Hundreds of NASA Employees, Past and Present, Sign Letter of Formal Dissent
'We are compelled to speak up when our leadership prioritizes political momentum over human safety, scientific advancement and efficient use of public resources,' the employees wrote in the letter. It is addressed to Sean Duffy, the secretary of transportation, whom President Trump appointed this month as acting NASA administrator.
Cuts to NASA programs have been arbitrary and in defiance of priorities set by Congress, the NASA employees said. 'The consequences for the agency and the country alike are dire,' they wrote.
NASA did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The NASA letter follows similar letters of criticism by federal employees at the National Institutes of Health and the Environmental Protection Agency. Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, the N.I.H. director, said he welcomed respectful dissent, but the E.P.A. placed 144 employees who signed that agency's letter on leave.
'We're all scared that we're going to get laid off,' said Monica Gorman, an operations research analyst at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. 'We're scared of retaliation. We huddle in the bathroom. We go to the bathroom to talk to each other, and look under the stalls to make sure that no one else is there before we talk.'
Ms. Gorman is one of 287 current and former NASA employees who signed the letter, although more than half did so anonymously. More than 15,000 people work at the space agency. Prominent scientists outside of NASA, including 20 Nobel Prize winners, also offered their names in support.
Read the NASA 'Voyager Declaration' Letter of Dissent
Hundreds of current and ex-employees of NASA signed a formal dissent letter protesting the Trump administration's proposed cuts to the agency.
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Gabbard's claims of an anti-Trump conspiracy are not supported by declassified documents
WASHINGTON (AP) — Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard this month declassified material that she claimed proved a 'treasonous conspiracy' by the Obama administration in 2016 to politicize U.S. intelligence in service of casting doubt on the legitimacy of Donald Trump's election victory. As evidence, Gabbard cited newly declassified emails from Obama officials and a five-year-old classified House report in hopes of undermining the intelligence community's conclusion that Russian President Vladimir Putin wanted to boost Trump and denigrate his Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton. Russia's activities during the 2016 election remain some of the most examined events in recent history. The Kremlin's campaign and the subsequent U.S. government response were the subject of at least five major investigations by the Republican-led House and Senate intelligence committee; two Justice Department special counsels; and the department's inspector general. Those investigations either concluded — or accepted the conclusion — that Russia embarked on a campaign to interfere in the election through the use of social media and hacked material. The House-led probe, conducted by Trump allies, also concurred that Russia ran an election interference campaign but said the purpose was to sow chaos in the U.S. rather than boost Trump. Several of the reports criticize the actions of Obama administration officials, particularly at the FBI, but do not dispute the fundamental findings that Moscow sought to interfere in the election. The Associated Press has reviewed those reports to evaluate how Gabbard's claims stack up: Russian election interference CLAIM: 'The intelligence community had one assessment: that Russia did not have the intent and capability to try to impact the outcome of the U.S. election leading up to Election Day. The same assessment was made after the election.' — Gabbard to Fox News on Tuesday. The documents Gabbard released do not support her claim. She cites a handful of emails from 2016 in which officials conclude that Russia had no intention of manipulating the U.S. vote count through cyberattacks on voting systems. President Barack Obama's administration never alleged that voting infrastructure was tampered with. Rather, the administration said Russia ran a covert influence campaign using hacked and stolen material from prominent Democrats. Russian operatives then used that information as part of state-funded media and social media operations to inflame U.S. public opinion. More than two dozen Russians were indicted in 2018 in connection with those efforts. Republican-led investigations in Congress have affirmed that conclusion, and the emails that Gabbard released do not contradict that finding. Shift in assessment? CLAIM: 'There was a shift, a 180-degree shift, from the intelligence community's assessment leading up to the election to the one that President Obama directed be produced after Donald Trump won the election that completely contradicted those assessments that had come previously.' — Gabbard to Fox News on Tuesday. There was no shift. The emails Gabbard released show that a Department of Homeland Security official in August 2016 told then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper there was 'no indication of a Russian threat to directly manipulate the actual vote count.' The public assessment the Obama administration made public in January 2017 reached the same conclusion: 'DHS assesses that the types of systems Russian actors targeted or compromised were not involved in vote tallying." Putin's intent CLAIM: The Obama administration "manufactured the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment that they knew was false promoting the LIE that Vladimir Putin and the Russian government helped President Trump win the 2016 election.' — Gabbard on Truth Social Wednesday. The material declassified this week reveals some dissent within the intelligence community about whether Putin wanted to help Trump or simply inflame the U.S. public. That same question led to a partisan divide on the House Intelligence panel when it examined the matter several years later. Gabbard's memo released last week cites a 'whistleblower' who she says served in the intelligence community at the time and who is quoted as saying that he could not 'concur in good conscience' with the intelligence community's judgment that Russia had a 'decisive preference' for Trump. Such dissent and debate are not unusual in the drafting of intelligence reports. The Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee examined whether there was any political interference in the Obama administration's conclusions and reported that 'all analysts expressed that they were free to debate, object to content, and assess confidence levels, as is normal and proper.' In 2018, Putin directly addressed the question of whether he preferred Trump at a press conference in Helsinki even as he sidestepped a question about whether he directed any of his subordinates to help Trump. 'Yes, I did,' Putin said. 'Because he talked about bringing the U.S.-Russia relationship back to normal.' Steele dossier CLAIM: 'They used already discredited information like the Steele dossier — they knew it was discredited at the time.' — Gabbard to Fox News on Tuesday. The dossier refers to a collection of opposition research files compiled by a former British spy, Christopher Steele, whose work was funded by Democrats during the 2016 election. Those files included uncorroborated tips and salacious gossip about Trump's ties to Russia, but the importance to the Russia investigation has sometimes been overstated. It was not the basis for the FBI's decision to open an investigation in July 2016 into potential coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia, the Justice Department's inspector general found. Some of the records released by Gabbard this week also reveal that it was a Central Intelligence Agency human source close to the Kremlin that the agency primarily relied on for its conclusion that Putin wanted to help Trump and hurt Clinton, not the Steele dossier. FBI agents on the case didn't even come to possess the dossier until weeks into their inquiry. Even so, Trump supporters have seized on the unverified innuendo in the document to undercut the broader Russia investigation. Many of Steele's claims have since been discredited or denied. It is true, however, that the FBI and Justice Department relied in part on the Steele dossier to obtain surveillance warrants to eavesdrop on the communications of a former Trump campaign adviser, the inspector general found. FBI agents continued to pursue those warrants even after questions arose about the credibility of Steele's reporting. The dossier was also summarized — over the objections of then-CIA Director John Brennan, he has said — in a two-page annex to the classified version of the intelligence community assessment.
