'BradCast' 6/24/2026 (Stop Trump's Project 2025 Scheme to Kill Science; Guest: Dr. Colette Delawalla of Stand Up for Science)

Are we going to maintain our status as a constitutional republic on our 250th anniversary? Are we going to make a new choice to go down some road towards a communist utopia? That's the choice right now. Is it? I thought it was the choice between that and Sharia law. Can you guys straighten this out? Well, I don't know why I came here tonight. I got the feeling that something right. from the stairs. Clouds to the letter me, jokers to the right, here I am, stuck in the middle with you. I am. From Pacific Radio in Los Angeles, this is the broadcast, as heard on KPFK, 90.7 FM in LA, and... on dozens of other fine affiliate stations on both the public airwaves and the internets around the country and the world, blanketing planet Earth. I'm Brad Friedman, your friendly investigative blogger, journalist, troublemaker, muckraker. And all around, swell fellow says me from bradblog.com. Thank you very much for joining us for another thrilling edition of the broadcast. If you are keeping score at home today, after we discussed this week's primary elections in four states, as they were still underway on Tuesday on our previous program, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and Zohran Mamdani went 3 and O on Tuesday. All of his endorsed candidates for the U.S. House won in New York City and, well, Donald Trump picked another loser. Whomp, I guess. Hi, Desi Doyen. Hi. We will get to all of that in a moment. Plus, we will be joined by a guest shortly to discuss the administrations. New proposed rule to ensure that a White House political appointee of Donald Trump's must approve any and all funding for any and all new grants, specifically for scientific grants. I know, Desi, you've been celebrating that new move all day. If you think, by the way, that Donald Trump's $1.8 billion slush fund for his pals, his January 6 insurrectionists and himself, which is not dead yet, by the way. If you think that's bad, imagine what he will do with a $1.5 trillion. Slush Fund. Dr. Colette Della Walla joins us in a bit to discuss that and what you can do about it right now. But let's start with some good news from the courts once again today. A federal judge on Wednesday permanently barred President Donald Trump's administration from implementing most of his first executive order on elections. That's the one that he issued last year.

It's part of which sought to require people to show documentary proof of citizenship when they register to vote. The ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Denise Casper in Boston effectively converts a preliminary injunction that she had issued a year ago in which she temporarily blocked many of Trump's efforts to overhaul and unconstitutionally nationalize our elections. She turned that preliminary junction. into a permanent ban. Good. Judge Casper rejected the Republican administration's argument that the lawsuit to block the changes brought by Democratic State Attorney General was premature because the rules had not yet been put in place. Instead, she agreed that the Constitution gives states and Congress the authority to regulate elections, not the president of the United States, so there was no need to wait until these rules were put in place. She ruled that Trump's requirements violated the separation of powers. The Constitution, quote, does not grant the president any. specific powers over elections, wrote Casper. Among other proposed changes, Trump's order would have required people to provide documentary proof of citizenship when registering to vote, which could have prevented millions of Americans, particularly women. who may have changed their name in marriage, from being able to easily register to vote, if at all. It would have prevented mail ballots from being counted if they arrive after Election Day, even if they are clearly postmarked on or before Election Day. And it punished states that failed to comply with Donald Trump's rules, with the Trump's authoritarian unconstitutional orders. punish them by withholding certain federal monies. New York Attorney General Letitia James, one of the state AGs who joined the case, said she was grateful the court blocked Trump's, quote, unconstitutional attempt to seize control of our elections and that she would continue to defend voting rights in this year's midterm elections. Thank you, Jessica Tisch. Quote, Generations of Americans fought tirelessly for the right to vote, and we honor their legacy by protecting that right against anyone who tries to undermine it, she said. California Attorney General Rob Bonta. whose state was the lead plaintiff in the case, said, quote, while we are proud of this result, we are clear-eyed that President Trump's attacks on voting rights and our elections show no signs of slowing down, adding, quote, so let me be clear, we will keep fighting back every step of the way.

