All Science Voices Cut Short by Trump Administration

The National Science Board, which guides the National Science Foundation and advises the President and Congress on science matters, was suddenly emptied. On a Friday, 22 board members received an email that simply said their positions were terminated “effective immediately. ” The message came from the office of President Donald J. Trump, but no reason was given for the purge. One board member, Keivan Stassun of Vanderbilt University, reached out to colleagues and learned they were also dismissed. He called the action a “wholesale evisceration of American leadership in science and technology globally. ” Other members who spoke to reporters said the board had been planning a meeting on May 5 and expected to release a report about how U. S. science is falling behind China. The National Science Board was created in 1950 by President Truman, who said the country’s survival depends on scientific progress. The board’s members serve six‑year terms that overlap to keep continuity. Removing all of them at once is an unprecedented blow to the scientific community.This move follows earlier attacks on the National Science Foundation. Last year, the Trump administration slashed its $9 billion budget by 55 percent, cut hundreds of research grants, slowed new grant awards, and let many staff members go. The current NSF director, a Trump appointee, resigned amid the turmoil. Trump has named Jim O’Neill, a biotech investor with little science background, as the next director. Some former board members worry that political interference is behind the purge. Roger Beachy, who was terminated, suspected the board might have been cleared to allow O’Neill’s chosen members. The administration has a history of replacing scientific advisors with politically aligned individuals, such as when Robert F. Kennedy Jr. removed the CDC’s vaccine advisory board and replaced it with allies who share anti‑vaccine views. The removal of the National Science Board’s members threatens U. S. scientific leadership and raises concerns about how science policy will be shaped in the future.