5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
December, 22 2010, 02:07pm EDT
Contact:
Email:,info@peer.org
Science Transparency Policy Swathed In Secrecy
White House Withholds All But Snippets on Why Science Guidance Went Off Course
WASHINGTON
The White House has decided to withhold the vast majority of
documents explaining why its science integrity and transparency policies
are more than 18 months behind schedule and why the final four-page
guidance to agencies failed to address or clarify a raft of issues,
according to materials posted today by Public Employees for
Environmental Responsibility (PEER). The tiny fragments the White House
did release in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit brought
by PEER do not even identify what topics were the subject of such
prolonged internal wrangling.
Early in his administration, President Obama issued a directive on
implementing six sweeping scientific integrity and transparency
policies. He directed the White House Office of Science and Technology
(OSTP) to develop guidance for all agencies by July 2009. After months
of delay and missed target dates, in October 2010 PEER filed a federal
lawsuit against OSTP for its failure to release any documents about the
status of the guidance. Finally, last Friday, December 17, OSTP issued
its guidance. Yesterday, OSTP delivered, via the Justice Department,
fragmentary material representing all "non-exempt records responsive" to
PEER's request for an explanation of why this very short guidance took
so long to produce.
The vast majority of the 155 pages delivered were blacked out; all of
the meeting notes, progress reports and even congressional testimony
were heavily redacted. The shreds of text released indicate that OSTP
sent a draft to the White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB)
roughly on schedule. In a weekly OSTP report dated June 29, 2009, the
only released entry read: "OSTP and OMB continue to negotiate a handful
of remaining fine points ...With luck a draft will be ready for
consideration by agency Principals by the end of this week."
By August 4, 2009, the effort was derailed, as OSTP "talking points"
reveal: "Discussions have been taking place at the highest levels at
OSTP, OMB, and other EOP [Executive Office of the President] offices to
resolve these remaining items. Be assured your efforts have received a
high level of attention with the EOP." However, the portion of the
talking points describing the issues in contention was blacked out. By
October 2009 a version had been kicked back to OSTP where it sat for
weeks. As one OSTP staff person replied when asked "What is happening
with the Science Integrity memo?"
"We are clearly the bottleneck - not sure we will get a cleared draft before our fearless leader departs for Russia."
The matter then languished for some months more. By June 18, 2010,
OSTP Director John Holdren authorized a blog posting assuring that
scientific integrity directives are already in effect, although there
are no enforceable rules. In approving the entry, Holdren added "I
think it is fine to go - much better than leaving all this crap
unanswered for weeks more." But the process still dragged on. The
next cogent entry is dated July 9, 2010 from Holdren reading: "On
Thursday this week, culmination of a lengthy and thorough multi-agency
process, OSTP and OMB agreed on penultimate language...I should note that
today marks the one-year anniversary of the original deadline for
submission of these recommendations and I anticipate some level of
negative press over the weekend regarding this delay." The final
guidance was not issued for more than six months after that.
The snippets of information suggest that the product had to achieve
inter-agency consensus: "OSTP staff are working closely with OMB to
revise the proposed recommendations to the President in a way that is
satisfactory to all." (emphasis added). As a result, any participating
agency, such as the Department of Defense, apparently had the power to
block particular guidance. The need for consensus may explain why the
final product was so vapid and late.
"Given that the guidance states its objective is to 'strengthen the
actual and perceived credibility of Government research' how does it hep
to exclude the public, government scientists and the scientific
community from that discussion?" asked PEER Executive Director Jeff
Ruch, indicating that his organization would press for release of more
documents through the litigation. "Today, federal agencies have no
clear guidance or timetable for producing rules and procedures for
implementing the President's directive. If the OSTP experience is any
indication, this process will drift for years longer before it finally
implodes from inertia."
PEER is still seeking information detailing, among other things -
- What were the thorny issues that dragged out and diluted the OSTP process;
- Which agencies voiced what specific objections and concerns; and
- How did OMB affect the drafting of guidance and what role will it continue to play.
The long negotiations with OMB did produce one of the few pellucid
results from the guidance - OMB was declared exempt from integrity and
transparency directives applied to other agencies.
###
See the 2009 OSTP documents
Look at the 2010 OSTP documents
View the OSTP guidance finally issued last week
Revisit the PEER lawsuit against OSTP
PEER protects public employees who protect our environment. We are a service organization for environmental and public health professionals, land managers, scientists, enforcement officers, and other civil servants dedicated to upholding environmental laws and values. We work with current and former federal, state, local, and tribal employees.
