The State of Intellectual Persona Non Grata

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/04/10

Irina Tsukerman, a national security and human rights lawyer, discusses the concept of intellectual persona non grata and the consequences of purging experts from government agencies. She highlights concerns about bureaucratic mismanagement, political influence, and foreign malign interference affecting decision-making. The conversation touches on scientific integrity, contract violations, and the erosion of public trust in institutions. Tsukerman warns of political hypocrisy, suppressed scientific debate, and the global perception of U.S. policies. She emphasizes the need for transparent governance, bipartisan oversight, and rigorous scientific discourse to prevent ideological extremism from stifling intellectual progress.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Okay, today we’re here with Irina Tsukerman for the fourth time. Irina Tsukerman is a national security and human rights lawyer based in New York, specializing in geopolitics, foreign policy, and information warfare.

She is the president of Scarab Rising, Inc., the editor-in-chief of The Washington Outsider, a fellow at the Arabian Peninsula Institute and the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, and an affiliate of the American Bar Association and the New York City Bar Association. Tsukerman has been recognized for countering Russian disinformation and moderating panels on global security issues. Her expertise includes energy, cybersecurity, influence campaigns, intelligence, global media appearances, and published analyses. Thank you for joining me again today.

Irina Tsukerman: Thank you so much; I’m glad to be here.

Jacobsen: This session will discuss the concept of intellectual persona non grata. How should we frame this? What do you make of the crackdown in one of the world’s leading scientific nations on agencies and individuals who are professional scientists?

There are two key patterns here. First, some scientists are fired, and their funding is frozen, halted, or terminated. Second, others are fired, funding issues arise afterward, and institutions attempt to rehire them but struggle with how to do so. This pattern is also seen at the agency or institute-wide level. What is happening?

Tsukerman: The most charitable way to interpret this is that the road to hell is paved with good intentions—meaning there is a genuine effort to streamline bureaucracy and address the issues that have led to distrust and a loss of institutional authority over the years.

However, people are going overboard. The DOJ team lacks experts in every relevant industry, so they do not know what they are doing. They are making across-the-board cuts as if they were running a business without fully considering the consequences. They are not conducting individual interviews or scrutinizing each person’s qualifications. Instead, they assume that insiders within institutions they view with skepticism should be removed. Later, they realized that these individuals were essential workers. The issue is compounded by the fact that very few people have such specialized expertise, so replacing them becomes incredibly difficult once these professionals are dismissed.

That is one way to look at the situation; I am sure it is part of what is happening. However, there is also a broader issue at play. There is a significant degree of foreign malign influence involved in this process.

Some decision-makers may not even be aware that they are being influenced by disinformation or external forces with ulterior motives. Others may be aware but do not care. Some use seemingly legitimate reasons to justify extreme cost-cutting tactics while advancing their agendas.

This complex issue involves many actors, making it difficult to separate different motivations. I do not want to generalize, but some individuals affiliated with the DOJ genuinely think that running the government should be like running a business. However, history has shown that this approach does not always work—Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter and its transformation into X is a case in point. Despite his claims of success, the record shows that his approach did not yield the intended results.

And there’s no reason to believe it would work out any better in this case, especially since he is not familiar with every government institution, nor is he employing experts from every agency to assess and implement meaningful reforms. But there is also definitely an ideological component—some of it is legitimate, and some of it is not.

There have been valid critiques of the CDC and various institutions for providing poor guidance over the years. The U.S. government has historically issued flawed recommendations, such as the food pyramid, which was widely criticized. In more recent years, some government agencies have downplayed the role of diet and exercise in preventing comorbidities and obesity, which has led to misguided public health policies. The fact that institutions sometimes give bad advice, influencing doctors and ultimately spreading misinformation to the public, is a serious concern.

On the other hand, the CDC has demonstrated immense expertise in niche areas such as tropical diseases, earning widespread recognition for its work. It has significantly impacted the treatment of diseases that do not receive substantial research funding or public attention but can pose major threats if left unchecked.

