Science Policy News from AIBS

Leadership Shakeup Planned at Federal Science Agencies

The Trump Administration is reportedly preparing a major leadership reshuffle across federal science agencies. Jim O'Neill, currently Acting Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Deputy Secretary at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), is expected to be nominated as the next Director of the National Science Foundation (NSF).

If confirmed by the Senate, O'Neill would lead the $9 billion independent science agency amid ongoing internal reorganization and reduced staffing. Lacking formal research credentials, he would be the first NSF Director without a background as a scientist or engineer. O'Neill holds a bachelor's degree in the humanities from Yale University and previously served as a senior HHS official under President George W. Bush. He later served as managing director of a hedge fund and venture capital firm, both led by Peter Thiel, and as CEO of the Thiel Foundation.

NSF is currently led on an acting basis by Chief of Staff Brian Stone following the resignation last April of former Director Sethuraman Panchanathan before the completion of his six-year term.

In a related move, Jayanta Bhattacharya, Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), is expected to temporarily assume leadership of CDC as well. The dual role has drawn concern from researchers and public health experts, who argue that both NIH and CDC require full-time, dedicated leadership, particularly given recent controversies over vaccine policy, funding disruptions, and leadership vacancies at NIH.

Currently, 16 of NIH's 27 institutes and centers lack permanent directors. The latest vacancy follows HHS's decision not to renew Lindsey Criswell's five-year term as Director of the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Criswell will remain at NIH to lead her research lab. Her departure marks the third institute director exit in less than a month, underscoring continued leadership instability at the agency.

NSF Graduate Fellowship Program Draws Scrutiny Over Rejections Without Review

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is facing criticism over its handling of this year's Graduate Research Fellowship Program (GRFP) after at least 50 applicants were rejected without their proposals undergoing peer review. Students received standardized notices stating their applications did not meet "Eligibility/Compliance requirements" and were being "returned without review (RWR)," with no opportunity to appeal.

The unusually high number of summary rejections has sparked concern among former program officials and applicants, particularly because GRFP has historically emphasized rigorous peer review as part of its mission to support early-career scientists. Analysis by the watchdog group Grant Witness suggests that many of the rejected proposals were in the life sciences--including ecology, cell biology, neuroscience, and psychology--leading some students to speculate that biology-related fields may be disproportionately affected. No rejected proposals in the sample involved artificial intelligence or quantum science.

GRFP has experienced turbulence in recent years. The 2025 cohort was significantly reduced before partial restoration, and new rules for 2026 barred second-year graduate students from applying. NSF has not provided detailed explanations for the recent rejections, fueling uncertainty among applicants. Although the agency initially stated that RWR decisions were final, at least one student reports that a rejected proposal is now being "actively reviewed" following further inquiry.

Grant Witness is currently coordinating a response effort, offering guidance and outlining potential avenues for recourse to students who have received a RWR notice.

Trump Administration Repeals Endangerment Finding, Sparking Legal Battle

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has officially repealed its landmark 2009 "endangerment finding," which established that greenhouse gases pose a threat to public health and provided the legal and scientific basis for regulating emissions from vehicles, power plants, and other major sources. The repeal effectively lifts long-standing federal limits on emissions, marking the most significant rollback of U.S. climate regulations to date.

The decision has drawn widespread criticism from scientific and environmental organizations, including the American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the Sierra Club. The new rule does not dispute climate science; instead, the Administration argues that EPA lacks authority under the 1970 Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases. The White House frames the repeal as an economic win for industry, projecting more than $1 trillion in relief, while critics warn it ignores the well-established scientific consensus on climate change and endangers public health, infrastructure, and the environment.

Legal challenges followed immediately. Seventeen organizations--including the Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, Center for Biological Diversity, and the American Public Health Association--sued EPA in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, arguing the repeal violates the 2007 Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA, which required the agency to determine whether greenhouse gases threaten public health and to regulate them if so. Additional lawsuits, including one on behalf of 18 youth plaintiffs, are also underway. Democratic-led states, including California, are expected to join the legal fight.

