White House Dismisses National Science Board
The Trump Administration has dismissed all 24 members of the National Science Board (NSB), the independent governing and advisory body that oversees the National Science Foundation (NSF). Board members reportedly received notices by email on Friday, April 24, 2026 informing them that their position on the board was terminated "effective immediately."
Created by Congress in 1950, the NSB plays a central role in setting NSF policy, approving major awards and initiatives, and advising both Congress and the President on science and engineering matters. Members are appointed by the President to staggered six-year terms intended to provide continuity across administrations. The board had been scheduled to hold its quarterly meeting on May 5.
The dismissals are unprecedented and have raised concerns throughout the research community. Scientists warn the move could clear the way for the Administration to redirect NSF priorities toward politically favored areas, such as artificial intelligence, while weakening independent oversight of grants and the agency's long-term research strategy. Others fear the Administration could replace members with political loyalists or leave seats vacant for an extended period. The action may further erode NSF's independence following proposed deep budget cuts and more than a year without a Senate-confirmed director.
The White House said the firings were tied to constitutional concerns stemming from the 2021 Supreme Court case U.S. v. Arthrex, questioning "whether non-Senate confirmed appointees can exercise the authorities that Congress gave the National Science Board." Legal scholars and science policy experts challenged that rationale, noting that much of the board's work is advisory in nature and that Congress established the NSB's statutory responsibilities. Some experts have suggested that only Congress has the authority to dissolve the panel.
The firings drew immediate criticism from Democratic lawmakers, higher education groups, and scientific societies, including AIBS, American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), American Chemical Society, Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities (APLU), and Association of American Universities (AAU). AIBS's statement is available below.
Additionally, former NSB Chairs and former NSF Directors, who served under administrations of both parties sent a letter to Congress and Michael Kratsios, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, urging the Senate to promptly fill the vacant NSF Director position and calling on the White House to swiftly appoint highly qualified individuals to the NSB.
AIBS Statement on Dismissal of National Science Board
AIBS released the following statement on April 27, 2026 regarding the dismissal of the National Science Board:
"The American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) is deeply troubled by the Administration's decision to dismiss all members of the National Science Board (NSB). This unprecedented action bypasses the critical guardrails established by Congress to ensure that federal scientific research remains independent and free from political influence.
The NSB is the governing body of the National Science Foundation (NSF), an agency that serves as the backbone of the American scientific enterprise. For decades, the NSB has functioned as an independent body of experts, with members serving staggered, six-year terms. This structure was intentionally designed to insulate the nation's scientific priorities from the shifts of political cycles, ensuring that American innovation is guided by merit, evidence, and long-term strategic vision.
This dismissal is compounded by the fact that NSF has been without a Senate-confirmed Director for more than a year. The simultaneous absence of a permanent Director and the sudden dissolution of the Board leaves the nation's premier science agency without the critical leadership necessary to oversee its strategic mission.
This decision threatens to erode public trust in federal science and jeopardizes the United States' standing as a global leader in science and technology. At a time of intensifying international competition, the U.S. must maintain the leadership and stability of its premier science agency. Restoring independent, expert-led governance is essential to ensuring the American scientific enterprise continues to drive national prosperity, health, and security."
Biologists Advocate for Robust Science Funding During AIBS Congressional Visits Day
Biological researchers and educators from across the country traveled to Washington, DC, to participate in the annual AIBS Communications Boot Camp for Scientists and Congressional Visits Day, held April 20-22, 2026.
The event began with a two-day communications and advocacy training program designed to help participants strengthen their ability to communicate effectively about their research with the public, policymakers, and the media. Scientists then headed to Capitol Hill on April 22, where they met with members of Congress and their staff. These meetings gave participants an opportunity to apply the skills developed during the training while advocating for strong federal support for scientific research.
At a pivotal moment for the U.S. scientific enterprise, these meetings were an opportunity for scientists to help lawmakers understand the importance of sustained, predictable federal investments in research and the benefits those investments deliver to their districts and states. Participants urged Congress to provide at least $9.9 billion for the National Science Foundation and $51.3 billion for the National Institutes of Health in fiscal year (FY) 2027. Many also highlighted the need for renewed investments in science programs at the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, and the Interior.
In addition, participants called on Congress to reject the steep cuts to science proposed in the President's FY 2027 budget request and to ensure that appropriated funds are spent by agencies as directed by Congress. In total, AIBS coordinated 66 meetings with congressional offices, including 36 Republican offices, 29 Democratic offices, and one Independent office.
Scientists from 20 states and the District of Columbia took part in the event. Several AIBS member societies sponsored participating scientists, including the American Society of Mammalogists, Botanical Society of America, Helminthological Society of Washington, Mycological Society of America, Organization of Biological Field Stations, and Society for the Study of Evolution. The 2025 AIBS & SURA Public Policy Fellow, Anna Rader Groves, also attended.
Learn more and view photos.
House Begins Work on FY 2027 Appropriations
The House Appropriations Committee has begun work on fiscal year (FY) 2027 spending bills, marking the first major congressional step in the annual funding process. Last week, lawmakers advanced the Agriculture and Commerce-Justice-Science (CJS) appropriations measures, two bills with significant implications for federal science agencies, research capacity, and climate programs.
The CJS bill is important for the research community because it funds the National Science Foundation (NSF), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The measure was approved by the CJS Appropriations Subcommittee along party lines on April 30 and is scheduled for full committee markup on May 13.
House appropriators largely rejected several of the Administration's proposed steep cuts, instead advancing smaller reductions or level funding for key science agencies.
