
USDA disavows gag-order emailed to scientific research unit - ArtDev
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-usda-idUSKBN1582OB
======
slg
Could anyone here make a legitimate argument why these gag-orders are a good
idea?

I am consistently baffled how a political party can make so many decisions
that are objectively wrong and still garner support of roughly 50% of the
population. I feel bad for anyone that has legitimate conservative viewpoints
on things like fiscal policy. The only people in government that seem to agree
with them also happen to be bigoted, anti-science, authoritarians.

EDIT: For those responding with some form of "the Democrats are no better", do
you honestly not see a difference between the first few days of the Trump
administration and every other modern presidency? It isn't about political
moves involving topics like abortion, Obamacare, or how to deal with the
Middle East. Smart people can have reasonable disagreements on those. However
in the last few day he has had his press secretary lie to the American people,
suggested the US should commit war crimes, and forbid government agencies from
speaking to the public. Things like this used to just be "wrong" but they have
now been turned into partisan issues.

~~~
thraway2016
_I am consistently baffled how a political party can make so many decisions
that are objectively wrong and still garner support of roughly 50% of the
population._

Same way that "the other side" went from a staunch antiwar position to
incessant apologetics for Obama's wars, extrajudicial drone murders,
deployment of a massive panopticon surveillance state, and sabre-rattling
against Russia.

It's always okay when _my_ guy does it.

~~~
yongjik
I hear that often these days, but in the past 8 years conservative pundits
constantly ridiculed Obama as "apologist" for talking to Iran, talking to
Cuba, pulling troops off Iraq, not bombing Libya after Benghazi, dissenting
with Israel's stance on Palestine, and other issues.

Maybe it's me, but I feel it is only very recently that most Republican
supporters started to criticize Obama for "saber-rattling against Russia."
Coincidentally, that timing roughly matches the rise of Trump.

Suddenly Russia is cool, and you are supposed to make friends with them,
otherwise you are a warmonger. (But apparently not China---it's still cool to
be hostile toward China.)

~~~
scholia
Trump has reversed his 2014 position on sanctions against Russia, and how
dangerous it is [1]

It's a moot point whether Russia owns him or not, because he now behaves as
you would expect if Russia did own him [2]

[1] [http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/16/politics/kfile-trump-
russi...](http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/16/politics/kfile-trump-russia-
sanctions-2014/index.html)

[2] [http://observer.com/2016/08/yes-american-spies-really-
think-...](http://observer.com/2016/08/yes-american-spies-really-think-trump-
is-putins-guy/)

------
jpgvm
"President Donald Trump has cast doubt on whether man-made climate change is
real and has railed against ex-President Barack Obama's efforts to combat it."

How is this sort of writing even a thing?

He hasn't cast doubt on anything, he has merely made a fool out of himself.

~~~
mmanfrin
... and then got himself elected.

~~~
ixtli
That's neither here nor there. He hasn't cast any doubt, he's simply said
things that are contrary to reality. Much as he has done in the past and
continues to do.

~~~
anigbrowl
the phrase 'cast doubt upon' doesn't necessarily imply that anyone was
persuaded, although it would be remiss of me not to observe that there is a
willing audience for such specious claims. OK, this is about as productive as
trying to have a debate about the existence of ghosts* with someone who isn't
even interested in designing experiments, but that's the world we live in
right now.

~~~
jpgvm
It does infer that it brought something into question.

Which is not what Trump did here. Climate change is still about as
unquestionable as it has ever been.

Denying it is on the same level as denying the holocaust happened. IMO we
should treat climate change deniers exactly the same way.

~~~
anigbrowl
I agree with you 100% about climate change but disagree about the implications
of the phrase. I'll spare you a long etymological argument as to why, suffice
it to say that I read the phrase as descriptive only of Trump's intention
rather than whether anyone else found it persuasive.

------
dmode
I am wondering the legality of this gag order. Doesn't the US Taxpayer own
scientific research and data in these agencies ? Unless these are national
security related, how can a government branch prohibit release of taxpayer
funded research data ?

~~~
cloakandswagger
Ask yourself this: Do I, a US taxpayer, own everything the government buys
with my money? Think I can take a trip to my local military base and use one
of "my" tanks?

And before you counter that there is a difference between data/research papers
and "real" things like tanks, the government (and the media industry, and the
scientific industry, and...) don't see it that way. It is intellectual
property, owned by the US government.

~~~
seanalltogether
I get the point you're making, but the USDA's job is to publish documentation
and guidelines for the food industry. If USDA wasn't capable of releasing
documentation, it wouldn't have much of a purpose. The military doesn't have
to interface with the public to justify its purpose.

~~~
nickff
The job of all government agencies is to execute the instructions given to
them by the chief executives in a manner compliant with legislation enacted by
congress. The agencies have no duty to the citizenry, as shown by a number of
court cases where the government failed to provide necessary services, then
argued they had no obligations (and won).

------
llamataboot
Up to date list of all gag orders:

[https://sunlightfoundation.com/list-of-federal-government-
ag...](https://sunlightfoundation.com/list-of-federal-government-agencies-
told-not-to-communicate-with-the-public/)

------
stephancoral
With all these gag orders going around (USDA, EPA) we are gonna need some deep
throats...