The problem is that the DOJ and its backers are failing to differentiate between non-essential positions subject to political influence—positions that may be easier to eliminate or reform—and those that are critical, highly specialized, and apolitical. Many of these essential positions are not responsible for past policy failures or institutional missteps. This indiscriminate approach is a serious problem because the U.S. government has many highly specialized roles that are complex and poorly understood by the public. Cutting these roles without a careful review process could be disastrous.

Take, for example, the recent case involving nuclear safety scientists. I do not believe there was any deliberate ill intent in this instance. Even Trump and his team likely understand the importance of maintaining nuclear safety measures. Downsizing a nuclear arsenal, if that is the goal, must still be done properly and with expert oversight.

However, in their rush to achieve quick results—or to generate bragging rights over the number of people fired, expecting praise from their supporters—they failed to consider the details. And as the saying goes, the devil is in the details.

You need detail-oriented professionals to execute any policy properly. Failure to do so has resulted in sloppy decision-making with potentially grave consequences.

Jacobsen: What about these younger people in the Department of Government Efficiency team? Amy Goodman commented on this, and much of the mainstream media in the United States focused on the racist rhetoric of one particular young official, which was discovered in an old online account. I believe the comments included anti-Indian sentiment and remarks against interracial marriage, which he had posted under the title “BigBalls.” Those are racist and juvenile antics, but that discussion is tertiary at best in the broader conversation.

As you highlight, the real issue is that non-experts are being placed in charge of expert systems and restructuring these institutions in ways that have major real-world consequences. Many people affected by these changes do not even know whether these actions are legal. That is where the real danger lies. So, how does this process of pushing out experts—the intellectual persona non grata phenomenon—potentially impact people, and what legal consequences could arise from it? You’re a lawyer, so what are the legal implications of this type of maneuvering?

Tsukerman: There will likely be many contract violations, unfulfilled obligations, and legal protections already enshrined in congressional law. These will likely lead to investigations and lawsuits, which could take years to resolve. These legal battles may outlast the Trump administration and extend into the tenure of whoever succeeds them.

While an administration may only last four years, the federal government is a permanent institution, meaning that any future administration could become liable for lawsuits that arise now—even if those lawsuits take more than four years to reach their conclusions.

Beyond the liability issues, we will likely hear claims of discrimination based on protected categories, which could further complicate legal proceedings. Another issue is whether there will be breach of contract claims surrounding the so-called buyouts—specifically, whether the Trump administration will compensate the people they are removing, as they currently claim.

Several critical questions remain unanswered:

1. Does the administration have the legal authority to execute such a process?
2. Do they have the necessary funding to compensate those affected?
3. Will they follow through on their promises?

Given the track records of both Elon Musk and Donald Trump—who have a history of trying to escape contractual obligations they later found inconvenient—efforts will likely be made to avoid accountability for these actions.

Such breaches of contract will almost certainly erode trust in the federal government, particularly in this administration. As a result, we will likely see a wave of lawsuits for breach of contract, making it even harder for them to hire qualified personnel who meet their criteria, even among their supporters.

This inability to honour basic commitments may have a chilling effect, even among loyalists. Once the initial enthusiasm wears off, people will still expect to be paid for their work. No matter how ideologically committed someone is, if they are being underpaid, passed over, or outright dismissed, they will become disillusioned—no matter how much they admire their boss or agree with their rhetoric.

There is a huge difference between:

• The bystanders cheering from the sidelines (the followers on Truth Social and elsewhere)
• The waves of ex-supporters who become disillusioned
• The actual people whose lives are affected by legal decisions

These policies have real-world consequences, and I believe many Trump supporters—especially those who chose him over Kamala Harris—may start questioning their decision. Not all were hardline Republicans—some were simply skeptical of Democrats. But now, if they feel they are being betrayed in the same way, they may begin to ask:

“Did we make the right decision to trust these people?”

Their original criticism of Kamala Harris and the Democrats was that they engaged in tokenism or failed to keep election promises. Now, they see this administration doing the same thing. Why should they continue supporting them?

This disillusionment could lead to popular electoral losses and will almost certainly impact the midterm elections.

