This weekend, reports emerged that the Trump Administration dismissed members of the National Science Board. This board is a non-political group of distinguished experts responsible for advising and supervising the National Science Foundation (NSF). These experts, who typically serve staggered six-year terms, received notification of their abrupt termination in a message signed on behalf of the president.
This move is seen as a deliberate attempt to silence independent scientists, disrupt evidence-based decision-making, and obscure information from the public.
Politicization of the National Science Foundation
This action raises concerns because the National Science Board is crucial for ensuring oversight, accountability, and transparency in the nation’s leading scientific research agency. This board is involved in decision-making processes for major research investments, international collaborations, and grantmaking criteria. Without a functioning board, the NSF loses access to independent expert guidance, leaving the public uninformed about how the NSF fulfills its mission. Dr. Carlos Javier Martinez notes, “For the past 75 years, the NSF has quietly powered innovations that shape our daily lives, from the classroom to the smartphone, from the weather report to the internet.”
This is not the first instance of political interference during President Trump’s second term. Last year, Dr. Alondra Nelson, a prominent scholar, resigned from the board citing a loss of integrity in the institution and political meddling by Trump officials. In March, the administration nominated an unqualified candidate for the NSF leadership. More recently, the NSF preemptively dismantled its Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences Directorate, citing the presidential budget proposal.
Abandoning science advice
These actions contribute to broader threats against the federal science advisory system. Since the current Trump administration took office, numerous federal advisory committees at science agencies have been disbanded, frozen, or disrupted, echoing similar disruptions from the president’s first term.
This pattern is concerning not only due to the absence of scientific advice for government officials but also because the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) mandates transparency and accountability for science-based decisions. FACA requires public deliberation and commentary, allowing civil society to access governmental science advice and hold officials accountable. Terminating members of the National Science Board sidelines both science and the public.
A risk for more interference in federal science
The firing of vetted National Science Board members paves the way for the Trump administration to appoint individuals who may lack qualifications or have conflicts of interest, potentially providing political justification to bypass science-based decisions. This concern is not speculative. During this term, the Trump administration has:
- Stacked the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) with tech industry CEOs;
- Filled a quarter of the seats on the Environmental Protection Agency’s Science Advisory Board with employees of the chemical industry it regulates; and
- Illegally and secretly established a Climate Working Group of climate contrarians to undermine EPA’s Endangerment Finding, the scientific and legal basis for the agency’s climate actions.
However, the tally of these actions continues, with 562 attacks on science recorded so far this term.
The rise of independent science outside of government
These anti-science actions must be resisted. Scientists nationwide must ensure that independent science advice persists beyond government institutions. Fortunately, many in the scientific community are taking action, stepping up to maintain science advice. Independent science initiatives have emerged across various fields, with dedicated scientists volunteering their expertise to inform the public and decision-makers at all government levels.
You can contribute by opposing Trump’s unqualified nominee for NSF leadership, forming an independent science advisory committee if possible, and staying informed about ongoing developments. The scientific community must vigilantly monitor the administration’s actions and advocate for evidence-based decisions at the NSF and beyond.
