They are members of a prestigious academic panel with top-secret clearances who have advised the Pentagon on some of the US’ most vexing national security issues since the Cold War. Over 60 years, they have won 11 Nobel Prizes and conducted hundreds of government studies.
The advisory group, known as Jason, is a team of about 60 of the US’ top physicists and scientists who spend each summer in La Jolla, California, conducting studies commissioned by the US Department of Defense and other US government agencies.
On March 28, US Undersecretary of Defense for Research and Engineering Michael Griffin, who was appointed by US President Donald Trump, unexpectedly moved to terminate the group.
Illustration: Constance Chou
US National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Administrator Lisa Gordon-Hagerty objected, telling Griffin’s office the scientists were crucial for keeping the US’ nuclear stockpile secure, an NNSA official and others affiliated with the Jason program said.
Gordon-Hagerty’s agency offered to take responsibility for the program. She only needed Griffin’s signature to make it happen.
Griffin refused.
He declined comment, but department spokeswoman Heather Babb said the Pentagon decided it had less need for the studies than previously thought.
“The department remains committed to seeking independent technical advice and review. This change is in keeping with this commitment, while making the most economic sense,” Babb said.
Jason’s supporters, backed into a corner, have managed to keep the group alive, temporarily for now, for eight more months.
Democrats in US Congress are trying to get Jason funded through a different Pentagon office not run by Griffin, but it is unclear whether the Republican-controlled US Senate would go along with the plan.
A day after Griffin moved to axe Jason, a 35-word blurb in the Federal Register announced the end of two other independent scientific boards, including the Naval Research Advisory Committee, which had advised the US Navy and Marine Corps for 73 years.
The efforts to kill the scientific panels show how the Trump administration’s crackdown on the role of independent science in the US government is reaching into areas long thought to be immune from political influence.
“These are institutions of great technical expertise. They are great repositories of national expertise and also scientific expertise that have helped keep America’s competitive edge militarily,” said Sherri Goodman, former member of the International Security Advisory Board, a US Department of State panel suspended shortly after Trump took office.
This could be just the beginning.
A June executive order signed by Trump requires all federal agencies to slash one-third of their independent advisory committees by Sept. 30, with the goal of ultimately reducing the total number of such committees to no more than 350 from about 1,000 now.
The move would cut back on red tape and costs, Trump officials say.
Jason, for instance, receives about US$8 million in taxpayer financing a year.
“Formal boards are only one of many avenues for senior leaders to receive advice from experts, but some boards outlive their mission,” said Lisa Hershman, the state department’s acting chief management officer.
The Trump administration is not the first to seek to reduce independent advisory panels, though its effort appears more ambitious in terms of the number of cuts. Former US secretary of defense Robert Gates, who served under former US presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, cut a handful of boards during his tenure.
Gates declined to comment, but a former defense official said he felt senior military officials lost time rebutting recommendations.
“Gates looked at it and said you guys may decide they are not worth the effort,” said Bill Bowes, vice admiral in the US Navy and vice-chair of the Naval Research Advisory Committee until it was disbanded earlier this year.
In the case of the naval panels, two former members said they were told US Secretary of the Navy Richard Spencer was frustrated that the groups took months to turn out recommendations.
Instead of depending on advisory committees, Spencer preferred to hear from experts on a case-by-case basis, a US Navy spokesman said.
Yet others say killing the committees would weaken independent assessments of crucial military and scientific issues.
“The pattern of resistance that has been directed at independent science advisors suggests that it is their independence that is unwanted,” said Steve Aftergood, a government secrecy specialist at the Federation of American Scientists.
Reuters’ account of the effort to disband Jason is built from interviews with the outgoing and incoming chairs of Jason, panel program administrators and officials at the Pentagon and the NNSA. Reuters also reviewed e-mails and correspondence involving Jason.
PINK SLIPS ARRIVE
The Jasons, drawn from the US’ elite scientists, are hand-picked by the existing membership. They are known for fiercely guarding their independence and, at times, ruffling feathers.
Named after the leader of the Argonauts who sought the Golden Fleece in Greek mythology, they were formed after the Soviet Union launched Sputnik, the first satellite to orbit Earth, in 1957.
Fearing it was losing the space and technology war, the US created the Jason program.
