SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Trump administration has frozen grants and contracts by the Environmental Protection Agency, according to ProPublica, and blocked employees from providing updates on this change via social media. This could have big effects on the agency's budget and severely undercut its efforts.
In an email obtained by ProPublica, one EPA contractor writes that: "The new EPA administration has asked that all contract and grant awards be temporarily suspended, effective immediately. Until we receive further clarification, this includes task orders and work assignments."
Also, employees have been banned from providing updates to reporters or on social media. The internal memo specifies that no press releases will go out to external audiences, there will be "no blog messages" and media requests will be carefully screened. (Interestingly, the Department of Energy, a fellow federal agency, recently released new guidelines that specifically protects contractors and ensures that they can state their personal opinions.)
Source: The Verge
takyon: Here are some related stories happening at the same time:
USDA scrambles to ease concerns after researchers were ordered to stop publishing news releases, other documents
USDA disavows gag-order emailed to scientific research unit
Commerce nominee Ross promises to protect "peer-reviewed research" at NOAA
CDC postpones climate conference ahead of Trump takeover
Badlands National Park goes rogue with climate-change tweets
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Spamalope on Wednesday January 25 2017, @12:56PM
(Note, I'm trying to explain, not condone or excuse these actions - or hopefully even put a value judgement on them)
Federal agencies can be thought of as very large companies, but with odd somewhat decentralized anarchic power structures. Some agencies have a history of supporting administrations with a particular ideology. Recent events along with past agency history indicates that a concern that some employees would rather sink the ship than assist a leader who is a political opponent would be a well grounded fear.
In that scenario, how could a CEO limit the damage while still very definitely turning the ship? I expect those sorts of things. CEO vs Bureaucracy with maximum spin from both sides.
Undermining via press leaks and whisper campaigns is a tactic of opposition, so he's banned it. From the CEO's perspective, employees who can't help themselves are too partisan to work with. A CEO would want to separate the partisans who'd sink the agency if the other team is in charge from the employees who believe in the agencies mission and will try for the best result. (as an aside - if you demand perfection vs the screw-ups and waste of gov't + two party politics then a gov't career isn't for you - minimizing fubar is more like it.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 25 2017, @06:17PM
> Undermining via press leaks and whisper campaigns is a tactic of opposition, so he's banned it.
Those were always "banned." He's banned official communications with the public.
If anything, he's encouraged leaking because he's taken away all forms of above-board communication.
Also known to star wars geeks as, "The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."