Trump’s latest science purge could bring major risks, experts say

The Trump administration’s recent firing of the entire 22-person board of the National Science Foundation has drawn condemnation from lawmakers, scientists and their advocates across the country, who say the decision is irresponsible and based on political control.

Members of the National Science Board, made up mostly of scientists, reportedly received emails last Friday informing them that they would be removed from their positions effective immediately.

“No reason was given,” former board member, Yolanda Gill, an employee at the Information ‌Sciences ⁠Institute of the University of Southern California, told Reuters.

Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., a ranking member of the House Science Committee, blasted the decision as “a real Bozo the Clown move” by President Donald Trump.

“The NSB is apolitical. It advises the president on the future of NSF,” Lofgren said in a statement on Saturday. “It unfortunately is no surprise a president who has attacked NSF from day one would seek to destroy the board that helps guide the foundation.”

“I am deeply disappointed, though I cannot say I am entirely surprised,” former board member Willie May, vice president of research and economic development at Morgan State University, told Inside Higher Ed. He called the NSB “the latest casualty” in what said is the “systemic dismantling of science advisory” under the Trump administration.

The White House later clarified its rationale behind the firing, citing a 2021 Supreme Court case.

“The Supreme Court’s reasoning in U.S. v. Arthrex in 2021 raised constitutional questions about whether non-Senate confirmed appointees can exercise the authorities that Congress gave the National Science Board,” a White House official told Salon in an email. “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.”

The court found that administrative patent judges, who hold inferior office, should be subject to appointment by both the president and the Senate, unless their relevant director appoints them. NSB members are only appointed by the president.

Daniel Jacobs, the communication director for The Science Coalition, said the board’s wipeout actually hurts the country, and puts it on the back foot.

“The reported dismantling of the advisory board that helps guide the nation’s basic research funding and ensures alignment with national priorities puts the United States at a significant disadvantage,” Jacobs said in a statement to Salon, calling the NSF’s research investments “fundamental” American achievements in science, tech, and economic growth.

“Abruptly removing this layer of expert counsel puts our nation’s scientific enterprise and technological dominance at risk,” Jacobs said. Others have made similar warnings. In 2024, scientists warned that U.S. investments in science and technology would soon be eclipsed by initiatives in China, which was already filing roughly 10,000 more patents a year than the U.S.

Added to this was an $568 million European Union initiative announced in 2025 to attract and fund scientific specialists in the region. It also called for its member states to allocate 3% of their GDP to research and development, at a time when the U.S. was and continues to slash scientific funding.

“We cannot afford moves that weaken the integrity of our research ecosystem or erode scientific independence,” Jacobs said.

Adding to the uncertainty and seismic scientific shakeup is Trump’s nominee to lead the NSF, tech investor and previous U.S. Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services, Jim O’Neill.

Start your day with essential news from Salon.Sign up for our free morning newsletter, Crash Course.

O’Neill, who was also acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, worked at Health and Human Services during the George W. Bush administration before entering into business endeavors alongside influential tech billionaire and Trump ally Peter Thiel. He served as managing director at Thiel-run hedge funds and venture capital firms.

As deputy secretary at the HHS, he authored a January memo which called for changes to the agency’s vaccine recommendations. The move was slammed by national health advocates, who claimed it was made to “confuse” the public. If confirmed, O’Neill would be the first non-scientist and non-engineer to lead the NSF.

Julian Reyes, chief of staff for the Union of Concerned Scientists, called the Trump administration gutting of the board, along with its drastic cuts to national science funding, a “politicization” of science.

“We know that the NSF provides a public good,” Reyes told Salon. “We know that science is a public good, and getting rid of the entire National Science Board essentially removes that layer of transparency and oversight between the White House and the work that the National Science Foundation does.”

Trump has long targeted scientific endeavors and programs he views as being “too woke” or that run contrary to his policies, such as ending what he calls “the green new scam.” The proposal calls for ending funding for electrical vehicle battery makers, along with climate science and renewable energy initiative funding.

Reyes pointed to the NSF’s history of funding scientific research endeavors for researchers, advocates and students, including having provided funding for his own graduate studies. He says the board, in its advisory role, is acting as a “barrier” to future plans of the Trump administration to control scientific research and advocacy.

Since taking office, Trump has sought to influence government agencies that are meant to be independent of the executive branch. Trump has fired and then appointed his own handpicked board at the Kennedy Center, and has tried to wrest control of the Federal Reserve, launching federal probes into outgoing Chair Jerome Powell.

“If the administration sees it as a challenge to what they want to do or have plans for, then this is their way of controlling the narrative, but also the science that is done at the National Science Foundation,” Reyes said.

He pointed to two examples of cuts made by the administration that could have lasting consequences for the country. One of those is the National Center for Atmospheric Research, a leading research center for studying weather and climate since 1960. White House Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought, one of the architects of Project 2025, announced in December that the administration will be “breaking up” NCAR, which he called “one of the largest sources of climate alarmism in the country.”

Scientists at Johns Hopkins University said in March that NCAR is “the single-most vital resource” for studying the climate and atmosphere, and called the decision to dismantle it “terrible.”

Reyes also noted the administration’s plans to “reorganize” the Forest Service to “strengthen local leadership, streamline operations, and improve mission delivery.” This reorganization will include shuttering 56 of 77 research stations studying climatological and ecological changes across the country. The closures come as the significant portions of the nation brace for a busy fire season.

He argued that the $9 billion spent on the service’s research and development priorities, just 0.6% of Trump’s proposed $1.5 trillion defense spending budget for 2027, is “a drop in the bucket” by comparison.

“The Forest Service is not only the world’s largest forest research organization, but it’s also the world’s largest wildland fire research organization,” Reyes said. “So, you’re essentially removing the staff and facilities that are closest to the locations of which they’re helping and supporting, and you’re also cutting off this critical research capability.”

Still, some science remains relatively safe under the administration. NASA is still on good terms with Trump following their successful Artemis II moon mission.

Trump, who approved the Artemis moon program back in 2019, called for funding to be directed toward efforts to achieve American technological and geopolitical “dominance” on the moon, though NASA’s budget is still slated to lose tens of billions of dollars in next year’s budget.

“NASA’s priorities remain unchanged by this decision,” a NASA spokesperson said of the NSB purge in a statement to Salon. “We will continue to advance America’s leadership in space, including enabling scientific discovery that supports the nation’s long-term science and technology goals.”

The same cannot be said for the NSF. Reyes said they “got hit hard” in the 2027 budget proposal. Indeed, the Trump administration is calling for a 54% reduction in its budget, from $8.8 billion in 2026 to $4 billion in 2027.

The cuts would slash funding for mathematical and physical sciences, including chemistry and biology, as well as engineering and geosciences initiatives.

“It does call into question,” Reyes posits, “what are their plans for the National Science Foundation given the period that we’re entering?”

The NSF declined to comment on this story, directing all questions to the White House.

CORRECTION: A previous version of this article stated the $9 billion spent on the service’s research and development priorities was just 6% of Trump’s proposed $1.5 trillion defense spending budget for 2027. It is 0.6%. The article has been updated.