At this point, there are two possible explanations:

1. They are rushing into this without considering the political and legal consequences—due to overenthusiasm, poor methodology, and a lack of strategic foresight.
2. They do not care about the political repercussions because they know they only have four years. Their goal may be to extract as much benefit as possible in the short term, which means:
   • Making big business deals
   • Redirecting federal funding from organizations they oppose
   • Channelling money into harder-to-trace avenues that align with their agenda

If the latter is true, then legal and political accountability may not even be a priority for them.

Jacobsen: What about the impact on established science and the international reputation of the United States? For example, shutting down USAID could cause turmoil worldwide. Depending on their country, Many rely on that aid for medical care, health, general wellness, and even survival.

Beyond these immediate humanitarian consequences, what about the higher-order effects on a society where many basic systems are well-established, but reputation, scientific integrity, and truth-seeking become major concerns?

Some scientists—whether prominent or not—may choose to remain silent or only speak under anonymity or pseudonymity because funding is being cut indiscriminately, like a sledgehammer rather than a scalpel when restructuring scientific funding pipelines.

This is evident in cases where scientists are fired and later asked to return or when entire research funding programs for particular scientific endeavours are completely dismantled.

There are many underlying issues here, some of which have nothing to do with Trump or politics.

Tsukerman: That is true.

Many of these issues stem from long-standing academic problems eroding public trust in scientific institutions before COVID-19.

I have seen this firsthand through my familiarity with academia, my family’s experiences, professional endeavours, and research conversations. One of the biggest problems has been the influence of perverse funding incentives in scientific research.

Simply put, many academics—driven by the pursuit of government funding—engage in unacceptable shortcuts and violations of the scientific method. These actions undermine the credibility of their research, leading to diminished trust in scientific institutions.

There is a huge difference between the phrase “trust the science”—meaningless on its own—and the actual process of trusting that scientific institutions function correctly. Science is based on cautioning assumptions and rigorous testing, not on blind faith in any particular individual or study.

Public trust in institutions relies on the assumption that scientists are driven by the pursuit of truth without ulterior motives. Their goal should be to find answers, eliminate harmful biases, and advance human knowledge.

However, funding issues have corrupted many aspects of this process, not necessarily in political ways. This is not simply about Republicans vs. Democrats or who is in the White House. Rather, it is about academic competition and the unintended consequences of government intervention in the research process.

Unfortunately, whenever governments get involved, they tend to make things worse, not better. Multiple layers of bad communication, power grabs, competition, cronyism, and basic corruption exist, and this happens on both sides of the aisle.

Let’s not pretend otherwise.

Research industries that align with the interests of those in power tend to receive more funding, while those that do not are often cut or deprioritized. This has always been the case, regardless of which party is in power.

What is clear right now is that the attempt to depoliticize science has politicized it further because of how the process is being executed. There are ways to make science more transparent and less political, but shutting down communication, ignoring experts, and reducing transparency are not the best options.

If you truly want to depoliticize the scientific process, the solution is maximum transparency.

• Do not hide critical information.
• Make broad, clear announcements that inform the entire public—not just one political faction.
• Ensure that details are accessible and understandable for the average person so they are not left in the dark about how decisions are being made.

Failure to do this is fueling distrust, which is a serious long-term problem for scientific institutions, the U.S. government, and public confidence in research itself.

The right approach is to establish independent committees and task forces—bipartisan ones that can track funding and oversee how changes are implemented. The administration should appoint reputable individuals who are bipartisan, independent, and have no history of political scandals. 

However, there are three major obstacles to this happening. First, it takes time, and the current administration appears uninterested in long-term planning. Second, there seems to be an agenda to cultivate distrust in anyone who does not fully align with their framework, which is a terrible way to build allies or expand a support base. Third, once some of these individuals came into power, they seemed to stop caring about public perception altogether. They appear drunk on their authority, celebrating not the effectiveness of their policies or societal impact but rather the fact that they now hold power over those they previously resented.

Jacobsen: Is all of this connected to the flipping of newsroom access for major news agencies?

