a given project simultaneously with their continued education. Is there not another way to fund these projects? Is there not a better way to engage students into these projects? I don't recall most students having a wide array of choices when it comes to taking on these opportunities.
Is this not a chance to improve a rather ancient and clumsy system?
I seriously doubt that there is any will to improve the system.
> My understanding is the grants you're talking about are generally for small student salaries as they work on a given project simultaneously with their continued education.
Grants cover a much larger part of the work at labs. Basically, a grant could be paying anything except tenured salaries and administrative costs.
In addition many scientists involved (like Oppenheimer) later faced political persecution during the McCarthy era.
American atomic research succeeded despite, or perhaps because of, intense state control and funding
Consider that at the same time the Third Reich also had a nuclear weapons research program, and it went nowhere.
I don't particularly think that the secrecy or control of a single group really reflects on the overall culture however. We wouldn't call phreakers authoritarian just because they weren't publishing their exploits in the newspaper or letting any new person fully into their circle.
Also the prosecution and harassment of communists/leftists and minorities in the US during that era is why I stipulated less oppressive rather than unoppressive.
An Australian nuclear scientist working for the UK Rutherford (New Zealander) labs | Tube Alloys | MAUD program told them how to.
It took a while to convince the US scientists who were mainly interested in making big hot piles for power.
The actual building of atomic weapons (Trinity, Fat Man and Little Boy) took place under a fully authoritarian ultra secret State directed militarily controlled program that cost a significant chunk of national GDP.
The example you chose appears to be both incorrect and the very opposite of whatever point you wanted to make.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tube_Alloys
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Oliphant
Anyways, we have the Internet, I'm not sure it matters _where_ innovations are created anymore. It certainly does not seem to be stopping China on any level.
America is going to have to give up the "World Police" (a.k.a. The Military Industrial Complex) badge and move into it's relative political middle age with a little more care and aplomb than the last 6 decades have allowed for. The haze of WW2 is far behind us now.
The Manhattan project succeeded because it was consuming a significant portion of the US GDP at the time, the scientists were forced to live on site with their families and every word they said was monitored.
Military projects, especially making the most powerful weapon in history for use in the largest war up to that point, are always done with as much secrecy as is feasible. Living on-site was also practical: the reason the site was as isolated as it was was in part because of secrecy, the families being there was both to improve security and for convenience. Finally, yes, every word they said was monitored. But they were scientists and their families working on top secret machinery of war, which ended up changing the course of history in a significant way, they quite literally ushered in a new age. They knew they were monitored and that this was one part of the price to pay for working on that project.
In contrast with that age: now all our words are monitored, even inane ones that are exchanged between people who would have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
I'm confused, are you claiming the enemy was not consuming a significant portion of their GDP on their weapons program?
the "necessary but not sufficient" concept applies here.
My crude take on the underlying root cause is resentment, discontent, and similar feelings. Happiness is reality minus expectations, and a whole lot of folks are unhappy life did not turn out how they thought it would.
https://warwick.ac.uk/news/pressreleases/researchers_point_t...
https://academic.oup.com/isagsq/article/1/1/ksab002/6185295
"Scientific fraud has become an 'industry,' analysis finds"
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44796526
"The Trump administration has suspended the funding of Terence Tao and the Institute for Pure and Applied Mathematics at UCLA."
Maybe it's just Twitter's algorithm that only serves me the decent replies - but these at least have a point, antisemitism is running utterly rampant in academia these days. In no relation to Qatari funding, one might assume...
But I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s one of those “enlightened centrists.”
UCLA has $8 billion in endowments and the state universities in total have $30 billion in endowment funds. How many years could they fund Tao and his institute if they really wanted to?