Thank you, Mr. Rob Bonta. The ruling was the latest in a series against the elections executive order. Trump signed just months after taking office for his second term. The Republican president has since signed. another executive order on elections that seeks to create a national voter list and to limit mail balloting. That directive also faces multiple legal challenges. In an apparent nod to the difficulty of implementing a proof of citizenship requirement by executive order, Trump continues to push legislation in the Republican-controlled Congress to create such a mandate officially, since Congress could do so, or at least try to do so. The Save America Act has passed in the GOP-controlled House, but it continues to stall in the U.S. Senate, where filibuster rules would require 60 votes for passage. Republicans only have 53 there, and I suspect some of them would vote against this measure as well, even if it did come to a vote. That has led Trump to advocate for getting rid of the filibuster altogether that is blocking the legislation right now, which it seems to me Republican senators are too smart to do. Frankly, I wish they would listen to their president. They could kill the Senate filibuster right now. They could pass that Save America Act. They could then see it stalled or blocked by the courts, but finally make it clear that when Democrats are next in charge of the Senate, there will be no Senate filibuster to hold things up anymore, which sounds fine to me, and it is why... Republicans are probably not going to do that in the Senate. True. To that end, however, on Wednesday, Trump abruptly canceled his previously scheduled signing of a new bipartisan housing affordability bill. that just received final passage in the Senate on Tuesday. Understandably, Republicans were sort of rushing to have it signed as quickly as possible to prove that, yeah, they have finally done something, anything for affordability for Americans, only to have their president announced about an hour before he was scheduled to sign it, that he would not do it. He would not sign that or any legislation until Congress passes his Save Act. proof of citizenship bill as a requirement for voting, no matter how many Americans might be disenfranchised by it. And even though, by the way, federal law already requires voters to be citizens, and even though Senate Republicans have tried to explain over and over to Trump that they simply do not have the votes in the Senate to pass it, at least without killing the filibuster.

Hint, hint. Of course, all of that meant to simply give Trump a scapegoat, frankly, to blame something, someone to blame when and if his party gets trounced this November as expected. In that case, mark my words, it will be because his party failed to pass the Save Act. To prevent millions of votes by non-citizens. It certainly won't be because the American people believe that he and his party sucks. That said, in another major voting case, which really does worry me, the U.S. Supreme Court is due to issue an opinion very soon on whether mail ballots cast on or before election day. must arrive by Election Day in order to be counted. That could, depending on how the court comes down, that could immediately change the rules in 14 states that allow grace periods ranging from days to weeks if the ballots are postmarked by Election Day. And while I'm really hoping the... corrupted Republican Supreme Court majority surprises me on this one. I am really concerned about that ruling. Likely to be handed down any time now. So, yep, buckle up for that as well in the days ahead. But for now, speaking of elections, some reported results from a few very selective primaries and primary runoffs held on Tuesday this week in four states. Let's start with, well, the more boring ones first, I guess, and go from there up to the most interesting. in the great beautiful beehive state of Utah. The most interesting race there, perhaps of the night in the otherwise very Republican state, was the Democratic primary for the court-ordered brand-new U.S. House District 1 in the state, a solidly Democratic district centered smack dab in Salt Lake City. which Republicans had previously cracked into four separate pieces, four different districts back in 2021 to prevent a Democrat from ever winning there again and taking all of the states for congressional seats for themselves ever since. Until now. With the Utah State Supreme Court finally knocking down that unlawful gerrymandering scheme in the state, former Congressman Ben McAdams won the Democratic nomination handily on Tuesday in Utah and is almost certain to win back a Democratic House seat in the state this November.

He previously served in Congress back in, from 2018 to 2020, I believe. McCatoms will be running against Republican Riley Owen, who ran uncontested in his party's primary in what Cook political report characterized us now as a solidly Democratic race in Utah's. First Congressional District. Only somewhat less boring, the great old-line state of Maryland for governor, the popular Democratic incumbent Wes Moore, easily defeated a single challenger for his party's nomination. No surprise there. For Moore, who many consider to be of presidential timber someday. He appears to have won by about 88% to 12% last I checked this afternoon. I would say that's decisive. Well, only 67% of the vote has been tallied. So. So you're saying there's a chance. You never know. Well, you never know. More will almost certainly run against Republican former state legislator Dan Cox in what has become a very Democratic state, though they have elected a number of moderate Republican governors in recent years. Cox, however. is not one of them. He has made false claims about the 2020 election. He went on to lose by a huge margin, yes, to Wes Moore back in the 2022 governor's race there. So apparently Republicans have decided to put him up again in what Cook political report describes as a solidly democratic race this year. In Maryland's fifth congressional district, Adrian... Bofo, who was backed by pro-Israel and pro-Crypto spending, won a crowded Democratic primary to replace the retiring 23-term congressman, Steny Hoyer. Bafo was endorsed by Hoyer and easily won the 24-person race. In this solidly Democratic district, among the many defeated by Bofo on Tuesday was Harry Dunn. He's one of the Capitol police officers from Trump's January 6th insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. Dunn has been an outspoken critic of Trump and the attack at the Capitol. Bofo will run in November against Chris Chaffee. Republican, who pretty easily won his party's nomination on Tuesday, though as mentioned, it is a very Democratic district in Maryland.

