In yet another blow to the National Science Foundation (NSF), on April 24, the Donald J. Trump administration dismissed the National Science Board (NSB), the agency’s governing body. Since the administration came to power, the NSF has experienced a major restructuring, grant terminations, and battles over indirect costs.
Several scientific societies and higher education organizations say the move could further destabilize the NSF and leave it vulnerable to the political whims of both current and future administrations.
“Such actions remove key nonpartisan oversight of U.S. investments in fundamental science and counsel to federal agencies,” the American Chemical Society says in a statement. ACS publishes C&EN.
According to the 1950 statute (PDF) that established the NSB, the board—which consists of 24 members plus the NSF director—is appointed by the president and is not required to be confirmed by the Senate.
Although the White House did not respond to any questions asking when or if new NSB members will be appointed, in an email, it tells C&EN that it is planning to work with Capitol Hill “to update the statute and ensure the NSB can perform its duties as Congress intended.”
In response to a question about why the board members were fired, the White House cited a 2021 Supreme Court decision from US v. Arthrex, saying it raises “constitutional questions about whether non-Senate confirmed appointees can exercise the authorities that Congress gave the National Science Board.”
In an email, Democratic staff on the US House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, however, express doubt that the 2021 Supreme Court decision would even apply to the NSB.
The Arthrex case looked at whether administrative patent judges had the authority to make decisions about patent law disputes despite not going through Senate confirmation. But the NSB members are scientists whose duties and authorities bear no resemblance to patent judges, the Science Committee Democratic staff say.
Even if the question surrounding the constitutionality of the board was a valid one, says House Science Committee ranking member Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) in an email to C&EN, “the path forward is not to fire the entire NSB—one third of whom [Trump] appointed in the first place—but to work with Congress.”
Republican House Science Committee members did not respond to C&EN’s request for comment in time for publication.
The NSB, which also advises Congress and the president on policy matters related to science and engineering, isn’t the first scientific advisory body that the Trump administration has dissolved. For example, Jacob Carter, a scientific integrity expert and founder of SciLight, was a part of the advisory committee for science quality and integrity, which was disbanded, along with several others, last May.
Despite that, the dismissal of all NSB members is still noteworthy, Carter says, because it threatens the guardrails that were put in place to protect the nonpartisan board—which oversees the NSF’s approximately $9 billion per year budget—from outside political influence.
Since its inception, the NSB has been set up such that the 6-year terms of members are staggered to “ensure continuity across political administrations,” says Geraldine Richmond, a professor of chemistry at the University of Oregon who served two terms on the NSB between 2012 and 2022. Around one-third of the membership turns over every 2 years.
According to Science, the dismissed NSB chair Victor McCrary has spoken out against Trump’s fiscal year 2027 proposal to cut the NSF’s budget by nearly 55% of current funding levels. A fully Trump-appointed board may be less willing to do the same in the future, Carter says.
“I’m very deeply troubled by the report of the dismissal of the sitting NSB members,” Richmond says. “It’s so essential that we uphold the strong, stable, and independent science governance that we’ve had for the future of American innovation.”
2026 American Chemical Society
