December, 22 2010, 02:07pm EDT
For Immediate Release
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
ICC Slams New US Sanctions on Judges as 'Flagrant Attack' on Rule of Law
"When judicial actors are threatened for applying the law, it is the international legal order itself that is placed at risk," the court said.
Dec 18, 2025
The International Criminal Court and human rights groups on Thursday condemned new US sanctions on two more of the tribunal's judges, which brought the total number of sanctioned ICC jurists to 11 amid the Trump administration's escalating campaign of retaliation against people and institutions seeking to hold Israel and the United States accountable for their alleged crimes.
"Today, I am designating two International Criminal Court (ICC) judges, Gocha Lordkipanidze of Georgia and Erdenebalsuren Damdin of Mongolia, pursuant to Executive Order 14203, 'Imposing Sanctions on the International Criminal Court,'" US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a statement, referring to President Donald Trump's February edict.
"These individuals have directly engaged in efforts by the ICC to investigate, arrest, detain, or prosecute Israeli nationals, without Israel’s consent, including voting with the majority in favor of the ICC’s ruling against Israel’s appeal on December 15," Rubio added, referencing Monday's rejection of an Israeli bid to block a probe into alleged war crimes committed during the genocidal two-year war on Gaza.
Although Israel and the US are not ICC members and do not recognize the Hague-based tribunal's jurisdiction, Palestine is a state party to the Rome Statute governing the court. The treaty says that individuals from nonsignatory nations can be held liable for crimes committed in the territory of a member state.
Last year, the ICC issued warrants for the arrest of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for alleged crimes against humanity and war crimes in Gaza, including murder and forced starvation in a war that has left more than 250,000 Palestinians dead, wounded, or missing.
The Trump administration had previously sanctioned nine other ICC jurists: Chief Prosecutor Karim Khan (United Kingdom), Deputy Prosecutor Nazhat Shameem Khan (Fiji), Deputy Prosecutor Mame Mandiaye Niang (Senegal), Judge Solomy Balungi Bossa (Uganda), Judge Luz del Carmen Ibáñez Carranza (Peru), Judge Reine Adelaide Sophie Alapini-Gansou (Benin), Judge Beti Hohler (Slovenia), Judge Nicolas Yann Guillou (France), and Judge Kimberly Prost (Canada).
The affected judges have recently described how the US sanctions have left them and their families—who are also blacklisted—"wiped out economically and socially."
Responding to the new US punitive measures, the ICC said Thursday that "these sanctions are a flagrant attack against the independence of an impartial judicial institution which operates pursuant to the mandate conferred by its states parties from across regions."
"Such measures targeting judges and prosecutors who were elected by the states parties undermine the rule of law," the court continued. "When judicial actors are threatened for applying the law, it is the international legal order itself that is placed at risk."
"As previously stated, the court stands firmly behind its personnel and behind victims of unimaginable atrocities," the ICC added. "It will continue to carry out its mandate with independence and impartiality, in full accordance with the Rome Statute and in the interest of victims of international crimes."
Human Rights Watch also slammed the new US sanctions, which the group called "the latest attempt by the Trump administration to blatantly interfere with independent justice."
The US government has imposed sanctions on two additional ICC judges in order to shield Israeli officials from charges of grave international crimes.These sanctions are the latest attempt by the Trump administration to blatantly interfere with independent justice.
[image or embed]
— Human Rights Watch (@hrw.org) December 18, 2025 at 12:01 PM
Amnesty International's Center for International Justice lamented that "once again, the US administration is attacking international justice—sanctioning two ICC judges. This cannot be normalized."
"States must firmly oppose US threats and sanctions and uphold the court’s ability to pursue accountability," the group added, "even against the most powerful perpetrators."Keep ReadingShow Less
Rights Group Condemns 'Terror' and 'Lawlessness' Spread by Trump's Masked Thugs
“Allowing masked, unidentified agents to roam communities and apprehend people without identifying themselves erodes trusts in the rule of law and creates a dangerous vacuum where abuses can flourish."
Dec 18, 2025
As masked government agents—an oft-employed terror tool of authoritarian regimes—run roughshod amid the Trump administration's mass deportation effort, a leading human rights group on Thursday called on Congress to investigate abuses perpetrated by federal officers against immigrants and US citizens alike.
Federal immigration enforcement agents "now commonly operate masked and without visible identification, compounding the abusive and unaccountable nature of the Trump administration’s mass deportation campaign," Human Rights Watch (HRW) said. "The indefinite and widespread nature of these practices is fundamentally inconsistent with the United States’ obligations to ensure that law enforcement abuses are investigated and met with accountability."