Moving to primary runoffs now in the great Palmetto State of South Carolina in the Republican gubernatorial runoff election on Tuesday that we reported a bit on yesterday's show. Republican State Attorney General Alan Wilson easily defeated the Trump-endorsed Lieutenant Governor Pamela Evette in the state's GOP primary runoff for governor, In the solidly Republican state, as Cook political report describes it, that means that Wilson will almost certainly be the state's next governor. As we discussed yesterday, however, Trump... Seeing that his candidate, Yvette, who barely eeked out a 28-point plurality win in the initial primary earlier in June, seeing that she was about to lose just days before the runoff, while he decided to also endorse Wilson to avoid being labeled a loser again after two of his previous gubernatorial endorsements. Over the past two weeks or so in Iowa and Georgia also went down in flames. Trump's power to get folks elected in Republican primaries is definitely waning, which means that, or maybe I'm just wishcasting here, but it means that his power to bend congressional Republicans to his will is also waning with it, or it should be. That should be good news, and we are already seeing signs of exactly that in Congress. In case Trump tries to take credit for Wilson's win on Tuesday because, of course, he will. We noted yesterday that polling in this race, a poll released on Monday of this week, taken at least in part from before Trump's... extra second double endorsement showed his preferred candidate actually losing. 61 to 29%, which kind of seemed impossible for the winner of the initial primary to lose by such a huge margin. But in fact, on Tuesday night, results with more than 95% of the votes in. Wilson is said to be defeating a vet by 69% to 31%. Wow. Not far from that brutal poll released on Monday, but with Wilson picking up a few more of the previously undecided votes in that poll following Trump's double can't lose endorsement.

Wilson will now run against Democratic nominee Jermaine Johnson, who won his party's nomination outright back on June 9 in a state which has only elected Republican governors since 2003. But who knows? Who knows what a blue tsunami could bring? if one happens to develop between here and November. Also of note on Tuesday in South Carolina's first congressional district, Democratic runoff there, Admiral Nancy LaCore, who was fired by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. Because, or so he claimed, he believed she was not implementing the administration's directives fast enough and was resisting political pressure, especially on personnel and training policy. Nancy LeCore. Admiral Nancy LeCore won the Democratic U.S. House primary in South Carolina's first congressional district on the coast. She will now run against the winner of the Republican runoff on Tuesday, Jenny Costa Honeycutt for the seat currently occupied by outgoing Congresswoman Nancy Mace, who ran for governor in the state, only to come in fifth in that race earlier this month in the GOP. primary. So we'll see what happens. That could be an interesting race. But anyway, never mind Donald Trump's failing endorsements. Someone else now seems to have the political juice. And that would be in the Great Empire State of New York, specifically in the Great Big Apple City of New York City as AP leads today. New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani waited into Democratic U.S. House primaries to boost three progressive last week over establishment-backed candidates. All of them won. On Tuesday, defeating two incumbent Democrats and essentially ensuring that two self-described Democratic socialists will be elected to Congress in their deep blue districts. The mayor said it was a question of electing, quote, better Democrats who would put working people back at the heart of politics. The approach, as AP describes it, consternated. Some in the Democratic leadership by the outcome showcased Zohran Mamdani's rising influence. And it certainly did.

In New York's 10th Congressional District, Zohran Mamdani endorsed Brad Lander, his competitor in last year's New York City mayoral race, defeated incumbent Democratic Congressman Dan Goldman in a race, pitting two Jewish elected officials against each other with Brad Lander making the case that Goldman was too supportive of Israel and their assault on Gaza, among other things. And this race was not even close. Brad Lander defeated the incumbent Goldman. by more than 30 points. Wow. 66 to 34 right now with 90% of the vote in. In the state's 7th U.S. House District, located in Brooklyn and Queens in New York City. Zohran Mamdani endorsed Claire Valdez, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, defeated longtime Brooklyn Borough President Antonio Renoso for the seat being vacated by retiring Congresswoman Nydia Velasquez, who had backed Renoso for that seat. extraordinary by more than 20 points. Valdez, for the record, worked at Taco Bell and Trader Joe's before organizing a union and then going on to seek office in New York's 13th congressional district. Zohran Mamdani endorsed Democratic Socialist Dara Liza Via Chevalier appears to have ousted longtime New York City poll and incumbent Democratic Dominican American Congress member Adriano Espaillat in Harlem and the Bronx. Zohran Mamdani endorsed Chevalier. Just weeks ago, a March poll conducted for her campaign showed her losing to Adriano Espaillat 42 to 28. But now, just a few weeks later, With Zohran Mamdani's clearly powerful support, she appears to be heading to Congress having unseated a five-term incumbent, though only by about five points with 88% of the vote in. Nonetheless, AP and others have called it for Chevalier. Another remarkable moment with Democrats unseeding two of their own incumbents. In New York City, the first two cases of incumbents being unseated by challengers in this primary cycle anywhere. In all, not just the signal of Zohran Mamdani's power right now, but of the Democratic Socialist movement, arguably, at least in those seats. Elsewhere in a very crowded Democratic primary in the New York City 12th Congressional District, Democratic State Assembly member Michael Lacher.