Observers expect the dispute to reach the Supreme Court, where a ruling could permanently reshape EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases and U.S. climate policy. Supporters of climate action warn that if the repeal stands, Congress would need to pass new legislation to restore federal oversight of emissions.

NIAID to Deprioritize Pandemic and Biodefense Research

The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) is shifting its focus away from pandemic preparedness and biodefense.

According to Nature, NIAID staff have been instructed to remove related language from the institute's website, and future funding for these areas is expected to be reduced as part of a broader overhaul under Acting Director Jeffery Taubenberger and NIH leadership.

According to NIH director Jay Bhattacharya, the move prioritizes research on basic immunology and infectious diseases currently affecting Americans, rather than anticipating future outbreaks. Experts warn the change could leave the U.S. less prepared for emerging pathogens, noting that NIAID's prior anticipatory research played a key role in rapid COVID-19 vaccine development.

White House Withholds NASA Science Funds

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has directed the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to pause funding for a range of science missions, despite Congress having restored those funds in a recently enacted appropriations bill. The affected programs were among those the White House previously proposed canceling in its fiscal year (FY) 2026 budget request.

NASA has paused new FY 2026 spending on 17 science initiatives pending further OMB guidance. A letter from NASA headquarters to agency centers indicated the pause--expected to last 10 days but subject to extension--follows guidance from OMB and may involve use of the agency's apportionment authority to restrict further spending. The Administration's budget proposal would have reduced NASA's science portfolio by nearly half, targeting Earth and climate-related missions as well as planetary science programs.

The action has drawn criticism on Capitol Hill. Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Ranking Member of the Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations Subcommittee, accused OMB Director Russ Vought of violating the law by withholding funds Congress has already appropriated, calling on the Administration to release the money for NASA's science missions.

OPM Finalizes Rule Stripping Protections from Federal Employees

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has finalized a new Schedule Policy/Career designation for roughly 50,000 federal employees in policy-influencing roles, converting them to "at-will" status and stripping standard protections against termination and appeal. While the Administration frames the move as an accountability measure, worker advocates warn it could allow politically aligned replacements and undermine the nonpartisan civil service.

OPM stated that the change is necessary to address "longstanding performance management challenges in the federal workforce." Guidance provided by OPM indicates that workers will not be able to challenge their reclassification.

The rule, which goes into effect March 9, builds on the previously proposed Schedule F from Trump's first term that was repealed by the Biden Administration in 2021. It is accompanied by a proposed rule to transfer appeals from the independent Merit Systems Protection Board to OPM's internal oversight office, which if enacted could significantly impact federal employees looking to appeal reduction-in-force (RIF) actions.

Critics argue these changes threaten whistleblowers, disrupt agency continuity, and could chill career officials' ability to execute policy independently. Unions and advocacy groups have pledged legal challenges, and pending legislation (H.R.492 and S.134) seeks to block the reclassification. The federal workforce has already shrunk by over 240,000 employees since President Trump took office, and the rule is expected to accelerate further departures or removals.

AIBS Meeting: Sustaining Science in an Uncertain Funding Landscape

Representatives, officers, board members, staff, and students affiliated with AIBS member societies and organizations are invited to join AIBS for a candid conversation about strategically navigating today's tumultuous and evolving funding landscape.

Topic: Sustaining Science in an Uncertain Funding Landscape

Date: Thursday, February 26, 2026, 2:00 - 3:00 PM ET

Location: Online

Invited Speakers:

Dr. Lisa Clough, Vice Chancellor for Research, North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University
Dr. Dan Thornhill, Program Officer, Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation

Having previously served in leadership roles at the National Science Foundation (NSF), Drs. Clough and Thornhill will share their perspectives on the new rules of science funding, strategies for securing non-traditional support, and practical advice for adapting to recent changes at the federal level.