In the 1960s, the Jasons invented a type of sensor that could detect enemy guerrillas in Vietnam and communicate their location to US bombers. Four decades later, the group pushed back when the Pentagon sought to appoint some of Jason’s scientists.
“They speak their mind. They have tried very hard to be independent of the agency that is paying them. Jason can be a pain in the ass. It doesn’t always give people the answers they want,” said David Wright, a senior scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), a nonprofit advocacy group.
More recently, the Jasons determined that a rare jungle cricket, not a mysterious radio frequency weapon, likely caused the odd sound that US diplomats in Cuba had suspected caused them to fall ill in late 2016. No definitive cause of the illnesses has been determined.
The Jason contract operates under the auspices of the defense department, with the Pentagon funding department studies.
Other government agencies pay for studies they commission. Each study costs about US$500,000, with 12 to 15 conducted a year, say Jason members, who are paid about US$1,200 a day for their time.
The contract was due for renewal on March 31. In January, Mitre Corp, the McLean, Virginia, nonprofit that manages federally funded research centers and oversees Jason, submitted a proposal to continue managing the program as it has every five years since the early 1990s.
The Pentagon told Mitre it would reply by March 16. That date came and went with no word.
On March 28, three days before the contract was due to expire, Mitre received a letter from Washington Headquarter Services, the contracting arm of the Office of the US Secretary of Defense, saying it had decided to cancel calls for bids on the renewed contract.
“The requirement has changed from multiple studies being projected to only one study being needed for the Under Secretary of Defense, Research and Engineering,” Sharon Hilton, a contracting officer with Washington Headquarter Services, wrote Mitre.
Issuing a new contract “does not make economic sense at this time,” she said.
Jason chairwoman Ellen Williams, a physics professor at the University of Maryland, said the rationale for gutting the program was “ridiculous.”
The Pentagon only pays for studies it commissions, she said, while other government agencies pay for their own studies.
“It was quite a shock,” Williams said.
‘STAR WARS’ COLLISION
At the center of the conflict is Griffin. The Republican-controlled Senate confirmed his appointment in February last year.
Griffin is known as an outspoken advocate for space-based missile defense systems, an area that has drawn tough scrutiny in the past from Jason scientists.
During former US president Ronald Reagan’s administration, Griffin played a central role in the military’s Strategic Defense Initiative, an ambitious idea of space-based weaponry dubbed by some as “Star Wars.”
On March 12, the defense department established the Space Development Agency, responsible for advancing next-generation military space capabilities. The agency was put under Griffin’s direction.
Laura Grego, a senior scientist at the UCS, said Griffin “clearly wants” to pursue space-based missile defense.
“He’s frustrated that people are being held back by what he sees as silly objections,” she said.
The Jasons have long been skeptical of space-based weapons systems. One study the group plans to conduct this summer deals specifically with space-based defense issues, according to people familiar with their research schedule.
Prior unclassified studies reveal their criticism of the science associated with space-based military programs.
In 2008, for instance, the US Office of the Director of National Intelligence asked the scientists to examine the issue of high frequency gravitational waves, which have several theoretical applications, one of which is for space-based sensors that could be used to detect hidden activities, such as below-ground nuclear tests.
The Jasons examined the supporting research conducted by government-backed scientists. They slammed it.
“The calculation for the required gas pressure is ridiculous. It is simply and grossly the wrong calculation,” they wrote.
The group called another conclusion “particularly inept.”
Two years later, the Jasons studied the effectiveness of tests by the US Missile Defense Agency of their ballistic missile defense technologies and spotlighted more weaknesses.
COLD SHOULDER
As the Jason program’s funding deadline neared, scientists with Jason and Mitre officials suddenly could not organize a meeting with the Pentagon, an agency they had worked with since the Cold War.
Senior officials turned them away, according to e-mails reviewed by Reuters and people familiar with the communications.
Mitre officials and Jason scientists contacted Griffin’s office. A secretary told them to submit their request for a meeting via an online form, e-mails show. The request was rejected.
In an April 8 e-mail, Williams asked Griffin’s office to continue the program, noting there would be no economic cost to the defense department.
“We … would appreciate the opportunity to discuss this with Dr. Griffin as soon as possible,” she said.
Three days later, Williams’ request was rejected, e-mails show.
