The Trump administration has proposed Jim O’Neill as the new director of the National Science Foundation (NSF). The NSF, an independent federal body, allocates billions in funding to researchers and institutions nationwide, playing a crucial role in the federal scientific landscape.
The agency has been without a permanent leader since Sethuraman Panchanathan stepped down in April last year amid significant funding cuts, grant cancellations, and staff exits. Subsequently, the Trump administration implemented a restructuring, as reported by Science’s Jeffrey Mervis, which allowed them to gain control over NSF. They also announced intentions to dismantle the NSF-backed National Center for Atmospheric Research, a pivotal research facility established in 1960, which offers substantial benefits to public safety, national defense, and the economy.
If O’Neill’s nomination is confirmed, the Trump administration will further consolidate its influence over an agency designed by Congress to operate independently in advancing science. This move marks a significant shift for an organization that has historically been shielded from political interference, a challenge regularly faced by other federal agencies. The Senate should consider blocking this nomination. Here’s why.
A threat to a world-class science agency
A strong, well-funded, and independent science agency benefits everyone by investing in groundbreaking research and nurturing exceptional talent capable of exploration and innovation. UCS senior scientist and former NSF fellow Carlos Javier Martinez highlighted the NSF’s impact, stating, “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… NSF accounts for only 0.1% of federal spending but supports roughly a quarter of all federally funded basic research at US colleges and universities.” Essentially, NSF serves as a public good, driving innovation to enhance health, safety, and prosperity.
Personally, I am grateful for the NSF’s support during my graduate studies, which allowed me to delve into research on climate and management impacts on rangeland ecosystems, and their effects on livelihoods. The NSF’s investment in early-career scientists, like myself, to explore the nexus of science and policy has been invaluable, profoundly shaping my professional and personal development.
These narratives and countless others underscore the NSF’s vital role in fueling the future of science and technology in the nation. Regrettably, the Trump administration’s undermining of science agencies jeopardizes these and other federal programs that invest in scientific advancement.
A hazard to federal science and health agencies
O’Neill would be the first NSF head without a background in science or engineering. Before assuming leadership of such a critical agency, he must demonstrate his understanding of independent science and its importance. O’Neill should publicly pledge to uphold the NSF’s mission and values. This commitment is particularly vital given the Trump administration’s history of interfering in federal science and O’Neill’s own track record.
O’Neill previously served as Deputy Secretary of the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and briefly led the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) after Susan Monarez was forced out. In this role, he was instrumental in executing Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s drastic overhaul of the agency, including authoring an HHS memo announcing changes to childhood vaccine recommendations that contradicted the available evidence on child safety and health. This is part of an ongoing effort to undermine trust in vaccines and related programs.
HHS has consistently replaced evidence-based policies with misinformation and pseudo-science, which Kennedy has long promoted. O’Neill’s involvement in this overhaul raises significant concerns about potential political interference in scientific decisions should he lead the NSF.
His history of promoting misinformation precedes his tenure at HHS. As reported by The Guardian, during the initial year of the COVID-19 pandemic, O’Neill publicly endorsed unproven treatments lacking scientific support, such as ivermectin and hydrochloroquine, and posted conspiratorial theories on social media.
O’Neill may also face significant conflict of interest issues as NSF head due to his Silicon Valley ties and professional background. According to Science, before joining the Trump administration, O’Neill spent several years in Silicon Valley with a hedge fund and venture capital firm led by billionaire Peter Thiel. O’Neill is part of Thiel’s network, which has a notable presence in the Trump administration, particularly within science-focused agencies where they influenced decisions benefiting tech companies in which they have investments. Appointing O’Neill, a longtime member of this network, to oversee NSF’s substantial science and technology funding raises serious concerns about whether he would prioritize public interests over private gains.
Science thrives in sunlight
Each of these issues warrants thorough examination of O’Neill’s nomination. Collectively, they reveal that he is unsuitable to lead one of the world’s foremost science agencies. Yet, Trump administration allies in the Senate might allow this appointment without proper scrutiny, possibly foregoing a hearing where O’Neill could clarify his qualifications and intentions. This scenario exemplifies another attempt by the Trump administration to circumvent democratic processes, neglecting transparency and accountability. The clock is ticking—scientists and advocates must urge their Senators to demand a fair hearing and an opportunity to provide input on this appointment.
We all deserve an NSF led by someone who sincerely values science as a public asset, promoting innovation and societal benefits across the nation. For science to flourish, it requires transparency, not the ambiguity surrounding O’Neill. The Senate should reject this nomination.