Registration Closes Today: 2026 Congressional Visits Day

Join the American Institute of Biological Sciences on April 20-22, 2026 for our annual Congressional Visits Day in Washington, DC.

Meet with your members of Congress to help them understand the important role the federal government plays in supporting the biological sciences. Advocate for federal investments in biological sciences research supported by the National Science Foundation and other federal agencies.

Participants will complete a communications and advocacy training program provided by AIBS that prepares them to be effective advocates for their science. AIBS will provide participants with background information and materials, as well as arrange meetings with lawmakers on April 22.

Who should participate?

Scientists, graduate students, educators, or other biological science community members who are interested in advocating for scientific research and education are encouraged to participate in this important event.

The ideal participant will:

Have an interest in science policy.
Work in a scientific profession or be enrolled in graduate school.
Be able to speak about the importance of biological research funded by federal agencies (e.g. NSF, NIH, USDA).
Provide compelling examples from their own experiences.

Training

The event includes a free, half-day training session on how to be an effective advocate for science policy. This training session will be held on April 21, 2026 and is mandatory for everyone who will be participating in congressional meetings.

Additionally, participants have the option to attend the highly acclaimed AIBS Communications Boot Camp for Scientists. This training course will be held in Washington, DC on April 20-21, 2026. This professional development program provides practical instruction and interactive exercises designed to help scientists (e.g. researchers, graduate students, administrators, educators) translate scientific information for non-technical audiences and to effectively engage with decision-makers and the news media. All participants who complete this optional training will receive priority access to the Congressional Visits Day and a certificate of completion indicating that they have successfully completed 16 hours of communications training.

Registration

Express your interest in participating in the event by registering. Registration closes on February 23, 2026. Space is limited and we encourage you to register early. If registrations exceed program capacity, AIBS may prioritize registrants based on participation in the boot camp training, geographic diversity, and other factors. Register now.

Short Takes

The National Science Foundation (NSF) Directorate for Geosciences (GEO) announced new leadership as part of an agencywide reorganization. Joydip Kundu, who previously served GEO as the Deputy Assistant Director, will now serve as Directorate Head, while Jennifer Mercer and Anne Johansen will serve as Deputy Directorate Heads.
Last week, the NSF Directorate for Biological Sciences (BIO) posted an update about its new thematic areas, proposal submission information, and a newly released funding opportunity for Postdoctoral Research Fellowships in Biology focused on the "Intersection of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Biological Sciences to Strengthen and Safeguard Biotechnology Innovations."
President Trump has nominated Scott Socha, a 27-year veteran executive at Delaware North--a food, venue and hotel management company--to be Director of the National Park Service (NPS). Socha, who oversees the company's park and resort operations and has managed major contracts with Yellowstone National Park, Niagara Falls, and the Kennedy Space Center, must be confirmed by the Senate.
Funding rates for National Institutes of Health (NIH) R01-equivalent grants fell sharply in FY 2025, with the number of funded investigators dropping from 7,720 to 5,885. Early-stage investigators were hit particularly hard, as their success rate declined from 26% to 19%, amid a rise in applications. NIH attributed the downturn in part to a White House-mandated policy requiring multiyear grants to be funded upfront, which constrained available funds for new awards.
The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) are seeking experts to serve on the new Standing Committee for Earth Observations, Data, and Information Systems, which will provide ongoing guidance on scientific priorities, technical innovations, and coordination of large-scale Earth observation and data systems. Nominations can be submitted online by March 9, 2026.
Republican leaders on the House Space, Science, and Technology Committee have sent letters to several federal science agencies, including NSF, requesting briefings on safeguards against falsified research produced by "paper mills." The lawmakers are seeking details on existing protections to prevent fraudulent or manipulated studies from influencing federally funded research, including how agencies vet scientific literature, assess research integrity risks, and guard against foreign-linked compromised findings entering the scientific record. Agencies have been asked to respond by February 27.