[FraaJad]

> A spokesperson for NSF says the rationale for abolishing the divisions and removing their leaders is “to reduce the number of SES [senior executive service] positions in the agency and create new non-executive positions to better align with the needs of the agency.”

Reducing bureaucracy is not the same as cutting science funding.

[SpicyLemonZest]

It's not, but this spokesperson is lying. The NSF has indefinitely paused all funding and permanently cancelled over a thousand grants. (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-01396-2)

[iandanforth]

They are, at best, doing both. But more honestly they are attacking scientific institutions because they are perceived as liberal.

[dingnuts]

when in fact scientific research is in the interest of Defense, especially NOAA. I'm sure the Air Force will appreciate degraded forecast capability. doesn't even make sense within the normal Republican playbook

[timschmidt]

NOAA is a civilian agency. Military has https://www.metoc.navy.mil/

[_djo_]

Which benefits greatly from the data and expertise NOAA provides. It's not in a position to do it all itself.

[doron]

The Grant rejections I saw look like it was written by a middle schooler. it's shocking stupidity

[anigbrowl]

Switching executive for non-executive positions is essentially saying they want to concentrate power in a much smaller number number of personnel.