this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2025
308 points (99.0% liked)

News

35749 readers
4108 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The Trump administration is still prohibiting National Institutes of Health (NIH) staff from issuing virtually all grant funding, an NIH official tells Popular Information. The ongoing funding freeze is also reflected in internal correspondence reviewed by Popular Information and was reiterated to staff in a meeting on Monday. The funding freeze at NIH violates two federal court injunctions, two legal experts said.

The funding freeze at NIH puts all of the research the agency funds at risk. As the primary funder of biomedical research in the United States, NIH-funded research includes everything from cancer treatments to heart disease prevention to stroke interventions.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] popcap200@lemmy.ml 15 points 1 year ago (2 children)

No no. It's a presidential act so he's immune. Thanks supreme Court!

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Only applies to the presidency and only if the courts remain a legitimate institution in the US, a fact that is increasingly in question.

But also, his goons are completely vulnerable either way and there is little the president can do with his own hands.

[–] Dragomus@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (3 children)

But also, his goons are completely vulnerable either way and there is little the president can do with his own hands.

They all hope for/assume/were promised full pardons.

[–] Skydancer@pawb.social 11 points 1 year ago

Pardons would only help with criminal contempt charges. In this case, the judge would probably be applying civil contempt to compel compliance with the court order. Since they wouldn't be held on a criminal charge, pardoning the crime wouldn't get them released.

[–] popcap200@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago

And have historically gotten them too.

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

True but it at least requires them to go through that process and can still inconvenience and intimidate people. Trump is capricious and unpredictable and there may be uncertainty as to whether such pardons will be granted, and even if they are, people could be arrested in the meantime.

If there is a way to nail them with state charges then this would get around this although I would assume most of these activities primarily violate federal law and take place in the District which does not have the independence of a state, unfortunately.

[–] ristoril_zip@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I believe there can't be state charges in this because that would imply a state court ordering a federal agency to do something which i believe is more or less impossible due to the Supremacy Clause.

But the capricious nature of Deputy Assistant President Trump is a real danger to these people, especially if whatever illegal thing they're doing for him gets big bad publicity and could make him unpopular.

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 3 points 1 year ago

Federal officials can still be subject to state charges if they break state law. It’s not a matter of ordering a federal agency to do anything, so the supremacy clause should not be relevant here. The question is what state laws could they be breaking? There may not be any.

[–] Bronzebeard@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Defying court orders is not part of the presidential duties.

[–] popcap200@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, but the courts explicitly can't consider the president's motive, so if he does it while president claiming it's necessary for the United States, he's free to go. It's why he got completely let off for the hush money stuff. That had nothing to do with presidential duties.

[–] Bronzebeard@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

The courts claimed they the courts couldn't, but still have themselves the option to judge what was and wasn't.

The courts later deciding that the president can just ignore the courts would be a bunch of power hungry dipshits completely removing their own power. It would be very dumb if them to do, even from the perspective of people who only care about themselves