LATEST NEWS
Millions of Americans Joining the Ranks of the Uninsured Thanks to Trump-GOP Cuts in 2025
New data released by KFF underscores how "universal, seamless coverage throughout the life course remains an urgent prerogative for the nation," said one physician and advocate.
Mar 20, 2026
About 24.3 million Americans were enrolled in healthcare plans within the Affordable Care Act marketplace last year, but a survey released Thursday by KFF found that about 1 in 10 of those people had no choice but to make a difficult and risky calculation at the end of 2025 when ACA subsidies expired due to Republicans' refusal to support an extension.
According to the research, 9% of people enrolled in plans under the marketplace last year are now uninsured, having dropped their coverage—and costs were a deciding factor for the vast majority of those who left the marketplace.
The expiration of the enhanced tax credits sent premiums skyrocketing by an average of 114%, according to KFF.
The decision was unavoidable for one 54-year-old man in Texas, who told KFF simply, "Without the subsidy, I cannot afford the premium payments.”
A 56-year-old woman in Illinois said her income was too high last year to qualify for subsidies, but the increase in cost this year was "so high even for those without subsidies."
"I simply cannot afford to pay $1,200 a month for insurance," she said. "It used to be high premiums meant low deductibles and copays, but not anymore. This is ridiculous. $1,200 for a healthy person, and an $8,000 deductible. Really?”
A Florida resident named Kelly Rose told The Wall Street Journal that the $1,700 monthly premium she was quoted for an ACA plan would have been more than her mortgage. She missed the enrollment window for health coverage through her job at a bank—assuming her ACA plan would cost less—and is now uninsured and relying on a Canadian pharmacy to get her asthma medication, which would cost $800 per month without insurance in the US.
Cynthia Cox, a senior vice president at KFF, told the Journal that the survey results were “about on target” what the health policy research group had expected last year when the subsidy expiration was looming and Democrats were demanding that the GOP vote with them to extend the tax credits.
“Not only is there significant coverage loss, but there could be more to come,” Cox said.
An estimated 25 million Americans are uninsured, said Harvard Medical School professor and former Physicians for a National Health Plan president Adam Gaffney—a fact he called "abhorrent" as he suggested the new data makes the latest case for "universal, seamless coverage throughout the life course," or an expansion of the Medicare program to the entire US population.
That proposal, which has been introduced in Congress numerous times by lawmakers including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), would put the US in line with the healthcare systems of other wealthy nations, improve healthcare outcomes, and save an estimated $650 billion per year.
A poll released late last year by Data for Progress found that 65% of likely US voters supported "creating a national health insurance program, sometimes called ‘Medicare for All,’ that would cover all Americans and replace most private health insurance plans."
The fact that millions of Americans have chosen to opt out of the country's for-profit health insurance system—putting their health and finances at risk—is representative of "a profound hollowing-out and weakening of America," said writer and markets researcher Ben Hunt.
The economic justice campaign Unrig Our Economy emphasized that Republicans' cuts to healthcare last year—via the expiration of the subsidies and slashes to Medicaid—put an estimated 15 million Americans at risk of losing health coverage.
“Republicans knew that healthcare tax credits were critical to helping millions of Americans afford their health insurance, but they chose to get rid of them to fund more tax breaks for their billionaire buddies,” said Unrig Our Economy campaign director Leor Tal. “Costs are higher, millions are without insurance, and working Americans are having to make sacrifices just to afford basic healthcare—and they know that Republicans are to blame. It’s time Republicans finally started listening to their constituents and fixing the healthcare crisis they created.”
KFF's polling also found that among people who still have health insurance under the ACA, higher premiums and deductibles have left a majority concerned that they wouldn't be able to afford emergency care even with their coverage. Nearly half of respondents said they were worried that even routine medical care will be unaffordable this year with their ACA plans.
Due to Republican attacks, the cost of coverage offered by the program is now forcing 55% of people using the ACA to cut back on spending money on food, household items, and clothing in order to afford it. Forty-three percent said they are trying to find another job or extra income to afford healthcare payments, and nearly a quarter said they are skipping or delaying payments on other bills to afford their health coverage.
More than half of people polled by KFF said they blame Republicans in Congress for their rising healthcare costs.
"Americans are blaming them because it’s true," said Unrig Our Economy. "Congressional Republicans’ massive cuts to health care have put a projected 15 million Americans at risk of losing health insurance and left millions more struggling to keep up with rising costs. Republicans made these cuts all so they could give more tax breaks to billionaires and corporations."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Human Rights Watch to Hungary: Arrest Netanyahu on Sight
"Despite its move to leave the ICC, Hungary is still a member country and is still obligated to arrest and surrender individuals wanted by the court," one campaigner stressed.