Tsukerman: I think so. And let me be clear—I am not someone who unquestioningly defends the press. Journalism has struggled both as a business model and as an institution. It has increasingly catered to niche, highly partisan audiences, compromising the quality and neutrality of coverage. This shift has resulted in scandals, investigations, and blatant bias, further fueling public distrust in mainstream journalism. That being said, press regulations can be implemented responsibly without undermining the freedom of the press or shutting out government critics. When press restrictions go beyond reasonable oversight, it becomes clear that they are nothing more than a power play designed to control the narrative.

Every administration has had issues with the press—even Obama’s administration. Many assume that the mainstream media was more sympathetic to Democrats, but that is not entirely true. There were major scandals and tensions between the White House and the press during the Obama years, particularly over drone strikes. Even when one might expect alignment between an administration and the press, conflicts emerged over coverage priorities and framing. However, the current administration has taken press control to a new level—it is far more brazen and extensive than previous administrations.

This is not just about controlling the narrative or shaping media angles. It is about fundamentally restricting access. For example, the administration has demanded that AP News refer to the “Gulf of Mexico” as the “Gulf of America”—an overt attempt at editorial control. More significantly, they have blocked eight mainstream publications, effectively cutting off access to State Department officials. This is not a case of simply requiring media balance or corroboration—it is an outright ban on consuming content from specific sources on government time.

While some of the blocked publications have indeed been involved in ethical controversies, the scope of this crackdown is unprecedented. For example, The New York Times and other outlets have faced serious allegations of hiring stringers linked to terrorist organizations, which is unethical and indefensible. However, should the U.S. government respond by blocking access to all reporting from these outlets? I do not have a definitive answer, but this will undoubtedly impact public perception of government transparency.

Just as important as what the administration is censoring is what they are replacing it with. If nothing replaces it, it suggests they limit access to information simply for control. Will they introduce pre-approved partisan sources that officials must rely on? Will they say, “Those particular newspapers are off-limits, but figure it out on your own”? Right now, there is no coherent strategy—only a desire to eliminate opposition first and deal with the consequences later.

Jacobsen: How many people are on this call?

Tsukerman: 450. It is troubling that the intellectual persona non grata phenomenon is unfolding this way. The same people who rose to prominence by advocating for the so-called ‘Intellectual Dark Web’—and took pride in positioning themselves as dissidents—are now in power. They are still trying to play both sides, claiming to be victims of biases while simultaneously wielding power to silence others using the same methods they once condemned.

By creating intellectual persona non grata, they are fueling a revolutionary vs. counter-revolutionary dynamic that has nothing to do with effective governance and everything to do with ideological resentment and power struggles. This is not about principles but consolidating influence under a particular framework, regardless of the long-term consequences.

Jacobsen: When I say intellectual persona non grata, I mean this is happening across the spectrum, from Norman Finkelstein, who has long been controversial, to those behind Sokal 2.0 and similar hoaxes. Entire fields are undermined through intellectual pranks that call their legitimacy into question. These actions damage academic credibility, but that does not mean the correct response is a sweeping purge of scientific institutions.

Tsukerman: There is a fundamental difference between ensuring that every voice can participate in the marketplace of ideas and demanding that every voice be given a platform. No one is entitled to a particular platform—not even access to the White House. If someone engages in inappropriate behaviour, they should not expect to be welcomed into official spaces.

At the same time, if a media outlet is accepted as a mainstream representation of the press, follows current journalistic guidelines, and adheres to basic professional standards, then excluding them based purely on their content or viewpoints is deeply troubling. The White House has not established clear guidelines for ethical journalism, and the lack of transparency makes it easier to weaponize access based on political preferences.

On the one hand, the administration shuts out certain voices. Still, on the other hand, it elevates others who are equally problematic—like Jack Posobiec, who was allowed to attend a defence trip with Secretary Austin despite his long history of promoting conspiracy theories like Pizzagate.

So, is Posobiec a more legitimate journalist than a Hamas-affiliated stringer for The New York Times? I do not think either should be elevated by the White House or given official endorsement. Ethical journalism should not be selective but held to consistent standards.

