Trump purges National Science Board: Scientists warn of AI shift
The future of the National Science Foundation is in question after a group of scientists working in the research field. National Science BoardThe JP, an independent body that promotes the advancement of American science and advises the US president and Congress, was abruptly dismissed by the White House on Friday.
All 22 current board membersThe Foundation, which sets policies for the National Science Foundation, has been terminated, according to Yolanda Gil, a research professor of computer science and spatial sciences and chief scientist of the USC Information Sciences Institute who has served on the board since 2024.
Many received a brief email from President Trump’s presidential personnel office.
“On behalf of President Donald J. Trump, I am writing to inform you that your membership in the National Science Board has been terminated, effective immediately,” said an email reviewed by the LA Times. “Thank you for your service.”
Keivan Stassun, a professor of physics and astronomy at Vanderbilt University and director of the Vanderbilt Data Intensive Astrophysics Initiative, said he reached out to board members after receiving an email Friday afternoon. Every member from whom he responded (approximately one-third of the board) reported receiving the same termination notice.
According to Stassun, who has been a board member since 2022, this termination meant “the complete evisceration of American global leadership in science and technology.”
The White House did not provide a reason for removing the board members or provide any information about when or even if they would be replaced. A media representative for NSF referred all questions to the White House. The White House did not respond to questions from The Times.
The National Science Foundation was established as an independent federal agency more than 75 years ago when President Truman signed the National Science Foundation Act of 1950 to strengthen U.S. science for national security and international competitiveness during the Cold War.
“The establishment of the National Science Foundation is an important milestone in the history of science of the United States,” Truman said. in question at that time. “We realized that our ability to survive and grow as a nation depends largely on our scientific progress. Moreover, it is not enough to simply follow the rest of the world in scientific matters. We need to maintain our leadership.”
The agency, which has a budget of over $9 billion, supports basic research and education in all non-medical fields of science and engineering.
“The genesis of this was understanding that the world is increasingly being won or lost based on scientific and technological capacity,” Stassun said. “The National Science Foundation is the only organization within our government focused on ensuring we stay ahead in basic science, technological advances, and training the next generation of scientists and engineers.”
After Trump fires the board’s experts, the Trump administration could run the agency directly through the Office of Management and Budget, Stassun said.
“What that means is that there will be no practical impediments to the administration essentially enacting its own budget and priorities and ignoring Congressional directives or congressional legislation,” Stassun said.
Rep. Zoe Lofgren of San José, the top Democrat on the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, called the terminations “the latest foolish move by a president who continues to harm science and American innovation.”
Lofgren noted in a statement from the board: expressionHe is apolitical and advises the president on the future of NSF.
“It is unfortunately no surprise that a president who has attacked NSF from day one would seek to destroy the board of directors that guides the foundation,” Lofgren added. “Will the President fill the NSB with MAGA loyalists who won’t stand up to him while ceding our leadership in science to our enemies? A real clown move.”
The National Science Board usually consists of 25 scientists and engineers from universities and industry across the country. Appointed by the US president, they traditionally serve six-year terms.
Some positions on the board were vacant. The key position of NSF director is held by Sethuraman Panchanathan, a computer scientist and academic administrator. resigned In April 2025.
“Given that the NSF director position has been vacant for a year and that the NSB’s primary role is to manage the NSF, the agency remains in a very precarious position,” Gil told The Times in an email. “I think this is one more indication of the sweeping changes the administration is planning for the National Science Foundation.”
Over the past two years, Gil said, the White House has proposed drastic cuts to the NSF budget; This, he argued, is a disturbing sign that basic research in science and engineering and the education of students are not high priorities for the current administration.
Gil added that the agency has experienced significant staff reductions in the past few months, which “has jeopardized the peer review process for which the agency is most renowned and has given program directors greater decision-making authority.”
In March, Trump nominated venture capitalist and biotechnology investor James O’Neill, a former assistant secretary of Health and Human Services, to head the foundation. O’Neill has yet to appear before Congress for a hearing, but Trump’s nomination has drawn a firestorm of criticism from scholars.
“O’Neill will be the first president of NSF. I wasn’t a scientist or an engineerChief of Staff of the Union of Concerned Scientists, Dr. Julian Reyes wrote the following in one of his articles: blog post. “If O’Neill is confirmed as director of NSF, the Trump administration will further tighten its grip on an agency created by Congress to be independent in its work to advance science.”
Gil said NSF directors traditionally have a solid research career and a strong familiarity with NSF processes. He suggested that O’Neill’s background in finance and investment “may be an indication that the administration has a different idea about how to run a science agency like NSF.”
Already, the Trump administration has purged a number of scientific advisory boards that provided expert guidance to the federal government. Last year, dozens of experts who provided independent reviews of biomedical research were dismissed from science review boards at the National Institutes of Health. All 17 members of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which makes federal recommendations on vaccines, were also dismissed.
In this regard, Stassun said he was not surprised when he received the termination letter on Friday. “At some point,” he thought, “they will come for the National Science Board, too.”
Going forward, Stassun said he expects the Trump administration to pursue a narrower agenda, from investments in artificial intelligence to building a fleet of Antarctic ships.
“What we will likely see is a collapse of the historically broad investment in American science and technology capabilities,” he said. “The most transformative discoveries are transformative because you can’t predict them, which is why we invest fundamentally in scientists and engineers to do basic science and engineering research.”
Stassun said one of the board’s top priorities since joining in 2022 has been the idea that “talent is treasure”; To cultivate the best and brightest leaders and explorers of the future to ensure a future for American leadership in scientific and technological innovation.
For the board, this meant investing in early science education and strong training for scientists and engineers at all levels of education and in all sectors.
“Discoveries and inventions do not happen spontaneously,” Stassun said. “People do these things. I think there’s an attitude in the current administration that such a worldview is too soft or docile.”
The Trump administration’s interests and priorities appear to be quite different, Stassun said.
“They see the future in big data centers, or at least their interest is in those centers… not in addition to, but instead of, training the human mind to lead,” Stassun said. “It’s a dead end or a bridge to nowhere.”
Stassun said even AI pioneers will tell you that in most cases, what AI does very well is quickly synthesize, combine, or repackage existing information. A large language model can only tell you what has been said before, perhaps very quickly and effectively.
“Discovery and invention remain the province of the human mind and creative human genius,” Stassun said. “So yeah, I think choosing to invest in just one and not the other is really saying something pretty fundamental.”
