I agree there are serious concerns and drawbacks with giving appointees discretion. But the reason they did this is likely that agencies otherwise have a way of basically doing their own thing, and not complying with language. One example that isn’t about DEI. is Fauci working around restrictions on gain of function research, following the ban Obama put into place. You can have language around DEI or gender identity (or some issue on the other side) but people can find ways around it.

> and essentially codifies giving political appointees explicit discretion over what gets funded

I approve of this. The people who make the funding decisions should be politically accountable. If you have a mental model of unappointed civil servants as detached, neutral, non-political entities, I can understand why you wouldn't. But I see them as just people, and I don't know anybody like that. I'd like the folks who make bad choices with tax dollars to be votable out of office along with their boss, rather than protected from accountability by layers of boards, laws and unions.

Yes this is the exact opposite of the message conveyed in the article. Terrible graphic and communication for an important topic

yes some of the provocative imagery is non-productive in public spheres outside private circles.

As a remedy, I recommend everyone on the left read George Lakoff's book "Don't Think of an Elephant." It's a guide for how to communicate effectively, especially to people who have a vastly different worldview from themselves.

He's been consulting to organizations for a long time and these books are the distillation of his knowledge in plain language.

Preview:

1. He makes an (obv simplified) model of left vs right communication as "nurturing parent" vs. "strict father." There is obvious overlap - it's a model, but you can see how much this explains as he develops it a bit further.

2. He talks about a "staining" or "triggering" effect when communicating. what does that mean? people have key words that instantly shut down their thought, preventing useful discussion. For example, immediately upon hearing the words "trans," conservatives might picture a man in a dress molesting someone in a bathroom. Similar for leftists when they hear a word like "corporation" or "business." So he teaches how to communicate without stumbling on these.

Citizens in a free society do not temper their criticisms for fear that "the government" might get mad about them. Donald Trump's science policy is destroying one of the key components of American power, and if he doesn't like people posting evocative images about that he'll have to get over it.

That's a fair objection, but it's not OK to politicize everything else in science just because a few idiots handed your party an unusually-catchy wedge issue.

Climate science is not "woke." Basic and applied research at agencies like NASA is not "woke." Math departments are not "woke." NIST is not "woke." Yet all of their funding is under threat by the Trump administration and Republicans in general.