I'm very open to criticizing where criticism is warranted (and there's been a lot to criticize). If this article was focused on how irresponsible its been of the administration/congress to let these reports be canceled, I'd be all on board.

But it phrases it as a coverup, and it doesn't address that we just got out of the longest government shutdown in US history*. That feels like a more likely explanation here. As someone who's spent some 15 years working for government at different levels, I can tell you, it takes time to bounce back from shut downs.

Primarily, my original comment was to answer my own question of "which reports have been cancelled" (I assume that's the kind of things others would be curious about, so trying to save them a click). I only got skeptical when i saw the total reports canceled was 3.

I suppose I'm not clear how many reports would have / should have come out in this time frame. If they've canceled 3 of 3, then yeah, that'd be a solid nudge me in the coverup direction, but even 3 of 5 would feel a lot more "its because we're still getting things spun back up".

* one of the cited twitter posts does indicate that one report was delayed because of the shutdown, but the author of the article doesn't seem to co wider it as a viable explanation

Edit: formatting is hard