[verygoodname]

> [...] I'm not sure how much choice they had in this - I suspect NSA/US gov more widely here. [...]

Note that when parent says "you can't trust NIST" and you counter with something along the lines of "that's unfair... NIST acts untrustworthy/knowingly recommends subpar options because of NSA", it doesn't really counter what is being said.

If NIST decisions are based mostly on "whatever the NSA tells them to do", rather than the actual technical merits of the things they recommend, then... yes, they are generally not worthy of trust (blind or otherwise), because you'll always have to double-check their statements against other sources (e.g. your own knowledge, expert cryptographers, etc.).

Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

That's the problem of being untrustworthy once in a while... it's easier to lose your reputation than to regain it.

As it is... if you use anything recommended by NIST without first checking with the actual trustworthy community of researchers, you're asking for it.

TL;DR: Trying to justify why the NIST is seen as untrustworthy (or acts as such) does not change the fact that it is seen as untrustworthy by many people (and, as far as I can tell, fairly so).