Week of July 30, 2026

From the editor’s desk

A New York Times piece from this week, “Congress Budgeted Billions for Big Transit Projects. Trump Isn’t Spending It,” revealed that during President Trump’s second term, the Federal Transit Administration has either halted major public transit projects already in the works, or quietly declined to initiate funding for new projects.

Congress actually has $8 billion in its coffers already approved for transportation—but only 7.2% of it has been allocated. This is unusual.

The administration’s apparent dislike of public transit is very much worth noting, but the part of this article I’ve really been perseverating on since Monday is actually something else. After the authors tried to drill down on the absence of transit agreements and came up short, they wrote:

More than a dozen transit agencies and local governments seeking grants declined interviews or would not comment about the program, amid fears that a fleeting phrase could anger the administration with millions of dollars on the line.

The fact that public officials feared retaliation for speaking their minds does not come as a surprise. During Trump 2.0, reps from government agencies of all sizes and types have been afraid to comment for fear of retribution, or have been outright barred from disseminating information.

Here are just a few more recent examples. From Federal News Network (a nonpartisan news organization that covers issues related to federal employees), July 6:

Two federal employees, speaking to Federal News Network on the condition of anonymity for fear of professional retribution, said they were shocked, angry and fearful to learn they were being stripped of their civil service protections. Their jobs, they said, have nothing to do with influencing policy.

“It caught me off guard. It really hit home,” one reclassified employee at the National Institutes of Health said in an interview. “I came in the next day and through conversations with my colleagues, I found out who was affected. We were all stunned. It has changed pretty much everything for me.”

From Wired, after Marc Rosenblum, executive director of the Office of Homeland Security Statistics, resigned and posted on LinkedIn, “I’m thrilled to end my relationship with the current administration,” citing “the war on immigrants, the war on feds, and the war on facts (not to mention the crazy war in Iran and the brazen corruption)”:

“Marc was exactly what every American should want in a career public servant,” Luis Miranda, a top DHS spokesman during the Biden years, tells WIRED. “The Trump administration has governed by silencing or ignoring facts and information they believe doesn’t line up with their extreme rhetoric, and that has damaging implications, so it’s no surprise career officials whose job is transparency are unable to do those jobs.”

Back in May, E&E News, which is owned by Politico, reported that at least one expert had her doubts that a proposed policy to have civil servants sign government-wide NDAs would be limited to appropriate uses: 

“Government employees can’t just share work information willy-nilly,” said (Stephanie) Rapp-Tully, an expert in federal employment law. “But the way that this is written—and the potential repercussions that could come from this—could have a chilling effect, absolutely, on government employees who feel scared to become a whistleblower.”

We all know where this leads. Fewer whistleblowers = more corruption. A less transparent DHS = a more violent Immigrations and Customs Enforcement force. Less verified information = (among many other preventable problems) a resurgence of measles.

All of this perpetuates a less safe, more polarized America.

Take care,

—Kris Vagner, managing editor