Former aide to Governor Kathy Hochul won the primary to fill the congressional seat being vacated by Lashar's political mentor, 17-term Congressman Jerry Nadler, who backed Lashar in a brutal race. Millions were spent in super PAC spending from the AI industry and others, but particularly in the AI industry. The seven-person race also included John F. Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s grandson. Jack Schlossberg, who came in a distant third, and George Conway, the former once very Republican attorney, a former husband to Trump loyalist and one-time campaign manager Kelly Ann Conway. He placed an even more distant fifth in this seven-person Democratic race in a district that represents Manhattan's wealthy Upper East Side, parts of Greenwich Village. Zohran Mamdani did not endorse in that case. The AI industry made an enormous investment in this race to take out state assembly member Alex Boris, who finished in second place four points behind Lashor. But as the American prospect observes today in his victory speech, Lashor, who himself co-sponsored the AI safety bill that turned the industry against Boris. directly confronted the oligarchs. He noted, quote, I have some news for the two big AI companies who have taken such an unusual interest in who won this congressional seat. I won't be taking my cues from either of you when it comes to protecting our kids, our jobs, and our environment. So. Democratic Socialists were also said to be sweeping into power in the New York State Assembly, several seats there as well on Tuesday, in what the movement was absolutely celebrating as they should. That said, I think the worst news here is for, as I see it, Republicans. I mean, it's possible that this is New York and New York City. you know, explicitly doing something that can't be done anywhere else in the country, but, you know, they're just in the mood to vote for progressive candidates this year. But there's another way to look at this, which jumps out to me, which is that if Democratic voters are willing to toss out their own incumbents, how do you suspect the electorate all over the country feels about the incumbent Republican Party right now under Donald Trump, who have failed so spectacularly? We'll see if New York serves as any kind of harbinger for what is to come. But it sure seems to me like much of this nation, you know, may end up in a throw-the-bumbs-out mood by November. We'll see. We'll be joined on tomorrow's show by our old friends. Heather Digby Parton and Drift Glass, I suspect they'll have a thought or two on all of this and much more. Looking forward to that on tomorrow's show. But all right, speaking of bums, let's take a quick break here. And we'll come back with the story of Trump's top bum in the Office of Management and Budget at the White House, Russ Vought, who is now trying to formalize plans to ensure that every single dollar of federal grants, particularly for science and research.

Gets a personal okay by political operatives in the Trump White House. Story you probably haven't heard, or at least haven't heard much about, with all of the noise everywhere else. That is straight ahead on the broadcast as we are joined by Colette Della Walla of Stand Up for Science. That's next. I'm Brad Friedman. Don't touch that dial. What the public hears on the public airwaves matters. At the broadcast, we do our best to bring you accurate news and analysis on the issues that actually matter, and we do it all independently without corporate or political influence. But we can't do it without you, now more than ever. Please help us stay on your public airwaves by going to bradblog.com slash donate to help keep us going. That's bradblog.com slash donate. And thanks. angels, unicorns, and elves. Now, I like the stories as much as anybody else, but when I'm seeking knowledge, either simple or abstract, the factor is science.

Yeah, that one goes out to Pete at the Pentagon. Welcome back to the broadcast. Brad Friedman from bradblog.com. A flu outbreak at the U.S. Air Force Basic Training Hub in San Antonio, Texas is worsening. ABC News reported on Tuesday night. At least 222 recruits now at Lackland Air Force Base, part of Joint Base San Antonio, have been diagnosed with the flu, and four now have been hospitalized and now the death. of one recruit is under investigation, though it's not yet clear whether it is tied to the outbreak. This comes just two months after former Fox News host turned Donald Trump's U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth made the annual flu shot optional for troops, scrapping the military's requirement for it, which dates back to 1945, a move breaking with longstanding scientific public health. directives. But with the outbreak among new recruits at the Air Force base, the Pentagon is now beginning to backpedal a bit, issuing what they describe as exceptions to Pete Hegseth's policy. As part of those exceptions, the Army, Navy, and Air Force are once again requiring flu shots. for basic trainees, at least, according to officials, after only about 40% of the new trainees at Joint Base San Antonio had the vaccination when the outbreak began in early June, just 40%. If only the administration and its political appointees, like Pete Hegseth, had consulted scientists before making a decision that Democratic U.S. House rep Joaquin Castro, who represents the San Antonio Air Base, now describes as, quote, a reckless decision that put troops in harm's way and undermined our military readiness. That dumb, dangerous decision is hardly the only anti-science move that is now coming back to haunt this administration and the American people and sadly the world for that matter, but it apparently has not prevented them. From working to make things even worse in that regard, the Trump White House Office of Management and Budget, or OMB, as led by the wildly controversial Far Right Project 2025 architect Russ Vought, has proposed a new rule that if enacted, would bring a major shift in how scientific grants are awarded by U.S. government agencies. Under the current process, researchers submit grant proposals that are then vetted and scored by a committee of experts in that particular scientific field with top scoring proposals recommended for funding. Smart, simple, depoliticized, scientific.