Mar 20, 2026
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán announced plans to ditch the International Criminal Court nearly a year ago, during a visit from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the subject of an ICC arrest warrant. With Netanyahu set to return to Hungary on Saturday, and the country's exit from the tribunal not final for a few more months, Orbán faces fresh pressure to arrest Netanyahu.
"Despite its move to leave the ICC, Hungary is still a member country and is still obligated to arrest and surrender individuals wanted by the court," Alice Autin, international justice researcher at Human Rights Watch (HRW), said in a Friday statement.
"By flouting this obligation, for the second time in less than a year," Autin argued, "Hungary would further entrench impunity for serious crimes in Palestine and once again betray victims who have been denied justice for far too long."
HRW: Hungarian authorities should arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu if he enters Hungarian territory. He is expected to travel to Hungary on March 21 to speak at the Conservative Political Action Conference, shortly before national electionswww.hrw.org/news/2026/03...
[image or embed]
— Bassam Khawaja (@khawaja.bsky.social) March 20, 2026 at 7:33 AM
In November 2024, the ICC issued warrants for Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for crimes against humanity and war crimes in the Gaza Strip since the Hamas-led October 2023 attack on Israel. Despite a ceasefire deal reached over five months ago, the Israeli assault on the Palestinian territory continues. There are at least 72,253 Palestinians confirmed dead, and 171,912 more have been injured, though global experts warn the true death toll is likely far higher.
After Netanyahu visited Hungary last April without being arrested, the Hungarian government formally notified United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres that it would withdraw from the Hague-based court in exactly one year, on June 2, 2026.
Soon after that notification, ICC judges found that "Hungary failed to comply with its international obligations" under the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the tribunal, "by not executing the court's request to provisionally arrest Mr. Netanyahu while he was present on Hungarian territory," and referred the matter to the Assembly of States Parties.
Highlighting that the assembly, the court's oversight and legislative body, "noted the judicial finding but failed to take more decisive action" during its annual session in December, HRW called on ICC state parties to "strengthen their responses to noncooperation."
The group specifically pressured members of the European Union, which have declined to "take sufficient measures to prevent Hungary's undermining of the ICC and Orbán’s broader attack on the rule of law," beyond the European Parliament's 2018 decision to initiate a procedure under Article 7 of the EU treaty to assess the bloc member.
According to HRW:
The European Commission indicated in May 2025 that it was "in the process of analyzing Hungary's announced withdrawal from the ICC in the light of the EU's acquis," that is, the body of EU law which includes respect for human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. But there is no indication that the commission's assessment has progressed.
EU leadership and member states, along with other ICC member countries, should press Hungary to reverse its withdrawal from the court, publicly remind Hungary of its ongoing obligations as an ICC member, and urge Hungarian authorities to cooperate with the court by arresting Netanyahu. If the visit takes place, they should strongly condemn Hungary's continued failure to cooperate with the court and unambiguously reaffirm their own commitment to execute all pending ICC warrants, regardless of whom they target.
The European Commission and EU member states should also consider Hungary’s decision to leave the ICC as a further risk of serious breach of fundamental EU values, and consider including the withdrawal in the scope of the current procedure under Article 7. They should also assess what other measures and action should be taken. This could include initiating a procedure that could lead to a finding that Hungary has infringed EU law.
"Orbán's government is about to roll out the red carpet again for Netanyahu, when it is obligated to arrest him," said Autin. "Silence and persistent inaction from the EU risks sending a dangerous message of acquiescence as the Israeli government continues to be responsible for atrocities."
Netanyahu notably skipped the signing of the charter for US President Donald Trump's so-called "Board of Peace" for Gaza in Davos, Switzerland, in January, after the Swiss government affirmed its commitment to arresting him.
The Israeli prime minister is set to speak at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) Hungary on Saturday, though there is a chance he will not appear in person due to security concerns related to his and Trump's war on Iran, which they launched nearly three weeks ago.
Since the US-Israeli campaign began on February 28, Israel has also ramped up its bombing of alleged Hezbollah targets in Lebanon, despite a November 2024 ceasefire agreement, and again cut off the flow of humanitarian aid into Gaza.
There have also been rumors that Trump—who has previously sent exclusive video messages to CPAC Hungary—may make an appearance, despite the security concerns. The US president has responded to the arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant by sanctioning ICC judges.