~~~
ceejayoz
We've got our first one today. [http://time.com/4645927/badlands-national-
park-climate-chang...](http://time.com/4645927/badlands-national-park-climate-
change-tweets/)

~~~
c0nducktr
...aaaand the tweets have already been purged.

~~~
cantblockatoot
The value proposition of [https://mastodon.social](https://mastodon.social)
(and GNU Social in general) has just made itself abundantly clear.

From its homepage:

 _A decentralized alternative to commercial platforms, it avoids the risks of
a single company monopolizing your communication._

~~~
st3v3r
Which is probably why not many would want to use them. To some, being able to
delete tweets is a feature.

------
plg
Former Prime Minister Stephen Harper tried to do this in Canada. It was bad.
Thankfully he and his ideas were soundly rejected in the most recent election.

------
mark_l_watson
Bummer. I use the USDA nutrition database. I wonder if updates to that also
would not be released publicly.

------
theparanoid
Buried the lead "A copy of the interim procedures memo, dated Jan. 23 and seen
by Reuters, shows many of the steps reflect either the same or similar
measures taken by the previous administration."

~~~
theobon
If you are going to post that why would you leave out the section immediately
following that addresses why this is newsworthy

"The 2017 memo, however, differs in two main areas.

It centralizes the agency’s media inquiries and social media presence through
the Office of the Secretary. As part of that, the memo asks USDA agencies to
“review their websites, blog posts and other social media and, consistent with
direction you will receive from the Office of Communication, remove references
to policy priorities and initiatives of the previous Administration.”

It also rescinds the ability of USDA agencies to close an office or notify
local delegations of office closures."

------
openasocket
Question: with these gag orders, can't all the information still be gotten
through FOIA requests? Sure, there are hurdles, but fundamentally the public
has a right to access this information, right?

~~~
coldcode
You think this law will be respected any more than any other? Laws—and even
the Constitution—are only meaningful if they are enforced. Between
Congressional and Executive branch actions, along with a party friendly
Supreme Court (once a couple more Judges retire or die) why would you assume
any law will be enforced?

------
llamataboot
Their control is only equal to our obedience. Leak away patriots!

------
deemize
Rural American farmers backed Trump because they want their grants and
subsidies back. (welfare) I say put your own fences up and build your own
stack houses. Pay for your own water hookup. Most are polluting the air and
water anyway. There should not be a ban of info released but FOIA is a joke in
itself. I totally agree with the ban of grants. There's plenty of people in
this country willing to grow food for a free market. Can't afford to farm then
sell the land daddy gave you and let the REAL new and beginning farmers get a
shot at sustainable farming. Look ate ewg.farm.org and see the many local
politicians gutting taxpayer money. EPA and USDA shameful.

------
dragonwriter
This is probably in response to the OSC reminder that the gag orders without
whistleblower protection language that have been issued recently are illegal.

[http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/special-counsel-
whistl...](http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/special-counsel-
whistleblower-anti-gag-order)

------
smudgymcscmudge
The article curiously omits who sent the email.

------
pilom
Yes the lack of engagement on social media will be sad but the article itself
says that peer reviewed research will still be published. Please RTFA.

~~~
kjbflsudfb
To whom are you responding? The original email directed ARS to "not release
any public-facing documents." That has been "retracted" for now, but still
awaits final clarification.

~~~
pilom
A number of different responses in the comments were along the lines of "but
I/we all own research done with public tax money! how can they do this!" which
alarmist given the actual text of the article.

------
finid
We have a firsthand account of what happens when govt scientists are not free
to openly discuss the results of their work without approval from political
appointees.

That happened during 9/11 when the EPA said the air around the World Trade
Center was just fine. Remember that! Many have died, and are still dying
because of that lie.

------
st3v3r
It is the duty of every scientist working at all of these government agencies
to ensure that data continues to be made public, no matter who is in the White
House.

~~~
kafkaesq
They also have (as bullies like Trump know all too well) a duty to feed their
families, pay the mortgages, and save for their children's education. At least
until they find another job (in the wonderfully lucrative and liquid job
market for research scientists of our current era).

And probably wouldn't appreciate outsiders telling them which duty is more
inviolable, or sacrosanct.

~~~
headcanon
They're not mutually exclusive. Scientists have been putting together open
data repositories as a "Trump shelter" ever since election day. Data that is
publicly available today can be downloaded and stored anywhere, and the
government can't do anything about it other than cast FUD.

Honestly, assuming all our data is preserved in some form, I think its almost
a blessing in disguise. finding and downloading public datasets involves
wading through a cornucopia of terrible websites that feel like they're
deliberately trying to keep people out. Government science shops don't
typically hire UX people, so allowing those people to get their hands on some
open data services can't be bad.

~~~
jonlucc
This assumes there are no downsides to not receiving any new data from these
agencies for 4 years (or 8).

~~~
headcanon
Yeah, that part doesn't sound so great :/

