A) executive branch departments should not be doing public research into environmental, agriculture, and other issues.
B) The President should vet all such research for accuracy before being made public, despite not having scientific experience in these fields.
C) The President should vet all such research for political reasons, and refuse to publicize research that conflicts with his or her agenda regardless of the accuracy of the research.
(D) The President should put in place a process for agencies to recommend release of reports, relying in good faith on agency recommendations in doing so while retaining ultimate authority and accountability over what is released.
Back to the Samsung example: the engineering department almost certainly prepared that pretty graphic explaining the causes of battery failure. But it was the company acting as one entity that ultimately reviewed that disclosure and made the decision to publish it.
FWIW, I have a lot more faith in a company that allows its engineers to communicate directly with the public. If there's something in particular that should remain quiet, then that should be handled as such on a case-by-case basis.
Moreover, as others have noted, the EPA is a public institution, and should be answerable to the public.
This is authoritarianism, and nothing else. Control, intimidation, and fear.
The EPA functioned fine with Obama. Trump just doesn't want to be answerable for what he knows are unpopular policies.
He didn't win a majority of the vote, it's on his mind (he feels obliged to explain this with paranoid conspiracies regarding immigrants). He knows that what he does is going to get pushback from the public, and he doesn't want it.
I've worked for the USDA-ARS. In general, you're overestimating the value and validity of what any independent public employee might have to say. Doubly so for the USDA-ARS.
I mean, based solely on how people here are talking, that a bunch of old hippies, bucolic farmers, and bug ranchers holed up in their hillside facilities aren't the savviest ad people and shouldn't be given unfiltered loudspeakers on behalf of their departments would not be the most imprudent decision.
I know PhDs who look like they fell out of King of the Hill and still go on about "that old bitch Pelosi". Great scientists, know the natural world with a depth and intimacy few can attain, but who will make you want to punch them in the face on every other topic, which they love to share their opinions on. As long as you don't cut off their research (whose direction is set by the president), the world will be alright.
Just please don't ever give them the Twitter login.
Your (D) option works when things are approved, and is likely the closest thing that happened with Samsung.
However, when the President decides to not allow information out, despite the agency's expert opinion, it falls flat.
For example, climate change is nearly unanimously accepted by experts as fact, however now all mentions of it are being erased. How is that not a case of (C) mentioned above?
The process in place ought to be the bureaucracy of the cabinet or department. That's why the president appoints the leaders of each department. That's different than the president requiring all releases to go outside their relevant department for permission.
A) executive branch departments should not be doing public research into environmental, agriculture, and other issues.
B) The President should vet all such research for accuracy before being made public, despite not having scientific experience in these fields.
C) The President should vet all such research for political reasons, and refuse to publicize research that conflicts with his or her agenda regardless of the accuracy of the research.
You must agree with one of these. I don't.