HRW continued:
Since President Donald Trump’s return to office in January 2025, his administration has carried out an abusive campaign of immigration raids and arrests, primarily of people of color, across the country. Many of the raids target places where Latino people work, shop, eat, and live. The agents have seized people in courthouses and at regularly scheduled appointments with immigration officials, as well as in places of worship, schools, and other sensitive locations. Many raids have been marked by the sudden and unprovoked use of force without any justification, creating a climate of fear in many immigrant communities.
Drawing upon interviews with 18 people who were arrested or witnessed arrests by unidentified federal agents, HRW highlighted the "terror" and helplessness felt by victims of such "lawlessness."
“It was a horrible feeling,” said Rümeysa Öztürk, a Turkish PhD student at Tufts University who was illegally snatched off a Massachusetts street in March and whisked off to an US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) lockup in Louisiana after she published an opinion piece in a student newspaper advocating divestment from apartheid Israel as it waged a genocidal war on Gaza. With Öztürk having committed no crime, a federal judge ordered her release 45 days later.
“I didn’t think that they were the police because I had never seen police approach and take someone away like this," Öztürk said of her arrest—which bystanders likened to a kidnapping. "I thought they were people who were doxing me, and I was genuinely very afraid for my safety... As a woman who’s traveled and lived alone in various countries for my studies, I’ve never experienced intense fear for my safety—until that moment.”
Operatives with ICE—part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)—and other agencies have violently attacked not only unauthorized immigrants but also members of their communities including US citizens, activists, journalists, and others. The agents are often wearing masks but not badges or other identifiers, making it very difficult to hold abusers accountable.
While ICE tries to justify its widespread practice of masking agents “to prevent doxing,” HRW stressed that "this kind of generalized, blanket justification for concealing officers’ identity is not compatible with US human rights obligations, except when necessary and proportionate to address particular safety concerns."
"Anonymity also weakens deterrence, fosters conditions for impunity, and chills the exercise of rights," the group added.
It also sows terror, as Republican-appointed US District Judge William Young noted in a ruling earlier this year: "ICE goes masked for a single reason—to terrorize Americans into quiescence. Small wonder ICE often seems to need our respected military to guard them as they go about implementing our immigration laws. It should be noted that our troops do not ordinarily wear masks. Can you imagine a masked marine? It is a matter of honor—and honor still matters."
HRW also noted that "in recent months, media outlets have reported on people posing as federal agents kidnapping, sexually assaulting, and extorting victims, exploiting fears of immigration enforcement."
“Allowing masked, unidentified agents to roam communities and apprehend people without identifying themselves erodes trusts in the rule of law and creates a dangerous vacuum where abuses can flourish, exacerbating the unnecessary violence and brutality of the arrests,” HRW associate crisis and conflict director Belkis Wille said in a statement Thursday.
HRW called on Congress to "investigate the brutality of the ongoing immigration enforcement activities, including the specific impacts of unidentifiable agents carrying out stops and arrests on impeding investigations and accountability efforts."
In addition to efforts by state legislatures to unmask federal agents, congressional Democrats have demanded ICE and other officers identify themselves, and have introduced legislation—the No Secret Police Act and No Masks for ICE Act in the House and VISIBLE Act in the Senate—that would compel them to do so.
“If you uphold the peace of a democratic society, you should not be anonymous,” No Secret Police Act lead co-sponsor Rep. Adriano Espaillat (D-NY) said at the time of the bill's introduction in June. “DHS and ICE agents wearing masks and hiding identification echoes the tactics of secret police authoritarian regimes—and deviates from the practices of local law enforcement, which contributes to confusion in communities.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
11 House Democrats Help GOP Pass 'Disastrous' Pro-Polluter Permitting Bill
"The SPEED Act protects corporate interests, not the public, and it should be rejected by any senator who claims to stand with the people," said one campaigner.
Dec 18, 2025
Eleven Democrats on Thursday voted with nearly all Republicans in the US House of Representatives to advance a permitting reform bill that climate and frontline organizations warn is a "disastrous" attack on a landmark environmental protection law.
Democratic Reps. Jim Costa (Calif.), Henry Cuellar (Texas), Don Davis (NC), Chris Deluzio (Pa.), Lizzie Fletcher (Texas), Jared Golden (Maine), Vicente Gonzalez (Texas), Adam Gray (Calif.), John Mannion (NY), Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (Wash.), and Marc Veasey (Texas) voted with all Republicans present expect Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.) to pass the bill.
The Standardizing Permitting and Expediting Economic Development (SPEED) Act, spearheaded by Golden and House Committee on Natural Resources Chair Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.), would amend the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which "is often called the 'Magna Carta' of federal environmental laws."