If the OMB's new proposal is enacted, however, the Trump Office of Management and Budget would insert a political review into the process, allowing Trump administration political appointees, you know, like former Fox News host, Pete Hegseth, to determine whether grant proposals are aligned with administration's priorities, regardless of their scientific merit. Opponents argue the new scheme would affect every federal grant to states, cities, local agencies, and non-governmental organizations, nonprofit, or otherwise across the entire nation. Every scientific research funding decision would undergo a political litmus test. Critics charge, amid all the noise and havoc wreaked on a daily basis from... Trump's war on Iran to his failed renovation of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, which, by the way, had scientists been consulted before the $16 million no-bid contract was awarded? To a Trump donor pal and swimming pool guy, it might not have been such an epic disaster. But amid all of that noise, U.S. scientists and science advocacy groups are trying to sound the alarm about this new troubling OMB scheme. They're hoping to warn that this rule... If enacted, would significantly impact the funding and oversight of scientific projects across all federal agencies. One key provision, for example, includes an outright ban on federal funds from being used in any way to, quote, fund, promote, encourage, subsidize, or facilitate any activities related to race or gender, which the administration describes as DEI or gender ideology. Another disturbing provision would allow federal agencies to terminate active grants at any time if they're deemed, quote, inconsistent with program goals or agency priorities. Whatever political officials may choose that to mean at any given time. In an editorial at the beginning of June headlined another red alert for American science, the Distinguished Science magazine notes that in Project 2025, current OMB director Russ Vought, called for an activist OMB that serves as the, quote, Keeper of Commander's Intent, unquote. thereby moving power away from congress this proposal they note would dramatically expand the power of political appointees to override expert assessments of scientific merit

Agencies could end multi-year grants with no due process. They could use the vague criteria of Trump's gold standard science to identify institutions for preferential treatment. International collaboration with countries identified solely by the administration would be prohibited under the new rules. But more notably, the magazine argues all research that involves the expenditure of funds outside of the U.S. would require case by case approval. This bureaucratic hurdle would effectively prevent most, if not all, partnerships from moving forward. Science magazine and pretty much every scientific research organization is now calling for flooding OMB with responses during the public comment period, which ends on July 13. The red light is now flashing science magazine, writes, all hands report to stations. During a confirmation hearing last week in the U.S. Senate Budget Committee for Hal Duncan, who has been nominated for the number two post at the White House OMB, he proudly told lawmakers that the administration would stop federal cash from flowing to, quote, divisive ideologies. under these new grant rules in the works and confirmed that political operatives would review any and all such grants. Ultimately, a political appointee, one of the president's people that is associated with the administration appointed by the president, comes in and does a final issuance review before grant dollars go out. Oh, great. Hopefully it's Pete Hegseth. Or another political operative with similar scientific acumen. Democratic Senator Patty Murphy of Washington State attempted to warn about the proposed new OMB rule during her own remarks at the hearing. The way I read it, the reality is that a political appointee. like you could terminate a cancer research grant or a hospital grant solely because of the president's whim or personal vendetta. And to me, that is really unacceptable. We all know how this administration would abuse this. I really hope all of our colleagues will join us to stop this and they should remember what goes around comes around. But I think that is a very... concerning proposed rule and allows OMB to make political decisions that they should not be making. So I think we should all be worried about that. Just wanted to bring it to everybody's attention. Yeah, me too.

