The White House firing of all 24 members of the National Science Board (NSB), the group that advises the National Science Foundation (NSF), is yet another example of what some observers described as the Administration’s ‘blunt force approach’ to reshaping the nation’s science-based institutions. 

As of Monday evening, the White House still had not provided any explanation for President Donald Trump’s abrupt dismissal of the board members in an email on Friday.

“On behalf of President Donald J. Trump, I’m writing to inform you that your position as a member of the National Science Board is terminated, effective immediately,” read the note.

But the move appeared to be part of a broader consolidation of civilian science-based advisory boards, inspired by DOGE-style cuts carried out by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Washington insiders said. 

And while the Department of Defense is ramping up its science, technology, and innovation advisory capacities, civilian research is getting the shorter end of the stick, critics said.  

“The question is who’s helping steer basic research,” remarked one observer, who asked to remain anonymous.  

O’Neill to take reins of NSF

The shakeup of the board, made up of leading scientists and engineers from universities and industry, may also be designed to pave the way for Jim O’Neill to take over as the new head of the NSF, following his appointment in February by Trump.  

O’Neill, a venture capitalist and tech investor, left his role as acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in order to take on the prestigious NSF post – an appointment that must be approved by Congress. The Senate has held off on scheduling O’Neill’s hearing; he has faced criticism for being the only NSF nominee without scientific or engineering experience.  

It’s meanwhile unclear whether the board’s mass dismissal will be challenged in the courts. A federal judge last month ruled that HHS Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr’s firing of the CDC’s entire Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) violated an act meant to regulate advisory boards. Last year, Kennedy dismissed ACIP’s 17 members, appointing his own handpicked choices. Late last year the reconstituted board then changed the nation’s childhood vaccine schedule, to reduce the number of recommended vaccines. 

Biggest shakeup in over 75 years

The NSB, established alongside the NSF in 1950, advises Congress and the President on NSF research priorities – with the NSF acting as the basic science and engineering counterpart to the National Institutes of Health (NIH). 

For any seats that become vacant, new NSB board members are appointed by whatever White House administration is in office for six-year terms, translating into a certain amount of political sway with regards to individual appointments. But the mass dismissal of the entire board by a single administration is unprecedented. 

Other scientific organizations were quick to decry the move as undermining America’s scientific and research capabilities.

“The dismissal of the National Science Board is the latest in a string of erratic decisions that are destabilizing not only the National Science Foundation, but all of American science,” said Dr Sudip Parikh, the chief executive officer of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and executive publisher of the Science family of journals. “Whatever the reasons, this action sets a precedent and implies that scientific priorities and policies will swing with the political whims of every administration.”

Administration aims to slash NSF budget by more than half

With an annual budget of nearly $10 billion, most NSB funding is channeled to universities for research on topics like artificial intelligence, quantum computing, physical sciences, as well as some environmental studies, such as polar research. 

The NSF has historically enjoyed bipartisan support as the leading funding mechanism for basic science and engineering research. Yet the administration’s current budget request for the upcoming year, if approved by Congress, would see a more than 50% reduction in NSF funding from the previous year – just $3.9 billion, compared to over $9.1 billion in 2025. 

“This is the latest stupid move made by a president who continues to harm science and American innovation,” said Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-19), the Democratic ranking member of the House Science, Space, and Technology committee, in a statement. “It unfortunately is no surprise a president who has attacked NSF from day one would seek to destroy the board that helps guide the Foundation. Will the president fill the NSB with MAGA loyalists who won’t stand up to him as he hands over our leadership in science to our adversaries?”

Health Policy Watch reached out to the Committee Chair, Representative Brian Babin (R-36) for comment. 

Leaders in academia, industry lend expertise

The NSB’s statutes dictate that members must be “eminent in the fields of basic, medical or social sciences, engineering, agriculture, education, research management or public affairs.” The statutes also require members to be chosen based on a record of distinguished service and provide representation of the views of scientific and engineering leaders. 

Current members include deans and professors of universities across the country, as well as industry executives. Several members have served more than a decade each, after being reappointed by presidents across parties.

“Typically consisting of stellar academic and industry leaders, the NSB has for decades guided NSF and informed scientific policies to deliver world-class science funded by NSF,” said Jane Lubchenco, a professor at Oregon State University and former deputy director for climate and environment at the White House Office of Science and Technology policy in a social media post. “Having served two terms on the NSB, across D[emocratic] and R[epublican] administrations, I am horrified by yet another powerful swing of the orange wrecking ball and attempts to demolish the scientific enterprise we need for a vibrant future.”

Science innovation getting more emphasis in defense 

While the NSF, along with NIH, and CDC have all been severely battered by deep budget cuts, leadership turmoil and layoffs, scientific investment in the DoD is expected to grow under the second Trump administration.

Similarly, NASA’s budget has been reduced. The administration has prioritized human space flight over space science research.

The administration has already consolidated two of the leading DoD science and technology advisory bodies into the Science, Technology, and Innovation Board (STIB). This board oversees a budget of $150 billion for science and technology innovation – 15 times larger than the NSF at its peak. However, this budget has also taken reductions in the latest budget request. The military has already used these funds to research six critical areas to national security: hypersonics, high energy lasers, artificial intelligence, quantum computing, biomanufacturing, and logistics and energy technologies.

‘America is abdicating its position as the global leader in science, technology and discovery’

Along with the advisory boards embedded into the NIH, CDC and NSF, the federal government has a plethora of other acronym-heavy scientific advisory boards across various civilian agencies and departments. 

PCAST, the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, has the closest proximity to Trump. In the current administration, however, the council is mostly composed of high-level industry leaders and technologists, like Mark Zuckerberg, and not academic scientists and engineers that make up the NSB.

The net result, therefore, may be more driven by industry and private capital interests – rather than curiosity-driven basic science research. While every administration has its share of political appointees, the abrupt firing of the NSB board with little communication has the scientific community concerned.

“If we want the United States to lead in science and technology and the benefits to accrue to the American people, we must have a vision, plan and resources guided by science, not politics,” said Sudip Parikh, CEO of the AAAS. 

“In the absence of clear communication from government leaders, this move, combined with other seemingly indiscriminate yet consequential decisions, reinforces the following message: America is abdicating its position as the global leader in science, technology and discovery. We cannot let this happen.”

Image Credits: HHS Photo by Amy Rossetti, Rodger Bosch for MPP/WHO.