Disbanding the program would have had a ripple effect across US government agencies that use Jason research. For this summer, the Jasons had been asked to conduct 15 separate studies by seven government agencies.
Most of the scheduled studies are classified, but some are not.
The US National Science Foundation, for instance, had asked the scientists to determine what regulations would be appropriate to safeguard American intellectual property.
Another study was congressionally mandated for the NNSA to examine the aging of nuclear weapon pits, the explosive core in many types of US nuclear weapons. The agency had relied on Jason’s research for decades to help secure nuclear stockpiles.
On April 9, Gordon-Hagerty told the US House Committee on Armed Services that Jason’s research was crucial.
“I can tell you they are rich in history and their technical expertise is sound,” she said.
Gordon-Hagerty declined an interview request, but her office pointed to her US House of Representatives testimony in response to Reuters questions about Jason.
The NNSA, a semi-autonomous agency, is part of the US Department of Energy and has long been considered bipartisan.
Before the Trump administration tapped her to lead the NNSA in 2017, Gordon-Hagerty served as the director of combating terrorism on the US National Security Council during the administrations of former US presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.
If the Pentagon did not want responsibility for the Jasons, Gordon-Hagerty decided in April that the NNSA would take over the contract, scientists said.
Drawing up a new government contract can take months. Gordon-Hagerty had two weeks to arrange it before the Jasons would cease to exist on April 30. At that point, the Jasons would have to cancel outstanding studies and effectively disband.
Gordon-Hagerty asked Griffin’s office to sign a one-month contract extension, according to Jason and an NNSA official.
It would cost Griffin’s office nothing, since the Jasons had money in the bank to stay operational for a month.
All that was required: a signature on a piece of paper to make it legal. Griffin, as head of the office that let out the contract, needed to approve the decision.
He said no.
Asked about Griffin’s refusal, Pentagon spokeswoman Babb said: “I have nothing more to provide.”
“It appears they effectively tried to kill the program,” Williams told reporters.
At the last minute, the NNSA managed to rush through an unorthodox paperwork maneuver: It published a formal notice of its intent to issue a contract for Jason later.
That was enough to persuade Mitre to temporarily fund the program out of its own pocket.
The Jason program was saved for another eight months. Beyond that, its future is in doubt.
As China steps up a campaign to diplomatically isolate and squeeze Taiwan, it has become more imperative than ever that Taipei play a greater role internationally with the support of the democratic world. To help safeguard its autonomous status, Taiwan needs to go beyond bolstering its defenses with weapons like anti-ship and anti-aircraft missiles. With the help of its international backers, it must also expand its diplomatic footprint globally. But are Taiwan’s foreign friends willing to translate their rhetoric into action by helping Taipei carve out more international space for itself? Beating back China’s effort to turn Taiwan into an international pariah
Typhoon Krathon made landfall in southwestern Taiwan last week, bringing strong winds, heavy rain and flooding, cutting power to more than 170,000 homes and water supply to more than 400,000 homes, and leading to more than 600 injuries and four deaths. Due to the typhoon, schools and offices across the nation were ordered to close for two to four days, stirring up familiar controversies over whether local governments’ decisions to call typhoon days were appropriate. The typhoon’s center made landfall in Kaohsiung’s Siaogang District (小港) at noon on Thursday, but it weakened into a tropical depression early on Friday, and its structure
Since the end of the Cold War, the US-China espionage battle has arguably become the largest on Earth. Spying on China is vital for the US, as China’s growing military and technological capabilities pose direct challenges to its interests, especially in defending Taiwan and maintaining security in the Indo-Pacific. Intelligence gathering helps the US counter Chinese aggression, stay ahead of threats and safeguard not only its own security, but also the stability of global trade routes. Unchecked Chinese expansion could destabilize the region and have far-reaching global consequences. In recent years, spying on China has become increasingly difficult for the US
Lately, China has been inviting Taiwanese influencers to travel to China’s Xinjiang region to make films, weaving a “beautiful Xinjiang” narrative as an antidote to the international community’s criticisms by creating a Potemkin village where nothing is awry. Such manipulations appear harmless — even compelling enough for people to go there — but peeling back the shiny veneer reveals something more insidious, something that is hard to ignore. These films are not only meant to promote tourism, but also harbor a deeper level of political intentions. Xinjiang — a region of China continuously listed in global human rights reports —