The White House abruptly dismissed the entire board overseeing the National Science Foundation, informing each of its 22 seated members in a terse email on Friday that they had been "terminated, effective immediately." The move follows a Trump administration push for deep cuts to the NSF and raises concerns in the scientific community that a tradition of independent decisions for allocating federal science grants could be jeopardized.
One of the fired board members, Willie May, who is vice president for research and economic development at Morgan State University, says he's "deeply disappointed" but not surprised. "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," says May, a chemist and former director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
The reference is to the Trump administration's weakening or marginalizing of science advisory bodies across government, including the ousting of advisory boards at the Environmental Protection Agency and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, where Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., got rid of members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. At the Food and Drug Administration, the Trump administration also moved to eliminate a long-standing policy of having outside experts review new drug applications.
The National Science Board was established by Congress in 1950 and signed into law by President Harry S. Truman. It's a major funder of basic science, math and engineering research, especially at colleges and universities across the United States. Members are appointed by the president to staggered, six-year terms, and do not require Senate confirmation. The board — made up primarily of academics and industry leaders — is charged with identifying issues critical to the NSF's future, submitting the NSF's budget and approving its programs and awards.
In a written statement sent to NPR by email, the White House said the firing of the board was in line with a 2021 Supreme Court case, U.S. v. Arthrex, that "raised constitutional questions about whether non-Senate confirmed appointees can exercise the authorities that Congress gave the National Science Board."
"We look forward to working with the Hill to update the statute and ensure the NSB can perform its duties as Congress intended. The National Science Foundation's work continues uninterrupted," according to the statement.
Legal scholars contacted by NPR were mostly confused when asked about the White House statement. Duke University law professor Jeff Powell, a leading expert on the appointments clause of the Constitution, says there is "a puzzling disconnect between firing the Board members and the [White House] statement." He said that if Arthrex applies, "eliminating the [NSB] members leaves it unaddressed."
The Trump administration's firing of the NSF board is just the latest move aimed at the agency. In the White House's preliminary budget request for 2026, it sought to cut $4.7 billion from the NSF budget — more than half of the agency's $9 billion budget. The administration has also rescinded thousands of already-approved NSF grants.
Concerns over the creation of a partisan science board
Roger Beachy, a professor emeritus of biology at Washington University, was one of the board members fired on Friday, though his term was set to expire shortly. He is concerned the NSB could become partisan, "[taking] … orders from the administration rather than being independent" — though he emphasizes that it's too early to know for sure.
Beachy is worried that basic research could take a back seat to short-term goals as defined by the White House. "If we target what we know to be a focus of the administration," he says, then fields that interest the administration, such as nuclear energy and quantum machinery, may be all that gets funded.
Astronomer and physicist Keivan Stassun, who also served on the board until Friday, shares that concern. He told NPR that the National Science Board was created to safeguard "far-reaching, long-term investments that may not pay off for a generation."
But when those investments do pay off, he says, society is stronger. The Board's role is to ensure such decisions are made "wisely, soberly, patriotically," and in the national interest, he says.
California Democratic Rep. Zoe Lofgren, the ranking member on the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, which oversees the NSF, calls the administration's move an "attack on science."
She points out important advances and technologies, such as the internet, CRISPR gene-editing technology and Doppler radar, where NSF funding played an important role. "At one time, [NSF] grants were merit-based," she told NPR. "Now they appear to have more political influence in addition to a falling off just in terms of the volume."
Texas Republican Rep. Brian Babin, who chairs the House Science Committee, said in an email to NPR: "Every President expects advisors to serve in a manner consistent with executive and legislative priorities. I look forward to seeing whom President Trump selects to fill the NSB and refocus our science agencies on their core mission: pursuing science."
To be sure, there are some scientists who are less alarmed. Gennady Samorodnitsky, a professor of operations research and information engineering at Cornell University, has received NSF funding in the past. "It is the task of the government to figure out what's best for society," he says. "The money comes from the government, so ultimately [the government] makes the decisions."
Willie May, however, is concerned about what the cuts to science funding and the chaos at the NSF says to America's rivals abroad.
"At a moment when the United States faces intensifying global competition in science and technology — when other nations are investing aggressively in the research and the STEM workforce that will underpin innovation for the next century — we are systematically undermining the institutions and the people dedicated to keeping our country at the leading edge," he wrote to NPR.
"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," he says.
Copyright 2026 NPR