The White House abruptly dismissed all 22 sitting members of the National Science Board (NSB) on Friday, informing each via a terse email that they had been “terminated, effective immediately.” The board oversees the National Science Foundation (NSF) and serves as the core decision-making body for federal basic science research grant allocations in the United States.

Willie May, vice president for research and economic development at Morgan State University and one of the fired members, said he was “deeply disappointed” but not surprised. The chemist and former director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology said, “I have watched the systematic dismantling of the scientific advisory infrastructure of this government with growing alarm, and the National Science Board is simply the latest casualty.”

The dismissal comes against the backdrop of the Trump administration’s push for deep cuts to the NSF. In its preliminary 2026 budget request, the White House sought to slash $4.7 billion from the NSF’s $9 billion budget — more than half. The administration has also rescinded thousands of already-approved NSF grants.

In a written statement to NPR, the White House said the firing aligned with a 2021 Supreme Court ruling that “raised constitutional questions about whether non-Senate confirmed appointees can exercise the authorities that Congress gave the National Science Board.” The statement added that “the NSF’s work continues uninterrupted.”

However, multiple legal scholars expressed confusion over this explanation. Jeff Powell, a law professor at Duke University and a leading expert on the appointments clause, noted a “puzzling disconnect between firing the Board members and the White House statement.”

The fired board members expressed deep concerns about the independence of science. Roger Beachy, professor emeritus of biology at Washington University, worried the NSB could become partisan, “taking orders from the administration rather than being independent.” Astrophysicist Keivan Stassun emphasized that the NSB was created to safeguard “far-reaching, long-term investments that may not pay off for a generation.”

California Democratic Rep. Zoe Lofgren, ranking member on the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, called the move an “attack on science.” She noted that breakthroughs such as the internet, CRISPR gene-editing technology, and Doppler radar all benefited from NSF funding. “At one time, NSF grants were merit-based,” she said. “Now they appear to have more political influence.”

May warned that undermining scientific institutions at a moment of intensifying global competition sends the wrong signal to international rivals. “That is not good for our country; it is not in the interest of American workers, American industry, or the next generation of scientists who are watching what we do at this critical time.”

Source: NPR