Jacobsen: There are other countries with large scientific programs, but the quality of their research is questionable, and fraudulent studies are retracted at a much higher rate. Some nations have cultural pressures that incentivize fraudulent research. How do these U.S. policy moves influence the intellectual capital of the United States in Europe, Eastern states, and other regions?

Tsukerman: The world is watching the U.S. closely, and many are deeply alarmed by what they see. The U.S. government is doing nothing to engage in a real dialogue with its allies or to explain its process. This lack of communication is fueling international distrust.

There is also growing concern over double standards. For example, the Vice President travelled to Europe to lecture on democracy and values, while Elon Musk actively interfered in European democratic processes. This inconsistency signals to allies that the U.S. has an ulterior agenda that has nothing to do with democracy, free speech, or protecting the marketplace of ideas.

This is especially troubling when it comes to science. If there is one field that demands rigorous debate, it is scientific research. Scientists must constantly challenge each other, question assumptions, and engage in intellectual conflict to drive innovation forward.

Instead, we are seeing an attempt to create a “choir of consensus”—essentially a massive logical fallacy. This approach is dangerous no matter which political side engages in it. Science should be defined by clashing ideas and robust debate, not forced ideological conformity.

The current political climate discourages scientists from engaging in open, rigorous debate, making them fearful of being ostracized for challenging mainstream views. This backfires in a major way—it does not strengthen marginalized voices; instead, it amplifies fringe voices with deeply flawed methodologies while silencing everyone else—even those who might be generally supportive but scientifically rigorous.

In short, instead of fostering real scientific discussion, these policies stifle legitimate debate while elevating extreme voices on both sides. The result is a weaker intellectual landscape in the U.S. and diminished credibility on the global stage.

You do not want a chorus of consensus, which is essentially the biggest bandwagon fallacy ever imposed on scientific discourse. When either side engages in this, it is wrong. The foundation of science relies on clashing ideas and rigorous debate, and researchers should feel comfortable engaging with those who hold very different views within their respective fields.

However, political maneuvering has increasingly eroded this intellectual openness. Instead of fostering an environment where marginal voices feel more welcome, the current approach amplifies deeply fringe perspectives—often from individuals with a flawed grasp of the scientific method—while silencing or discouraging mainstream scientists, even those who may be generally supportive of the administration’s goals but still value rigorous debate and high standards.

Jacobsen: One prominent scientist, who requested anonymity for their interview, compared the current purge of scientists in the U.S. to Lysenkoism. Since this is your area of expertise, is the comparison accurate?

Tsukerman: The analogy is flawed because Lysenko was infamous for deeply flawed science that actively contradicted basic biological principles. The comparison may not be fully justified unless we see appointees rejecting scientific fundamentals. That said, we do see cases where appointees hold views verging on denialism, which is concerning.

For example, appointing a Secretary of Health who is a vaccine denialist and holds deeply troubling views on other scientific matters is probably the closest modern parallel to Lysenkoism. While the mass firings of scientists may indicate an ideological purge, they could also be the result of overzealous decision-making. It is too early to tell where this will lead at this stage. Still, I strongly urge the administration to consider who they retain and appoint.

They must enforce scientific standards, avoid conspiracy theory traps, and prioritize actual scientific integrity over political agendas. Encouraging open debate and internal criticism—even criticism of political appointees—is essential. Suppose we fail to maintain internal checks and balances that allow for dissent, including from people we may strongly disagree with ideologically. In that case, we cannot preserve the intellectual rigour needed for scientific progress.

We need a range of perspectives—from figures like Norman Finkelstein to those who represent the opposite end of the spectrum—because contrasting viewpoints are necessary for identifying bad ideas and refining good ones. The goal should not be polarization but rather a robust middle ground where scientists and intellectuals do not feel pressured to label themselves as belonging to one rigid ideological camp. They should be free to hold nuanced, independent positions, even within their fields of study.

Jacobsen: Irina, thank you for your time today.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.