Boston Globe
28 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
The US fertility rate reached a new low in 2024, CDC data shows
Alarmed by recent drops, the Trump administration has taken steps to increase falling birth rates, like issuing an executive order meant to expand access to and reduce costs of in vitro fertilization and backing the idea of 'baby bonuses' that might encourage more couples to have kids. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up But there's no reason to be alarmed, according to Leslie Root, a University of Colorado Boulder researcher focused on fertility and population policy. Advertisement 'We're seeing this as part of an ongoing process of fertility delay. We know that the U.S. population is still growing, and we still have a natural increase — more births than deaths,' she said. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released the statistic for the total fertility rate with updated birth data for 2024. In the early 1960s, the U.S. total fertility rate was around 3.5, but plummeted to 1.7 by 1976 after the Baby Boom ended. It gradually rose to 2.1 in 2007 before falling again, aside from a 2014 uptick. The rate in 2023 was 1.621, and inched down in 2024 to 1.599, according to the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics. Advertisement Birth rates are generally declining for women in most age groups — and that doesn't seem likely to change in the near future, said Karen Guzzo, director of the Carolina Population Center at the University of North Carolina. People are marrying later and also worried about their ability to have the money, health insurance and other resources needed to raise children in a stable environment. 'Worry is not a good moment to have kids,' and that's why birth rates in most age groups are not improving, she said. Asked about birth-promoting measures outlined by the Trump administration, Guzzo said they don't tackle larger needs like parental leave and affordable child care. 'The things that they are doing are really symbolic and not likely to budge things for real Americans,' she said. Increase in births in new data The CDC's new report, which is based on a more complete review of birth certificates than provisional data released earlier this year, also showed a 1% increase in births — about 33,000 more — last year compared to the prior year. That brought the yearly national total to just over 3.6 million babies born. But this is different: The provisional data indicated birth rate increases last year for women in their late 20s and 30s. However, the new report found birth rate declines for women in their 20s and early 30s, and no change for women in their late 30s. What happened? CDC officials said it was due to recalculations stemming from a change in the U.S. Census population estimates used to compute the birth rate. Advertisement That's plausible, Root said. As the total population of women of childbearing age grew due to immigration, it offset small increases in births to women in those age groups, she said.
UPI
29 minutes ago
- UPI
Appeals court: Trump's birthright citizenship EO unconstitutional
US President Donald Trump participates in a reception with Republican Members of Congress in the East Room at the White House in Washington, DC on Tuesday, July 22, 2025. On Wednesday, an appeals court ruled his effort to end birthright citizenship was unconstitutional. Photo by Yuri Gripas/UPI | License Photo July 24 (UPI) -- A divided federal appeals court has ruled that President Donald Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship is unconstitutional. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued its 2-1 ruling Wednesday. Though already blocked by the courts, Wednesday's ruling marks the first time an appellate court has judged the merit's of Trump's executive order. "We conclude that the Executive Order is invalid because it contradicts the plain language of the 14th Amendment's grant of citizenship to "all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," the three-judge panel said in its ruling. Judge Patrick Bumatay, a Trump appointee, dissented, stating the states lacked standing to bring the challenge. Trump issued his executive order among his first actions after being inaugurated as the 47th president of the United States on Jan. 20. It has since been met with challenges in court in lawsuits filed by both states and civil rights organizations. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 following the Civil War to grant citizenship to people who were born in the United States, including children of formerly enslaved Black people. The Trump administration argues that the 14th Amendment should be narrowly interpreted so that birthright citizenship is not granted to children if their parents are undocumented or if their parents' presence was lawful but temporary, such as those on work or student visas, at the time of birth. Trump, who campaigned on leading an anti-immigration administration, had vowed during his campaign to end birthright citizenship, despite legal experts questioning his ability to do so. The Democratic-led states countered that denying citizenship to children born here is unconstitutional, and that if his executive order was allowed to stand newborns would lose their ability to participate in American society. Washington State, Oregon, Arizona and Illinois filed their challenge to the executive order on Jan. 21. They were awarded an injunction in the case in early February. And last month, in a win for Trump in the case, the conservative-dominated Supreme Court ruled along ideological lines 6-3 in a case that consolidated the plaintiffs from three separate litigations, that judges could not issue nationwide injunctions against the president, but allowed those in class-action lawsuits. "The court agrees that the president cannot redefine what it means to be American with the stroke of a pen," Washington Attorney General Nick Brown said in a statement Wednesday. "He cannot strip away the rights, liberties and protections of children born in our country."