In a statement after the vote, Food & Water Watch legal director Tarah Heinzen said that "for decades, NEPA has ensured logical decision-making and community involvement when the federal government considers projects that could harm people and the environment. The SPEED Act would eviscerate NEPA's protections."
The group detailed key ways in which the SPEED Act attacks NEPA:
- Drastically limiting NEPA's scope of review: Removes many actions from NEPA review altogether, potentially allowing factory farms and coal plants to build and expand without any environmental review or public input;
- Limiting agency accountability: Creates unreasonably short deadlines to challenge inadequate reviews, and limits courts’ ability to stop unlawful projects; and
- Putting polluter profits above science and the environment: Turns NEPA on its head by requiring agencies to prioritize corporate interests over the public interest and limiting their ability to consider the best science.
"Today's absurd House vote is yet another handout to corporate polluters at the expense of everyday people who have to live with the real-world impacts of toxic pollution from dirty industries like fossil fuels and factory farms," Heinzen argued. "This nonsense must be dead on arrival in the Senate."
Other campaigners also looked to the upper chamber after the vote. Erik Schlenker-Goodrich, executive director of the Western Environmental Law Center, said that "renewable energy and climate advocates in the Senate must hold the line against the SPEED Act's evisceration of our bedrock environmental and community protection law."
Allie Rosenbluth, Oil Change International's US campaign manager, stressed that "our senators must stand up against the SPEED Act's attempts to undermine democratic decision-making, pollute our communities, and threaten our collective future."
For a Better Bayou's James Hiatt similarly said that "the SPEED Act protects corporate interests, not the public, and it should be rejected by any senator who claims to stand with the people."
Anthony Karefa Rogers-Wright, co-coordinator of Black Alliance for Peace's Climate, Environment, and Militarism Initiative, warned that the bill "represents yet another assault on the health of frontline, Black, Brown, Indigenous, and poor white communities that have been designated as sacrifice zones by big polluters who bribe lawmakers with big money to continue a culture of extract, slash, burn, and emit at the expense of oppressed and marginalized peoples."
"Rather than speeding up the approval of dirty projects, Congress should increase funding for federal agencies and grassroots organizations accountable to frontline communities to carry out legally defensible and accurate environmental analyses," he continued, pointing to the Environmental Justice for All Act, previously led by the late Democratic Congressmen Raúl Grijalva (Ariz.) and Donald McEachin (Va.).
Mar Zepeda Salazar, legislative director at Climate Justice Alliance, also pointed to that alternative: "The SPEED Act fast-tracks harmful fossil fuel and polluting projects, not the community-led clean energy solutions families and Indigenous peoples across the country have long called for. Instead of pushing the SPEED Act—a bill that would strip away what few legal protections communities still have, weaken safeguards for clean air, land, and water near new industrial development, and sidestep meaningful consultation with federally recognized tribal nations—Congress should be advancing real, community-driven permitting reform."
"Examples include the Environmental Justice for All Act, which lays out meaningful public engagement, strong public health protections, respect for tribal sovereignty and consultation obligations, and serious investments in agencies and staff," she said.
Representatives from the Institute for Policy Studies, Sacred Places Institute for Indigenous Peoples, and Unitarian Universalists for Social Justice also spoke out against what David Watkins, director of government affairs for the Climate and Energy Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, condemned as "a sizable holiday gift basket for Big Oil and Gas." He, too, urged the Senate to "reject this retrograde legislation and stand up to the deep-pocketed, polluting industries lobbying for it."
Lauren Pagel, policy director at Earthworks, pointed out that passing the SPEED Act wasn't the only way in which the House on Thursday "chose corporate interests over people, Indigenous Peoples' rights, and our environment." It also passed the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act, which "will remove already-scarce protections for natural resources and sacred cultural sites in US mining law."
"Today's House votes are a step backwards for our nation, but we continue to stand firm for the rights of the people and places on the frontlines of oil, gas, and mining," Pagel said. "Communities and ecosystems shouldn't pay the price while corporations rush to profit off extraction—with a helping hand from our elected officials."
Along with those two pieces of legislation, Public Citizen pointed to the House's approval of the Power Plant Reliability Act and Reliable Power Act earlier this week. David Arkush, director of the consumer advocacy group's Climate Program, said that the bills advancing through Congress "under the guise of 'bipartisan permitting reform' are blatant handouts to the fossil fuel and mining industries."
"We need real action to lower energy bills for American families and combat the climate crisis," Arkush asserted, calling on congressional Republicans and President Donald Trump "to fast-track a buildout of renewable energy, storage, and transmission—an approach that would not just make energy more affordable and sustainable, but create US jobs and bolster competitiveness with China, which is rapidly outpacing the US on the energy technologies of the future."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular