A 23-Year-Old Crypto Bro Is Now Vetoing NSF Grants While Staring At His Water Bottle
from the seems-bad? dept
Picture this: You’re a researcher who has spent years developing a grant proposal, gone through layers of expert review, and received National Science Foundation (NSF) approval. Then some kid barely out of college — whose main qualification appears to be founding a company that puts ads on the blockchain — logs into a Zoom meeting, pays more attention to his fingernails than the discussion, and kills your grant with an uninterested thumbs down.
Welcome to science under DOGE.
This isn’t hyperbole. It’s exactly what prompted Alondra Nelson — a pioneering scholar at the intersection of tech, policy, and society who led the Social Science Research Council and headed the Office of Science and Technology Policy under Biden — to publicly resign from both the National Science Foundation and the Library of Congress. As she explained in a piece at Time Magazine, the DOGE/Trump assault on institutions is systematically destroying scientific inquiry and academic freedom.
The NSF’s investments have shaped some of the most transformative technologies of our time—from GPS to the internet—and supported vital research in the social and behavioral sciences that helps the nation understand itself and evaluate its progress toward its democratic ideals. So in 2024, I was honored to be appointed to the National Science Board, which is charged under 42 U.S. Code § 1863 with establishing the policies of the Foundation and providing oversight of its mission.
But the meaning of oversight changed with the arrival of DOGE. That historical tension—between the promise of scientific freedom and the peril of political control—may now be resurfacing in troubling ways. Last month, when a National Science Board statement was released on occasion of the April 2025 resignation of Trump-appointed NSF Director Sethuraman Panchanathan, it was done so without the participation or notice of all members of the Board.
Last week, as the Board held its 494th meeting, I listened to NSF staff say that DOGE had by fiat the authority to give thumbs up or down to grant applications which had been systematically vetted by layers of subject matter experts. Our closed-to-the-public deliberations were observed by Zachary Terrell from the DOGE team. Through his Zoom screen, Terrell showed more interest in his water bottle and his cuticles than in the discussion. According to Nature Terrell, listed as a “consultant” in the NSF directory, had accessed the NSF awards system to block the dispersal of approved grants. The message I received was that the National Science Board had a role to play in name only.
Meet Zachary Terrell, DOGE’s apparent authority on scientific merit. Fedscoop identified him as one of three DOGE operatives deployed to NSF. They had such little info on him that they didn’t even list any associations (unlike the other two DOGE kids at NSF). Terrell’s apparent qualifications for overruling decades of scientific expertise? A 2022 bachelor’s degree from Kansas State and a brief career in crypto.
Since graduating, Terrell has managed to found three companies, including “Spindl,” which Coinbase acquired earlier this year for its groundbreaking innovation of… putting ads on the blockchain. His LinkedIn profile lists his current government role as “Yeoman” — apparently the official title for “person who kills research grants while playing with water bottles.”
This is the expertise now trumping peer review at the NSF. Not content knowledge, not research experience, not even basic familiarity with how science works. Just the confidence that comes with being a 23-year-old techbro who thinks he knows better than any actual expert.
This is who Elon had sit in NSF board meetings, staring at his water bottle, and then giving the up/down vote on grants over the decisions of actual knowledgeable and experienced experts.
The pattern extends beyond NSF. Nelson also resigned from the Library of Congress following Trump’s firing of Librarian Carla Hayden over completely fabricated claims about “inappropriate books for children”—despite the fact that the Library of Congress doesn’t lend books and restricts access to those over 16.
What we’re witnessing isn’t just administrative incompetence — it’s the systematic replacement of expertise with ideology. Nelson recognizes this broader authoritarian pattern, along with the only logical response for herself.
The steady accumulation of procedural adjustments, each seemingly minor, stand to systematically and collectively alter the purpose and impact of our institutions. The dismissal of Hayden, who took the helm of the Library of Congress with a vow to extend its resources to all of us, represents not merely a personnel change but a statement about what kind of knowledge stewardship is deemed acceptable.
To watch these changes unfold without naming them for what they are is to participate in a collective amnesia about how knowledge infrastructures shape power relations. Like the shopkeeper in an authoritarian society described by Vaclav Havel in his essay “The Power of the Powerless,” who participates in his own oppression through small daily acts of complicity, placing a party slogan in his window not out of conviction but out of habit. To remain on advisory boards that have been stripped of meaningful advisory function is to become that shopkeeper, to lend legitimacy to a process that has been systematically delegitimized.
As she rightly notes, it’s much more powerful for her to make the statement by publicly resigning and calling this out, than adding legitimacy to illegitimate activities:
What then, is the responsible course of action? For me, the answer now lies in refusal, the withdrawal of participation from systems that require dishonesty as the price of belonging. My resignation represents such a refusal, not a surrender of responsibility but an assertion of it.
The NSF helped create GPS, the internet, and countless innovations that define modern life. Now it’s being run by someone who thinks blockchain advertising represents the cutting edge of human knowledge.
And Nelson is right to speak out on how terrifying this is:
The aim of my resignation is to break free of powers that seek to limit knowledge and silence voice. To signal that certain boundary lines have been crossed. To insist that advisory roles must expand knowledge and be more than appendages to predetermined decisions.
Filed Under: academic freedom, alondra nelson, carla hayden, crypto bro, doge, elon musk, free speech, library of congress, nsf, science, zachary terrell
Companies: coinbase
Comments on “A 23-Year-Old Crypto Bro Is Now Vetoing NSF Grants While Staring At His Water Bottle”
Ahhh. The Old days are coming back
Which Pope are we on now?
How many Scientists have we Collected in the Dungeon?
Remember, if it aint in the Bible, it isnt real.
That's how it should be
Science benefits mankind. Where does that leave “America First”? It is more efficient to let others do the research and then stiff them out of their payment: that’s the art of the deal. If you are doing the research yourself, the costs are upfront and you won’t be able to recover them (student loans are a weak substitute).
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Crash Out
I like how the proposed studies go unmentioned. They were probably along the lines of “Rain dance therapy effects on same sex animal relationships”. The closed door approvals were secretive because the fraud would become too obvious. Thankfully, DOGE are the real experts who can stop this wasteful spending.
Re:
If they did, at least they’d be being more honest than Koby, whom I am convinced is a sockpuppet strawman account ran by someone who gets their rocks off being called names on the internet
Re: Re:
There’s evidence to suggest it’s Ehud Gavron
Re: Re: Re:
Well, where is it?
Re: Re: Re:2
In his profile where he jumped out in front of an insult directed at Koby on multiple occasions. Are you seriously so obtuse others have to do your homework for you?
Re: Re: Re:3
That’s not evidence. Regardless, if someone says they have evidence it’s also up to them to actually present or link to it because I’m not going to spend any of my time looking for it, instead I’m just going to treat the accusation with what it deserves – derision.
Can we hope you that you are able to present this evidence that proves Ehud is Koby or should we ridicule you?
Re: Re: Re:4
So you’re ready to ridicule two people because you’re lazy? That’s how it seems to me because I searched Ehud/Koby’s profile as suggested by David and found the incidents referred to by him.
Re: Re: Re:5
I’m always going to ridicule people who can’t present evidence for their claims.
I’m going to ridicule people like you even more, because if we are going to believe you, you went and found these “incidents” in an effort to prove me wrong but you couldn’t even be bothered to show the evidence – all you have is “you’re lazy”? How stupid are you and why the fuck do you think it’s my job to find evidence for other people’s dubious claims?
Re:
Ooh, crawled out of your hole to talk more insane garbage about how Elon Musk will save us all from the blacks, brown, and ‘the gays and transgenders’ people?
Nobody wants to read your nonsense screeds, and complete nonsense “facts”. You should go back to stormfront and 4chan.
Fuck off, fascist.
Re:
Please, tell us what kinks you’re really into.
Re:
Koby in a nutshell.
Re:
They were blocked because the studies would finally reveal the proto-illuminati lizardmen who are REALLY behind doge.
Amazing how easy it is to make things sound bad when you’re just making shit up.
Re:
Koby once again demonstrating the conservative’s ironclad rhetorical defense: making stuff up that makes him feel good.
Re:
yawn You done, bro? Stupidity is tiresome.
Re:
People study “weird” stuff in science all the time. That and accidental fuck-ups are what help lead to breakthroughs and new discoveries. You might think that “weird” stuff is useless, but you never know what might happen when a study into one thing produces entirely different results. Viagra was meant to be a medication for heart conditions; when it proved ineffective at that but effective at giving dudes boners, guess what happened.
You’re so fucking ignorant that you may as well be a conservative Christian evangelical. They want to burn science, too.
Re:
Isn’t it exhausting to keep trying to find ways to avoid reality?
Re: Re:
It’s more exhausting for individuals like Koby to face reality. Easier to continue the delusion and live in a fantasy than reckon with the internalized lies and deceit.
Re:
Yes, assume whatever supports your narrative and prejudices. That’s not intellectually lazy.
If you or anyone you care about (if they exist) ever get a cancer that doesn’t have an existing treatment, you should remember this blind faith you have in Musk and the crypto kids. You’re just as expendable to them as the people you gleefully hold contempt for.
Re:
“Rain dance therapy effects on same sex animal relationships”
Great now we all know what you jill off too.
Re:
Oh please, if the rejected studies were anything like that it would be leaked directly to Fox or Brietbart and held up as a shining example of just how Doge is saving science from the woke, the fact they say nothing about what they’re giving the thumbs down is considerably more telling given the backlash to the attacks on cancer and vaccine research and numerous other important fields.
Also while you’re here, care to tell us how the Trump admin kidnapping people for publishing op eds they don’t like and deporting them is good for free speech? It almost seems like you’re avoiding actual free speech violations like the plague and only pop up to say something stupid about a strawman that doesn’t exist anywhere outside of your fart filled conservative bubble.
Re:
You should smile more.
Re:
It was a proposal to use an electron microscope to find your brain. It was denied do to near certain failure.
It would be nice to see more of Alondra Nelson’s personal strength exhibited by individuals tasked with performing the federal government’s legal duties in federal courts. Who am I kidding? Lawyers by necessity amputate their humanity when joining the bar: the doorway is designed to be too small to fit a whole person.
Well that can't be right...
How strange, I was told that DOGE was strictly an advisory agency and had no actual power to do anything beyond offer advice to the regime, hence why it’s shielded from FOIA or oversight, yet here we have a member of the group sitting at the top of an agency that decides research funding and vetoing anything he doesn’t care for.
Re:
I can find parrots that lie less than DOGE and are at least cute to look at while repeating their masters commands.
Re: Re:
Not to mention that parrots can actually learn things. DOGE doesn’t seem to.
Re:
So weeiirrd, right?
It doesn’t seem as he founded companies. “Founding engineer” is often the title given to an early engineering hire, usually someone inexperienced, as at this stage, the company can not afford to hire anyone who actually knows what they’re doing.
could be worse. he could have gone to ku
Zachary Terrell
Well Ameerica. This is what end of freedom and democracy looks like. A full blown Authoritarian /Fascist / Totalitarian anti-American Neo Nazi regime attempts to dismantle government institutions. I guess Americans will take to the streets en masse and demand that the thug Trump and his minions leave the government.
—and supported vital research in the social and behavioral sciences that helps the nation understand itself and evaluate its progress toward its democratic ideals.
Well there’s your problem right there.
Time for Operation Paperclip 2- getting scientists out of this nazi state.
Re:
By my understanding that’s already happening with other countries courting scientists, doctors and researchers who have either recently been sacked by the regime or have seen the writing on the wall and understand that it’s only a matter of time until they are sacked.
I respect this stance but disagree with the action taken. If you want to take a stand and are willing to resign then stay. Make them sack you but in the meantime be the sand in the gears. If the DOGE child is distracted, call it out, ask if he needs a rest. Be patronizing. If he’s giving a ‘thumbs down’ chase him on the rationale. Every. Single. Time. Make him document everything and if he won’t then ‘forget’ what he said. If he wants someone else to document it, read it back ‘for clarity’. Push him to prove and assert his authority. Make him run back to Daddy Elon. That’s the resistance needed.
Re:
At some point, not only will being the sand not work, it’ll make you dishonest as well as complicit in the actions of those who want the gears to turn. Staying within a broken system in an attempt to reform rarely works.
And yes, there is an excellent chance that you would be replaced with someone who will go along with the gears and make everything run smoothly. The question isn’t about that. It’s about whether staying and trying to gum up the works is, in the long run, worth the sacrifice to your ethics, morals, and sense of self. Or as Alondra Nelson said:
Uh, not safe for what?
Maybe that’s the problem; it restricts people over the age of 16 rather than those who are younger.
I stopped reading at "bro"
The suffix “bro” is a mysandrist ad hominem (and a tired one, at that). If Terrell were simply a recent grad of an Ivy, would you refer to him as an “Ivy bro?” It’s low IQ stuff.
Re:
Your loss. Also, obviously, you didn’t. Or you wouldn’t be commenting.
Lol. Like, literally, this made me laugh. You should take that bit on the road, bro.
You are not good at reading comprehension, huh? Bro has a connotation, which makes sense in the context.
Anyone who thinks “low IQ stuff” is meaningful or an insult… is a fucking idiot.
Re: Re:
Considering how IQ is often associated with eugenics and its supporters because of their embrace of the concept as a means to their racist ends, it might be considered a racist remark as well.
Re:
Another bro got angry.
Chill out, snowflake.
Re:
Really, dude? You’re gonna get butthurt over “bro”?
Is it an ad hominem? Maybe if this was an argument against something the guy said, but it’s not. Ad hominem is only a problem when you dismiss someone’s argument based solely on who they are rather than the strength of the argument they made. Since there is no argument or claim being advanced by the “bro” at issue, ad hominem doesn’t apply here. “Ad hominem” isn’t simply interchangeable with “insult”; it has a specific meaning, and it’s simply inapplicable in this context.
Is it misandrist? I wouldn’t say so. Yes, it’s an insult generally reserved for men based on a stereotype, but it’s not all or even most men, and it’s only used to describe those who fit that particular stereotype. The fact that it is used as least as much by men to refer to other men as it is by women to refer to men, it doesn’t appear to be particularly based on gender-based stereotypes. Not every gender-specific insult is sexist.
Is it tired? I guess that’s a matter of an opinion. It’s been in use long enough that some people could reasonably tired of it, but it’s not so objectively obnoxious or even old that it’s widely agreed to be out-of-style.
None of this is a very good reason to stop reading so quickly. If anything, this whole thing is more of an ad hominem than the word you complain of since you’re being dismissive of the arguments being made based solely on a single word.
If there was some stereotype or common tendency among Ivy League graduates to behave in a certain way that was considered undesirable or foolish, and Terrell behaved according to that stereotype, then probably. However, since there appears to be no such trend, there’s no real reason to.
I’m not even sure what your point is here. Whether the answer is “yes” or “no” doesn’t seem like it would bolster or weaken your argument or theirs.
The point of using this term is to indicate his lack of relevant qualifications, experience, and interest for his position, and “Crypto bro” does this perfectly well.
Calling something “low IQ stuff” after admitting that you can’t be bothered to read more than half the title to an article and expecting more sophistication and politeness in the title of an article in a blog is low IQ stuff.
If someone said Trump would obliterate any leadership and goodwill the US had around the world in mere months I”d honestly be skeptical. Aside from hard firepower (weapons and military) he’s giving up even the dollar dominance and the US stronghold on global logistics. It’s a very thorough destruction. The likes any enemy of the US would ever be able to accomplish.
The conspiratorial me says Trump is a Trojan horse from another nation even though he doesn’t know it and thinks he’s the boss.
Re: 'Many of you will die for my ego and wealth, but that's a price I'm willing to pay.'
The conspiratorial me says Trump is a Trojan horse from another nation even though he doesn’t know it and thinks he’s the boss.
That’s crazy talk that is, I mean it’s not like he’s huge buddies(in his mind) with the leader of another major country that historically has been at odds with america and has wanted to see it fall…
Honestly TACO Trump being a foreign agent is almost the better option explanations-wise at this point, because at least that would make some sense even if it would still be vile, but I think the real explanation is even dumber in that he’s a dictator at heart who’s really stupid, thinks that he can just bully the world into submission because it’s worked in/on the US, and he and the rest of his cult don’t care about the devastating and lethal consequences it’ll cause because it’s not like it’s going to make his life worse.
Re: Re:
I feel you. At this point I’m already wishing he goes Mussolini asap.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Nonsense
This is one long ad hominem screed dressed up as an article. If you think projects that deserved funding were inappropriately cut, make that argument and support it with facts. The personal details of the official who voted down the project are irrelevant. Or is your position that every project funded under the previous administration is perfectly fantastic and they all should be paid for by taxpayers forever?
Re:
Dude. Come the fuck on. That is exactly what the grant process is. Which this kid short circuited, ignoring the actual evidence.
They’re not, though. Don’t you want actual people who understand the basics of science making decisions around science funding?
Well there’s a strawman. Of course I don’t believe all projects funded should have been, nor did I say so. Only a complete fool would read what I read and think that.
But I do think that a board of actual experts with experience in science and tech should be making those decisions, rather than some kid with two weeks of experience.
My question to you is why do you feel otherwise?
Re: Re:
The anon poster has no idea how NSF works. It might be the kid himself trolling. best to ignore.
Re:
It’s not an ad hominem if there is no argument to address instead of the person. Not every personal attack is an ad hominem.
In this case, the attack is on whether he has the temperament or qualifications to have the power he does, so a personal attack regarding those issues is not a fallacious ad hominem.
They did. They pointed out how the guy refusing to fund them paid zero attention to the case and so had basically decided before the meeting. That is, in itself, inappropriate. His lack of qualifications also means he has no reason to hold that position. Sometimes, a personal attack can support a logically sound argument.
First, you clearly didn’t read the article. This was about funding new research, not extending funding for something approved by the previous administration.
Second, the position advanced here is that the process is important, as is who is making the decisions. Even if I didn’t think this specific research should be funded, I wouldn’t want some unqualified hack to refuse to fund it without even actually listening to and understanding the proposal or explaining why it shouldn’t be funded.
Re:
They aren’t “personal details”; they’re qualifications and experience (or lack thereof). An official’s qualifications and experience are extremely relevant. I don’t want some guy who knows and cares nothing about science to make decisions about funding scientific research. He doesn’t even have financial experience that might be relevant to deciding how money can or should be spent.
And it certainly shouldn’t be up to just one person who’s not even from the department and who wasn’t elected. It should be a panel that decides, possibly overruled by an elected official (namely the president), and the panel should be made up of those focused on this specific task of funding scientific research. It should never have been up to one singular, unelected official to begin with.
A few years ago this kid was going home from the prom with blue balls, now he’s got approval rights for grants.
Good to know that the best and brightest scientists and researchers have some pimply-faced kids looking over their shoulders.
Nice. 👍
Good article as we need to speak out strongly every time we see this level of incompetence. Ignore the trolls as they would rather troll than read actual books and create original thoughts. BeBold, BeStrong, BeFree
Unqualified
Even at KU 2 yrs 8 mo part time isn’t a degree. His CV suggests he got access to computing resources, learned a bit of machine learning, and bailed to make money. No science background.