It's hard to "maliciously comply" or be obstructive to someone giving you 55% less budget. They just... give you less money. That's it.

I guess you could slow down the firing process for a bit? That would be a minor obstruction for a short period of time. Then what?

Anyways, "how-to" guides on malicious compliance probably don't tackle situations where an external team, acting on behalf of the president, come into your workplace with unparalleled authority to do whatever they please.

Congress is the body that decides budget, not the President. Convince Congress and you will win budget, and legislative directives to accomplish specific tasks. Putting a man on the moon required Congress.

People are now routinely absolving GOP Congress critters, when they are the actual decision makers.

I'm not sure how the NSF Director should/could by themselves convince congress to not do the funding cut, but sure.

Fred Rogers managed it with PBS. https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/fredrogerssenatete... Then again, that was Mr Rogers.

By back briefing them about all the impacts on their district/State, the stocks the own, the donors they will alienate, the attack material it provides their opponents, and conversely the opportunity to seize national prominence and respect of mega corps, science believers and donors.

Play hardball, that's the job.

> There's tons of "how-to" guides on how to maliciously comply with work demands without getting fired.

These only apply to countries where the judicial system doesn't bend to whoever's in power.

This comment doesn't make sense if you're aware of the content of the guides under discussion.

Subversion is the goal of them. To be successful requires time and not getting found out. It requires plausible deniability.

Cool, how does the NSF director subvert with plausible deniability?

The other Trump malingerers are giving adept examples of how to ape compliance while going completely against the law. Complying with the law in contravention of DOGE wishes should be simple in comparison.

Okay, if they have, then please explain to me what they did differently.

Maybe the NSF director should confer with their GS peers in other services:

https://www.cia.gov/stories/story/the-art-of-simple-sabotage...

That exact book states that sabotage should only be done with plausible deniability, so I ask again...

So you'll ask... What?

I'm not sure what you're asking at this point.

It's a book about sabotage over a long period of time, written in particular to partisans of various countries.

Plausible deniability is the CIA operating method.

"How to do shit to subvert large orgs covertly via death by a thousand cuts" is another title for the manuscript, in some universe, somewhere.

> Comply but leak the truth to the media.

Doesn't apply, everybody knows what's going on already.

> Comply in a maximally obstructive way.

Doesn't apply, the whole point is that the executive wants to obstruct things, and that's what we're talking about fighting against.

> Comply just enough to not get fired but not as much as someone who may be more inclined to please their boss.

Doesn't apply, you can't half-fire the specified people, or give just a little bit of money to the people you've been instructed not to fund. You can comply, or not, and it's not going to be any kind of secret which way you chose.

If you want to go out in a blaze of glory and leave the building a day later than you otherwise would, with less dignity, go for it.

> Enlist other opposition and find ways to multiply your obstructive compliance into other departments.

It's just not that kind of role.

>> Comply in a maximally obstructive way.

> Doesn't apply, the whole point is that the executive wants to obstruct things, and that's what we're talking about fighting against.

"Obstructive" in this scenario results in the organization keeping functioning effectively. Obstructive of something destructive allows it to keep existing.

> Obstructive of something destructive allows it to keep existing.

Right, but with whose money?

I'm pointing out a definitional misunderstanding. It's was a double negative misinterpreted as a single negative.

I see your point, but I think you are missing their point.

They are saying, the action taken by the administration is to cut funding to the department. This can't really be "obstructed" short of the director using their personal funds to pay people's salaries. It would require either people to work for free, or an outside source of money.

They all leak, mostly to cause firings they want.

None of the other points achives win in some kind of fight. They are just turning you into a bitter looser that will be set aside one way or the other - and who still has to do unethical ornillegal things in the process.