Back
Politics

White House Dismisses National Science Board Members; Proposed Rule Would Add Political Review to Grants

Generated on: Last updated: 3 sources
View source

Major Shakeup at the National Science Foundation

White House Dismisses Entire National Science Board

In an unprecedented move, the White House terminated all 22 seated members of the National Science Board (NSB) on Friday, effective immediately. The board, which advises Congress and the President on the activities of the National Science Foundation (NSF), had its members removed without prior notice.

"The board was designed to safeguard long-term investments that may not pay off for a generation."
— Keivan Stassun, fired board member

Background

The National Science Board was established by the National Science Foundation Act of 1950. Members typically serve six-year terms and do not require Senate confirmation. The board identifies issues critical to the NSF's future, submits its budget, and approves programs and awards.

Rationale

In a statement, the White House cited a 2021 Supreme Court case (U.S. v. Arthrex) that raised constitutional questions about whether non-Senate-confirmed appointees can exercise the authorities Congress gave the board. The White House stated it looks forward to working with Congress to update the statute.

Reactions

Willie May, a fired board member from Morgan State University, expressed disappointment, noting a pattern of dismantling scientific advisory infrastructure.

Roger Beachy, a fired board member from Washington University, expressed concern that the board could become partisan and prioritize short-term administration goals over basic research.

Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) called the move an "attack on science" and stated it harms science and American innovation. She characterized the board as apolitical.

Rep. Brian Babin (R-Texas) countered that every president expects advisors to serve consistently with executive and legislative priorities.

"It is the government's task to decide what's best for society."
— Gennady Samorodnitsky, Cornell University

Additional Context

The Trump administration has sought deep cuts to the NSF, including a preliminary 2026 budget request to cut $4.7 billion (more than half the agency's $9 billion budget) and rescission of thousands of approved grants. Legal scholars expressed confusion over the White House's application of the Arthrex decision.

Proposed Rule: Political Review of Federal Research Grants

Separately, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) proposed a rule published in the Federal Register on May 29 that would require political appointees to review certain federal research grants before awards are made.

Key Details

  • The rule would apply to billions of dollars in funding across fields including public health, vaccine testing, biotechnology, social and behavioral science, and climate science.
  • The OMB, led by Director Russell Vought, proposed the rule, stating it aims to improve identification of waste, fraud, and abuse.
  • The rule also officially bans research on diversity, equity, inclusion, and gender as grant conditions, and prohibits certain international scientific collaborations.

"The proposed rule would be the end of American science as known."
— Cole Donovan, Stand Up for Science

Background

Since World War II, U.S. federal science agencies have used peer review, where independent experts evaluate research proposals. While legally non-binding, peer review has been a standard practice. Under the current system, career scientists at agencies typically make funding decisions based on peer review recommendations. The proposed rule does not eliminate peer review but adds a requirement for political appointees to review grants before awards.

Statements

Holden Thorp, editor of Science magazine, wrote that the administration appears determined to mortally wound the nation's scientific enterprise.

Tim Snyder, historian, compared the proposal to late Stalinism, suggesting it would allow people who know nothing about science to make decisions.

The Infectious Diseases Society of America stated the rule would replace scientific merit with McCarthy era politics.

"Will non-scientist Russell Vought determine which cancer therapies are ready for phase three trials?"
— Elizabeth Ginexi, former NIH staffer

Rep. James Walkinshaw (D-VA) said the rule would deny promising research to fit a political agenda.

An OMB spokesperson wrote that the rule would improve the ability to identify and respond to waste, fraud, and abuse.

Next Steps

  • The proposed rule is open for public comment until July 13.
  • After that, OMB will review comments before deciding on a final version.
  • Donovan anticipates the rule would be challenged in court if passed.