Also, too, the folks that stand up for science, a political activism organization founded in response to the Trump administration's dismantling of the nation's premier scientific institutions and escalating threats to the lives and livelihoods of Americans. Dr. Colette Delawala is the founder and CEO of the group, which has mobilized thousands of scientists around the globe, supported whistleblowers across federal agencies like the NIH, EPA, NASA, FEMA. advocated against cuts to federally funded research, launched a campaign calling for the impeachment of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.. and is actively working to secure a pro-science congressional majority in the 26 midterm elections. Dr. Colette Delawala joins us now to discuss the group's latest campaign focused on sounding the alarm about the OMB's latest scheme to further politicize science. in the second Trump term. Dr. Della Walla, thanks for joining us on the broadcast today. Thank you so much for having me today, Brad. I appreciate it. And what a fantastic intro. I'm like, I don't even think I need to do my part. Like, you nailed it. Oh, no. I got a lot to ask you about, Colette. Don't you worry. And by the way, I can personally attest to how hard it must be right now to get the word out about this. Even we had to reschedule your appearance a week or so ago due to whatever, you know, Trump's dumb supposed deal with Iran sort of kind of stop the war, whatever that was. So thank you for your flexibility there. administration's strategy of flooding the zone with, I'll say, nonsense really does work in helping to obscure this type of dangerous bureaucratic upheaval to the federal government, no? Sure. Yeah, it really does. I mean, they are, this administration is experts at the flood the zone approach. And we are living that each and every day. One of my favorite creators, Jess Craven, always talks about like having her face in front of the fire hose all day, which is a bit what it feels like when you're engaging with the news these days. And yeah, I mean, there's just a lot going on and people are tired and burnt out. And the news is heavy. And I mean, yeah, it's. hard to get through on this for sure. Yeah, it's easy to look at the reflecting pool turning green. It's a lot harder to realize, oh, man, you know, research grants for...

Cancer for kids is being gutted behind the scenes. So last year, Colette, when Trump came to office for a second time, he unleashed Elon Musk and his doge bros to run roughshod over federal agencies, including the cancellation, as I understand it, of ongoing research grants and applications for same. How is this new OMB rule? distinct from the actions that the administration took last year on what seemed to be related grants. Yeah, that's a great piece to pull in because what we have seen over the last year and a half or so is effectively the Trump administration tested out. each of the smaller provisions in this 412 page uniform guidance rule proposal in all of these different federal agencies, including science-related federal agencies. So they tested like parts and pieces of it in different ways to see how legislators would react, to see how the public would react, and to see how the judicial system would rule if there were, you know, if there's legislation or, excuse me, litigation in these areas. And what we're seeing is that they took all of these things, all of these tests, and they bundled them up into one rule that allows them to skirt Congress and allows them to skirt already established judicial hearings with regards to things like canceled grants that were reenacted for the next, you know, federal fiscal year and package them all in once. and apply it to 41 federal agencies. And so just imagine taking the volume and cranking it up and applying the same guidance that we're seeing in different places all across all of these agencies. So it effectively creates a $1.5 trillion slush fund. And while we have been keeping an eye on this and we've been waiting for it really for about a year at Stand Up for Science and we've been focused on the sciences, I want to be so clear that this impacts so much more than science. This is FEMA. veteran benefits and Department of Defense. This is Medicare. This is Department of Labor. So any discretionary dollars that flow from the federal government, that's what's impacted by this very, very technical rule. And so what they were doing last year was sort of an attack to feel things out in a sense to see how the people, how the government would respond. And now they're sort of formalizing it, I guess, in this new rule. The administration, they love to say that they're cutting red tape to make government more responsive to the needs of Americans. But am I wrong that a case-by-case review by...

political appointees for, you know, all of these projects, any and all international collaborations would actually do the opposite of that. In fact, all of this would seem to result purposely in a radical slowdown in the process of approving these grants and, yes, promoting scientific innovation, no? Yeah, absolutely. And so here's one place where they did this and we saw this happen. FEMA, while Kristi Noem was the director, there was a political appointee sign off for any grant above $100,000. And because of that, there was a huge, huge backlog of money getting out to people who had been in disaster situations and needed help. And it was hugely disruptive, especially after like Hurricane Hill. lean going up through North Carolina and Georgia. And so, you know, we've already seen what this looks like when it plays out. And it means money doesn't move. Like this is not make anything. more efficient. It sure is, you know, it certainly doesn't make anything more efficient to add in layers of checks to an already, like, relatively complex system. Yeah, no, it would seem to do exactly the opposite of what they, you know, pretend that they're doing. Now, the provision I mentioned during the intro to allow political appointees to cancel grants at any time for any reason, would that apply to? Current ongoing projects that were already funded, already underway, approved by previous administrations? Really? Yes. So this is any grant period can be canceled for any reason. They don't even have to give a reason. They can just cancel the grant. And, you know, the one thing that I keep bringing up about this is, you know, folks are like pushing back on me a bit and saying, well, they're not going to actually do that. And who are those people? Yeah. I mean, you would be surprised. But I'm a PhD. I believe in evidence. And I do believe that the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. And we have a lot of evidence with what they're willing to do in the past. And so if they wrote that down, if Russ Vought wrote that down in this OMB. proposal. We have no reason to expect that they're going to do anything other than what they wrote down they could do, right? Like they're going to go through and they're going to blanket cancel grants. It's going to make last year look like child's play. Yeah. I mean, I would believe them when they say this. And those people, I guess we should say welcome to planet Earth. But Colette, your group did an analysis of active. clinical trials funded by federal grants right now, finding that nearly half of those ongoing trials would be or could be ended if this rule is implemented. Do I understand that correctly? What kind of clinical trials are we talking about here?

