When the Trump administration took office on January 20, the science advocacy community was not entirely sure what to expect for the National Science Foundation (NSF). The NSF Director, Dr. Sethuraman Panchanathan, was a Trump appointee from his first time in Washington, with 18 months still remaining in his six-year term. The National Science Board (NSB) was and continues to be chaired by Dr. Dario Gil, IBM – another Trump appointee. In addition, the recently created Technology, Innovation, and Partnerships (TIPS) Directorate underscores the ways that NSF drives the economy and serves industry. Further, despite recommended cuts to the NSF budget in the President’s budget requests, Trump repeatedly signed final budgets that increased funding for NSF during his first term.
On day one, the administration released Executive Orders (EO) attacking federal efforts to address structural racism and increase access and opportunity across all communities, including:
The goals of the EOs stand in direct conflict to one of the three pillars of the NSF and NSB – to reach the ‘missing millions’ – and with several provisions in the CHIPS and Science Legislation of 2022. The EOs align with a report released by Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) in October 2024: D.E.I. Division. Extremism. Ideology. How the Biden-Harris NSF Politicized Science. Cruz, who was Ranking Member at that time, is now Chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee with jurisdiction over NSF. In the weeks that followed, NSF worked aggressively to archive programs and develop a process for reviewing grants to evaluate for compliance with the EOs. This puzzled the science advocacy community that questioned the legality and enforceability of the orders in direct contrast to legislation.
Presumably, NSF leadership was already alarmed, so when, on January 27, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued an order to pause funding previously appropriated by Congress and obligated by federal agencies. A group of non-profits quickly filed a lawsuit resulting in a judge’s stay and followed quickly by the OMB rescinding the order. According to sources in DC, Senate Republicans expressed opposition to the order once faced with the dollar amounts that would be lost by their states. Even so, NSF proactively shut down their funding page and left it down for several days, despite the memo having been rescinded. This was out of line with how other agencies reacted. It is important to understand that while the order was rescinded, impoundment has been an explicit plan of the recently confirmed OMB Director, Russell Vought, and will continue to be a threat.
Next came the NSF list of words that would trigger a review of grants and a decision tree of how to handle the award. The list included science-related words such as ‘bias’ and even ‘women’ and ‘female’, leading to many references to A Handmaid’s Tale.
Adding to the surrealness, the House Science Committee, which authorizes the NSF, held a hearing on February 5 titled: The State of U.S. Science and Technology: Ensuring U.S. Global Leadership. (See newsletter article.)
Sources have reported the expectation unprecedented layoffs for the federal agency and unconfirmed rumors have warned that the Trump administration is likely to recommend cutting more than 60% of the NSF budget – from approximately $9 billion to just $3 billion – for fiscal year 2026. Keep in mind that Congress has yet to complete the FY25 budget see budget article.
The NSB was scheduled to meet on February 11 and 12, a meeting that has always had sessions open to the public as required by the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). Prior to the scheduled meeting, those who had registered to attend in person were advised that the two-day meeting would be condensed into a one-day closed session.
Many in the science community are asking, as we wait for court cases to advance, what can we do to stop or at least slow the destruction of the NSF and, if the federal investment in basic science goes away – or is dramatically reduced – how can the community continue to serve the NSF mission ‘to promote the progress of science, advance the national health, prosperity and welfare and secure the national defense’?
FABBS is building on our advocacy tools and urges scientists to communicate with elected officials in the service of helping them understand the real-world consequences of the tremendous uncertainty, proposed funding cuts, and personnel layoffs.
