That, of course, probably doesn't apply in this situation since Trump rarely changes his mind. But it does apply in other situations.

As for GP's options, normally I would think B (standing your ground and throwing them a small bone while waiting to get fired) is the most rational option outside of sheer self-preservation. Since its a federal job if you don't know the law it may get little dicey if you go the C route.

My guess from out of leftfield: there is immense pressure and unseen threats being thrown about by admin goons similar to what they did in the attorney general's office in the Southern District of New York, namely: If you don't resign we will fire everyone underneath you. That's what would easily explain this behavior.

Given that the management is choosing who is let go, I believe many are threatening to let crucial people and programs end if funding is cut.

It's extremely effective.

That's not true; he changes his mind all the time, particularly as media coverage changes. It's just not necessarily something you can persuade him to do without catering to his ego.

"We saw it in business with Trump," one adviser said. "He would have these meetings and everyone would agree, and then we would just pray that when he left the office and got on the elevator that the doorman wouldn't share his opinion, because there would be a 50/50 chance [Trump] would suddenly side with the doorman."

Bush was a wise man, Truman forgot that government power can be fickle.

https://thetech.com/2024/07/11/anniversary-vannevar-bush-pas...

the “unchecked committee of technocratic experts appeared to be his preferred agency governance form.” refers both to his utterances illustrated in his only biography to date, and particularly to the would-be May-Johnson governance structure he promoted.

Today we see the debate in full swing with discussion of technocratic elitism, (particularly this year more than last when I wrote the piece).

I wrestle with the pitfalls & perceived benefits a technocratic elite sans much representative democratic oversight. But make no mistake, a ‘Vannevarian’ world would appear very different to the current one we prefer to think we live in. The closest example in pop culture to what I imagine is the Fallout franchise’s Vault governance & managed society.

William B. Bonvillian taught me the bit I know about the topic :)

That’s great to hear you sometimes give talks to course 3 students, as maybe some of them will go on to study lattices like: https://www.sf-uap.com/materials-science , for which study under what governance structure we may not know.

All the best.

NSF is an "independent agency" [1] so if the job you were appointed to an confirmed by congress (senate) is at odds with the presidents desires I'm pretty sure it's supposed to be a problem for the president not you.

Similar to all those inspector generals who just gave up when they were illegally fired. Literally your job is to prevent the president from corruption, how are you going to do that now?

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_Un...

If you believe the NSF is independent then you are implicitly agreeing with those who claim there is a fourth 'deep state' branch of government that operates without accountability.

Separately: I cited the law that says the president can fire the head of the NSF. So I'm not sure why you'd conclude that any disagreement would be a problem for the president.

I think it's imminently reasonable to say that agencies shouldn't be independent of the executive, and that's the default if the legislation passed by Congress (and signed by the current executive!) doesn't specify otherwise. But Congress should, and I believe does, have the power to set things up otherwise.

(And it's pretty unclear to me how the NSF, which is ultimately a method for Congress to spend money, could relate to any Executive powers)

So it seems reasonable the Executive can police independent agencies to ensure they operate as authorized by law, but I don't see how that challenges the establishment or existence of lawful independent agencies.

NSF is one thing but say an independent agency that does things like negotiate treaties or command the military or nominate Supreme Court justices should be off the table

(But on the other hand, theoretically the Executive should be able to voluntarily authorize legislation that enables those things if they wanted to. Just saying I can see cooperation possible but a veto override probably won't work to force it on an unwilling Executive).

I agree with you about the powers you enumerated.

The judiciary. E.g Bowsher v. Synar

They decide what is and is not constitutional, not you. And, contrary to what Internet armchair "textualists" will proclaim, most of the constitution is up for interpretation and actually quite vague.

We've been debating the constitution since the moment we lifted the pen. Or, er, quill. Have some humility.