Yeah, so the way that I will say that first of our, first of all, our analysis is a conservative analysis because the rule itself is so vague. So these are grants that have an international component or that fall under the realm of things that the administration deems quote unquote woke and anti-American. And so this is over a thousand active cancer clinical trials. over 300 active pediatric related trials that are not necessarily cancer. It includes several hundred trials, I think 200 trials related to diabetes, 184 related to heart disease. And so, you know, when I was looking through this list, there was a trial on suicidality and preventing suicidality after new parents, infants passed away. And that was on the list to be canceled. And what it would do is this rule would make it illegal for the government to fund these, these, you know, these projects. And I mean, it's egregious. It's egregious. What sort of criteria would even lead them to want to cancel a study about suicidal children? Well, it's suicidal parents who lost a very young child. I see. Yeah, and I think it has to do with the idea of framing this in the context of, you know, of... American opportunity or like the American Dream or DEI or whatever language you want to use to describe it, right? But there are people who need extra health. They need extra supports. And that's what this project is actively doing, right? It's the folks that are the most vulnerable in our communities who need these extra supports. And so because of that, you know, Russ Vought and Trump and, you know, Robert F. Kennedy Jr.., they don't believe in helping people. They fundamentally don't believe in the American dream. They don't believe in helping people. They don't believe in giving people opportunities to better themselves, to better their lives, to live a more full and free life. They don't believe in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for all people in the United States. Which raises the question as to why? Why is this administration, and much of the right in general, Why are they anti-science? I mean, I know, you know, why they don't want research into climate change. You know, their fossil fuel funders don't want that. We all want to pretend that our climate crisis isn't happening. Okay, I get that. But who, you know, or why would anybody possibly be against things like, you know, cancer research for children, suicide research, cancer research for any adults, for that matter. Do you have any sense of what the thinking is behind this? Yeah, I do. Good. I do. And I love this question because this is like the question that everybody is asking is like, why on earth would anybody do this? Right. It's very, very simple. Science in the United States is an independent center of thought, which means it's not controlled by the government. Like generally speaking, the government funds it for a lot of science in the United States, of course. And we allow our scientists to.

Ask questions. And that becomes a major problem if you are someone who doesn't want the populace to have access to knowledge that proves your ideology incorrect. If you believe that white people are better than black people. If you believe that people who are not disabled are better than people who are disabled, if you believe that people who are not LGBTQ plus are better than people who are LGBTQ plus. Science refutes that. Science refutes those fundamental basis of their entire ideology. And we allow scientists to freely ask these questions. And this is how we know. that science fundamentally refutes, you know, these assumptions. Right. And so that's what it is. It's because they can't control it. They can't control what comes out from the research, what the facts are. If you actually follow the science, it gets out of your control. And all of those questions you raise, you know, evidence comes up to rebut all of those things, which are so many ideological notions that the entire right at this point seems to be predicated on. You're absolutely right. So what can be done here? Your group Stand Up for Science.net is leading a campaign to, among other things, get a record number of public comments. opposed to this rule. Why and how does that help, since I would expect that the OMB would simply ignore these public comments anyway and go ahead and implement their rule no matter what it is that the public says? Yeah, so there are, I have several pieces to answer these questions for you. So first of all, there's a lot of people who have never left a public comment before. I certainly hadn't until the Trump administration. I didn't even understand that it was an opportunity for democratic engagement, like, you know, like as in a democracy, right? Like this is the government. saying, hey, we have this idea. What do you think about this? It's asking the populace to engage. And what's really critical about when this works, the federal government actually has a legal mandate to... address all of the concerns. And so usually when a rule goes through, it's not nearly as dense as this one. And, you know, a few hundred people maybe at best will respond to the rule to make a point and they will incorporate that feedback into different iterations of the rule. It goes back and forth. It can take years for a rule to pass through. So that's the usual process. That is not what's happening here. And we know that, but there is a legal mandate. And so any time,