Keep Reading
Show Less
‘Beyond the Pale’: General Says US Military Will Create a ‘Camp’ at Gitmo to ‘Deal With’ Cubans Fleeing Trump Blockade
One foreign policy expert noted that fears of a "mass exodus" of refugees come "as the US starves Cuba of energy and food."
Mar 20, 2026
As the Trump administration sows chaos with a crushing fuel blockade of Cuba, a general told Congress that the military will "set up a camp" at Guantánamo Bay to detain those who try to flee the humanitarian crisis inflicted by the United States.
The phrase "humanitarian crisis" was used by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) to describe the situation in Cuba during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Thursday, as he questioned US Marine Corps Gen. Francis Donovan, the commander of the US Southern Command (SOUTHCOM).
Donovan, a 37-year Marine veteran, took command of SOUTHCOM in February after being tapped by President Donald Trump. His predecessor, Adm. Alvin Holsey, abruptly resigned in December reportedly after he'd raised concerns about the Trump administration's bombings of alleged drug trafficking boats in the Caribbean, which have been widely described as illegal under international law.
On Thursday, Cotton asked Donovan, "Are we prepared for any kind of humanitarian crisis in Cuba—the possible flow of refugees, other civil disorder that may threaten our interests, especially if the decrepit, corrupt Castro regime finally falls or flees?"
"Senator, yes we are," Donovan responded. "SOUTHCOM... We have an [executive] order to be prepared to support [the Department of Homeland Security] (DHS) in a mass migration event. They would take the lead, we would follow."
Donovan said this would include using the US military base at Guantánamo Bay, "where we would set up a camp to deal with those migrants or any overflow from any situation in Cuba itself."
Trump signed an executive order during his first month in office last year directing DHS and the Pentagon to “expand the Migrant Operations Center at Naval Station Guantánamo Bay to full capacity," which the administration said meant scaling the facility up to more than 30,000 beds.
The base, which houses a prison infamous for the extrajudicial torture of detainees during the global War on Terror, was designated under Trump's order to hold "high‑priority criminal aliens unlawfully present in the United States.”
But Donovan suggested it may now be used to hold Cubans fleeing chaos and deprivation following Trump's own acts of economic warfare.
Cotton's question followed a warning that same day from Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis of a "possible mass exodus out of Cuba," which experienced an island-wide electricity blackout earlier this week following the Trump administration's blockade of fuel entering the island, which a group of UN rapporteurs said in January was “a serious violation of international law and a grave threat to a democratic and equitable international order.”
DeSantis, whose state is home to about 1.6 million Cuban-Americans, said, "[W]e don’t want to see a massive armada of people showing up on the shores of the Florida Keys."
He said he believed the Trump administration "would rather see people in Florida go help… hopefully get a new government going" in Cuba, possibly referring to the long-held hope of some right-wing Cuban exiles to take over the island.
Following more than 60 years of an embargo that has strangled Cuba's economic development, the Trump administration tightened the noose even more in January, signing an executive order that would slap harsh tariffs on any country that provides oil to Cuba.
As a result of the blockade, explained Juanita Goebertus, Americas director at Human Rights Watch, "people don’t have reliable access to drinking water, hospitals can’t operate safely, basic goods are becoming increasingly difficult to obtain, and garbage is piling up in the streets.”
Trump first described his blockade as part of an effort to carry out regime change against Cuba's Communist Party leadership, but this week, he made the imperialist declaration that he may seek to outright "take" the island and that he could "do anything I want" with the "weakened nation."
Erik Sperling, the executive director of Just Foreign Policy, emphasized that the possible "mass migration event" described by Donovan was only coming "as the US starves Cuba of energy and food."
"Trump and [Secretary of State Marco] Rubio are to blame for any refugee crisis from Cuba, as the US intentionally harms civilians with an oil blockade," said Just Foreign Policy in a social media post responding to Republican warnings of Cuban mass migration. "US sanctions and meddling in Latin America have always been a leading cause of migrant flows."
Immigration journalist Arturo Dominguez explained that "What [Donovan] essentially said was, 'We're ready to accommodate the flow of refugees by putting them in camps.'" He added that "the way these military goons jump right in to 'accommodate' atrocity is beyond the pale."
Trump's blockade of Cuba is unpopular with the American public, according to a YouGov poll released earlier this week. Just 28% of adult US citizens said they approved of the US blocking oil shipments to the country, while 46% said they opposed it. The same survey found that just 13% want the US to use military force to attack Cuba, while 61% would oppose it.
Just Foreign Policy said, "The American people do not want their government to starve Cubans and cause a 'mass migration event.'"
Keep Reading
Show Less
Most Popular