Administration Explains National Science Board Firing as Criticism Grows

The White House says the firing of the entire National Science Board on April 24 was driven by “constitutional questions” raised by a 2021 Supreme Court ruling. The White House did not publicly announce the firings, which were first reported by science news outlets, nor did it initially provide a rationale for them. The move appeared to catch both the board and the National Science Foundation by surprise, with NSF initially declining to comment on the firings and directing all questions to the White House.

The court ruling in question, U.S. v. Arthrex, sets certain limits on the powers of executive branch officials who are not Senate-confirmed. The White House contends that the statute that created the NSB in the 1950s now runs afoul of that ruling. “We look forward to working with the Hill to update the statute and ensure the NSB can perform its duties as Congress intended,” a spokesperson for the White House said.

The White House has not clarified how it wants to update the statute. The Arthrex ruling determined that the authority of “inferior offices” must be reviewable by a superior officer who is confirmed by the Senate. In that particular case, the court ordered that the decisions made by patent judges, who are not confirmed by the Senate, must be reviewable by the director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, a Senate-confirmed position.

Julia Phillips, one of the board members who was fired from the NSB, said the board had been aware of the Arthrex decision and took steps to ensure that its activities did not run counter to the ruling. Specifically, she said the board emphasized in its reports and meetings that its positions were recommendations for NSF, not approvals or orders. (Phillips is also a member of the AIP Foundation board)

Democrats in Congress have criticized the firings and questioned the White House’s rationale. “The issue of constitutionality seems dubious since it’s not at all clear that would apply to the NSB,” House Science Committee Ranking Member Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) said. “If there was a legitimate concern on the part of the Trump Administration on a legal issue, the path forward is not to fire the entire NSB - one third of whom he appointed in the first place - but to work with Congress,” she added.

Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee Ranking Member Maria Cantwell (D-WA) called the firings “a dangerous attack on the institutions and expertise that drive American innovation and discovery.”

The NSB plays a major role in establishing NSF policy and advises Congress and the president on scientific issues. The 24 committee members are scientific experts who serve 6-year terms in a part-time capacity. Board members are not currently confirmed by the Senate, but are selected directly by the president. The NSF director, who is Senate-confirmed, typically serves as an ex officio 25th member of the board. The rest of the board required Senate confirmation until 2011, when Congress passed a streamlining law removing that requirement from numerous positions, including the NSB.

NSB Chair Victor McCrary and Vice Chair Aaron Dominguez were elected to lead the board last August after former Chair Darío Gil left to lead the Department of Energy’s Office of Science. The board was scheduled to meet on April 16 to discuss its next election, but canceled that meeting before the firings and never rescheduled it. The board’s May 5 meeting has also now been canceled.

The firings will likely add to the tumult at NSF. The foundation has been without a confirmed director since April 2025 and has shed roughly a third of its staff since the start of 2025. The agency is also currently transferring its operations from a custom-built office to a building a few blocks away, meaning many staff members are working remotely. The White House proposed halving the agency’s budget last year and has made a similar proposal for the next budget cycle. The proposed cut would also reduce NSB’s budget from $5 million to $3 million.

The NSB firings have drawn widespread criticism from scientific societies, with many expressing concern that a lack of leadership at NSF will make it harder for the U.S. scientific enterprise to keep up with other nations.

Association of American Universities President Barbara Snyder said the firings leave NSF “rudderless,” and the American Association for the Advancement of Science issued a statement calling the move “destabilizing.” The Association of Public Land-Grant Universities said it was “dismayed” by the firings. Union of Concerned Scientists CEO Gretchen Goldman criticized the firings as an “unseemly political maneuver” aimed at limiting independent science.

The American Chemical Society said it is “deeply concerned” by the firings and connected them to what it called a “troubling recent trend to dissolve scientific advisory bodies.” Since returning to power in 2025, the Trump administration has dissolved or merged more than 100 scientific advisory committees, according to a recent analysis by Nature.

Other scientific societies that issued statements critical of the firings include: the American Astronomical Society, the National Academy of Education , the American Society for Microbiology, the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, the Biophysical Society, and the American Institute of Biological Sciences. (AAS is an AIP member society)