a researcher or somebody who benefits from federal funding in any way, shape, or form, if you're a veteran, or you are on Medicare, or, you know, you receive HUD, something from HUD, or some support from HUD, Department of Labor, small business. If you get in there and you say, hey, I am reliant on this XYZ grant, this support from the federal government, and they cancel. that grant or they cancel your support, that is a hook for litigation. And so every single time that somebody puts in a comment that says, I'm reliant on this and the government ignores it, which is what we anticipate they will do. and then drives forward doing what they plan to do anyway. That means that we can circle back around and go absolutely crazy on litigation. And we know that litigation is actually working pretty well against this administration. So that's the purpose here. That's what this does. So we've got this action center. Fight the number two win. Standup for Science.net. You can use our portal to leave your public comment. You can't just do like, 10,000 of the same comments because that will just count as one, right? So leave a thoughtful public comment. And you can also learn about the rule. We talk about how to write public comments, how to talk about this rule to friends, how to get, you know, recruit them into also writing public comments. But you can also contact your members of Congress. And this is important because there's a lot of members who don't like have a full understanding. of how important and critical this is to the functioning of our government from both a constitutional perspective, but also, you know, public services and goods, right? Yeah. And so you can send your comment directly to your members of Congress. You can email them, you can call them, and you can recruit your friends to do this too. And so what we're doing is we're making as big a stink as we possibly can for the next 19 days until July 13th. And then immediately after that, we're going to start with litigation. Please, please help stand up for science. Stink up the place with these notes. You can go fight to win. Standup for Science.net. And that's fight the number two win. We will, of course, link to that website when we post today's show at bradblog.com. If you can't remember it, the deadline for public comments is July 13th. You can play a critical role. Colette, before I let you go, I noted in the intro that you guys. are working to secure a pro-science congressional majority in the 26 midterms. There's an idea. How is that effort going so far?

You know, it's going really good. We've been really excited about who we're seeing come through primaries. We've been doing a lot of outreach and conversations with various, you know, campaigns. We're working through our endorsement process. So we've got, you know, several different arms and ways that were legally and, you know, set up to engage with various candidates. And, you know, I think it's going well. I was very, very encouraged to see the results out of New York yesterday. the primaries and you know i'm just i'm actually really hopeful i know that this feels like a very doomsday time and we have a lot to lose as a nation but i'm also very very hopeful um and our midterms is one of the reasons why I join you in that hopefulness, Colette. Colette de la Walla, the founder and CEO of Stand Up for Science.net, and well, they do exactly as their name sounds. You can also find them on the social medias, especially over Blue Sky, Stand Up for Science. Colette Deliwalla, really appreciate you joining us today on the show. Good luck with your various campaigns, and we hope to stay in touch with you. Wonderful. Thank you so much, Brad. You all have a good one. You too. Okay. Well, she's delightful. She very much is. And, you know, just want to say that when it comes to these public comment periods, as we have seen with specifically those on climate change and pollution, you know that those who support this terrible, terrible rule, they are going to show up to comment in droves. That's what the fossil fuel industry does. They get everybody to show up in droves to put these public comments in. And by the way, they make it very hard to leave these public comments because... You can go to what's the comment site? It's regulations.gov, but it's really hard to find the exact ticket, the exact docket that you have to put your public comment on. All of which is totally on purpose. It could be set up in a way that, you know, they could create regulations.gov slash. you know, science funding or something. They could make it so much easier, so much user-friendly. So what stand-up for science has done is that every Friday now, Colette says that they are hosting public meetings via Zoom to help people craft their public comments and make them effective and make sure that they will help to fight this particular really, really bad rule. And, you know, that's the kind of training that can be used elsewhere for other public comments. I think they call Friday office hours. Yes. So you can go by Stand Up for Science.net. Get information on that, on those Friday office hours. We'll, of course, link to all of this when we post Bradblog. When we post the broadcast to Bradblog.com tonight. Right. And remember, the deadline is July 13th. So it's a good idea if this is something that you care about to make your voice heard and tell everybody you know about it, too. Because I think once people find out that this is what's happening, they're going to be upset by that.

Well, if they care about, you know, science research for cancer research and all that stuff. And everything else. FEMA grants everything else. Don't let it happen. All right, we've got to get out. Thanks again to Colette Delawala of Stand Up for Science.net. Thanks to our producer, Desi Doyen. And most especially, thanks to all of you for spending a portion of your day or night with us. It's always appreciated and an honor. If you missed any portion of today's show or any other that we have ever done since the beginning of time, you can download them, listen to them, share them now for free at bradblog.com. Check out the newly. redesigned website. While you're there, I wouldn't mind it at all if you hit one of those donate forms to help us stay on your public airwaves, a one-time donation or automated monthly donation of any amount you like is much needed and greatly appreciated. Drop me email. I'm Bradcast at Bradblog.com and on the social media's I am the Bradblog. See you there until we see you here. Hopefully tomorrow with Heather Digby Parton and Drift Glass. That should be fun. I'm Brad Friedman. Good luck world.

You're listening to the Bradcast. We are 100% listener supported thanks to listeners like you who drop by bradblog.com slash donate.