[refurb]

Why do they need to quash the speech and operations of employees during the transition, other than to have a chilling effect in the department?

Wasn't the National Park Twitter feed trashing Trump and his policies?[1]. Randomly tweeting that the old Whitehouse webpages got deleted, even though that's pretty typical for a new administration.

Why wouldn't you put a stop to that?

What would happen if a company got a new CEO and some random employee started bashing them via the company Twitter account?

[dashundchen]

Think you are missing a link, but I will assume you're referring to the NPS tweet about crowd size.

Was it the most appropriate thing to do on an agency twitter account? Maybe not.

But that tweet has nothing to do with the EPA or Department of Ag, and intentionally hampering their business and operations. There are other motivations at play here.

That's not even getting into the ridiculous crowd size discussion and "alternative facts" that were being pushed.

I'm genuinely afraid of how Trump and his team are so thin-skinned to a tweet or criticism, considering the real challenges and attacks the office has and will need to face.

[refurb]

I don't disagree the crowd size issue is pretty silly.

That said, if some gov't agency started Tweeting negative things about the Obama administration after his inauguration, would any talk about a "chilling effect" if he told them to stop? I'm not his biggest fan, but I wouldn't fault him for that.

The job of the National Parks service is pretty clear. Tweeting their political opinions using their employer's account are not one of them.