ZEUS – A new two-petawatt laser facility at the University of Michigan

This doesn't really have anything to do with the article

That's a howler of a line indeed, given the NSF was slashed >50% just weeks ago (the federal agency funding this physics research).

That university has made cuts due to Trump policies and the funding for that laser has come from The National Science Foundation, which has had its funding cut.

https://theconversation.com/unprecedented-cuts-to-the-nation...

Which researchers have been deported?

> In one, a kidney transplant specialist at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, was deported to Lebanon after trying to re-enter the United States with a valid visa. It was later reported that pictures on her phone had linked her with Hezbollah, which US authorities consider a foreign terrorist organization.

This is the only example in the article.

Which scientists have been deported?

I don't think it is. US is at risk of no longer being the right place to do research.

Unlike some others here, I'm not saying this isn't happening, just that the comment doesn't belong here. Like you said, people have awareness, and there doesn't need to be a comment about science being at risk in the US on every science-related article (which is half of HN).

I can't steelman the position that "the topic of the article might disappear at any moment because of funding cuts" is unrelated to the article. If it were a post about a startup releasing a new product, and the top comment was "hey FYI, this startup has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy", would that be off-topic too?

And: the article itself puffs about how this is attracting physics research to the US; how can contradicting claims the article makes be off-topic to discussion about self-same article? It can't be a "they're allowed to speak but we're not allowed to contradict"—this is HN! Discussion is the whole point!

the politics that surround institutions would still be relevant to this forum if the subject involves it. in this case, the NSF.

> “The French researcher in question was in possession of confidential information on his electronic device from Los Alamos National Laboratory — in violation of a non-disclosure agreement— something he admitted to taking without permission and attempted to conceal,” she wrote on social platform X, in response to a post from a French analyst.

It’s possible that Tricia McLaughlin is just lying, but Philippe Baptiste’s comments come across as grandstanding:

> “Freedom of opinion, free research and academic freedom are values that we will continue to proudly uphold,” he added. “I will defend the possibility for all French researchers to be faithful to them, in compliance with the law.”

Do you have any other examples? Most of the stories I have read about researchers having trouble with immigration have involved Chinese nationals who frankly never should have been allowed near public research facilities in the first place.

I am going to double down on this person and the Lebanese person who was also deported (for which you responded on).

Having classified information from a laboratory that was given to you by that laboratory on a device that was not sanctioned by the lab… and he was hesitant to let anyone have access to the device (because it contained classified information) and should not be given to someone else… this is not a crime. Just a low level breach of a civil agreement, and rightfully hesitant to share with others.

A person who was at a Hezbollah funeral (like thousands were because they are among the leaders of the country) is not a ground for deportation.

When laws are not followed as they should be, and law enforcement makes their own judgment, this is the outcome: an unpredictable behavior of people who are simply looking to get offended.

The president is refusing to spend over half of the money Congress has given to the NSF. (Justifications from those in the administration have focused on the fact that funding science supports their, quote, "ideological" enemies, universities.) In response, Congress has the right to make the NSF more independent, or to specify statutorily what the money has to be spent on. Under normal circumstances the fact that Congresspeople themselves were the ones who appropriated the funds would guarantee their support for seeing that their will was put into effect, but in these times there's no telling under what pressures they find themselves to abandon their positions.

Technically the budget has not been cut, and there is enough time for Congress to rescue it - but only if they believe the interest of the responsible public outweighs the risk of being seen to defect from Trumpism that would face them in the upcoming primary election.

Unlike the NIH situation, people are not directly dying from cancelled trials and perishables aren't being tossed out of refrigerators. There is still time to save American hard science from Trumpsim, if Congress could have a little pride and stand up for themselves. Otherwise the attack on our chemistry and physics laboratories will be a lot bigger than anything that has ever happened in a war.