-
NSF would receive roughly $7 billion, a 20% cut from the FY 2026 enacted level of $8.75 billion. By comparison, the President proposed a 55% reduction. The bill would also require NSF and other grantmaking agencies to apply indirect cost rates from FY 2024.
-
NASA would receive flat funding of $24.4 billion. The Administration proposed cutting the agency by 23%. NASA's science account, however, would be reduced by 17% under the House bill--still less severe than the President's proposal to cut it by nearly half.
-
NOAA would receive $5.85 billion, a 5% reduction, compared with the Administration's proposed 28% cut. The National Weather Service would receive a modest increase, and the bill directs the agency to maintain staffing levels.
-
NIST would face an overall 30% cut under the House proposal, smaller than the 54% reduction proposed by the Administration but still substantial. The proposed $1.3 billion total includes $275 million for earmarks; NIST's current $1.8 billion budget includes $600 million in earmarks.
Meanwhile, the Agriculture appropriations bill cleared the full committee with reductions targeting climate and water-related initiatives. The measure would provide $26.3 billion (-1.4%) in discretionary funding for agriculture and food programs, including $22.5 billion for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). It would eliminate funding for USDA Climate Hubs, reduce support for the Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education program, and trim grants for rural water projects.
Under the House proposal, intramural research at the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) would receive a 2% cut. The National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA), which supports extramural research, education, and extension partnerships with universities and other institutions, would also be reduced by 2%. Within NIFA, competitively awarded extramural research supported by the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) would receive flat funding of $435 million. By contrast, the President proposed an 8% cut for ARS, a 38% cut for NIFA, and roughly a 4% cut for AFRI.
Other science-relevant appropriations bills are slated to be marked up in their House subcommittees later this month. These include the bills that fund the Department of Energy, the Department of the Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency, and health agencies such as the National Institutes of Health.
These House bills represent only the opening round of the FY 2027 appropriations process. The Senate will develop its own spending measures, and final funding levels will likely emerge after months of negotiation. Even so, the House markups thus far offer an early signal that lawmakers may again resist some of the Administration's deepest proposed cuts to core science agencies, while climate and environmental programs remain more vulnerable targets.
USDA Advances Reorganization Plan, Continues Push to Close BARC
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) on April 23 announced the next phase of its reorganization plan, advancing changes within the Research, Education, and Economics (REE) mission area. USDA said the latest steps are intended to improve efficiency, streamline operations, and better align research and economic programs with the needs of farmers, ranchers, and producers.
The broader restructuring could move thousands of federal jobs out of the Washington region, raising concerns about disruptions to ongoing research and economic impacts. For example, the National Institute of Food and Agriculture and the Economic Research Service will relocate some positions to Kansas City. The National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) will move some positions based in the Washington region, along with some positions outside the area, to St. Louis or other NASS offices.
As part of the update, the Agricultural Research Service reaffirmed plans to decommission the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center (BARC) in Maryland and relocate research programs to other facilities. "BARC currently includes more than 400 buildings, many of which are outdated or underutilized, and requires significant deferred maintenance and ongoing investment," USDA stated. "Transitioning these programs will allow USDA to modernize its research footprint, improve safety, and better connect researchers with the producers they serve."
Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) and other members of Maryland's congressional delegation condemned the proposal, calling the effort to close Beltsville "illegal and deeply harmful to American farmers and the nation's food security." In a letter to USDA leaders, the lawmakers said Congress's "intent to keep BARC open is clear and received bipartisan support in the Fiscal Year 2026 Agriculture Appropriations Act." They pressed the Administration to provide a full justification and detailed plan for the move.
Congress Scrutinizes FY 2027 Science Agency Budget Requests
Recent congressional budget hearings examining the President's fiscal year (FY) 2027 request revealed bipartisan skepticism toward deep proposed cuts to federal science agencies. Members of both parties questioned whether reductions and reorganizations at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and U.S. Forest Service would undermine research capacity, public safety, and core agency missions.
At a House Science, Space, and Technology Subcommittee on Environment hearing, NOAA Administrator Neil Jacobs defended a proposed $4.4 billion budget, down 28% from the current year. Lawmakers from both parties raised concerns over cuts to weather forecasting, climate research, and the elimination of NOAA's Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research. Full Committee Chair Brian Babin (R-TX) said, "NOAA's primary mission is to protect lives and property. I do not believe this budget request meets the president's expectations for that core mission." Representative George Whitesides (D-CA) warned, "Cutting research to fund operations feels like trying to fly a plane while dismantling the engine for parts."
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin appeared before both the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies and the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment to defend a proposal to slash EPA funding to $4.2 billion--more than a 50% reduction. Republicans and Democrats alike pushed back on cuts to state and tribal grants, while hearings grew combative over climate policy, pesticides, and pollution rules. Appropriations Subcommittee Chair Mike Simpson (R-ID) said, "The EPA is necessary, and they do some good things," adding lawmakers would not support an 83 percent cut to grants.
In the Senate, Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz testified before the Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies on the agency's $2.1 billion discretionary request, down sharply from the current $6.2 billion level. Much of the reduction stems from a proposal to transfer wildfire operations to the Department of the Interior. Chair Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) emphasized staffing and readiness concerns, telling Schultz, "We want to make sure that we have enough people to do the task that we have tasked you to do." Ranking Member Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) also criticized plans to "zero out" federal forest research and pressed Schultz on the planned closure of research facilities. "The intent is not to reduce the research that we're doing or the people that are doing the research," Schultz said. "The research will remain intact. It may be at a different location."
AIBS Provides Testimony in Support of FY 2027 Funding for Smithsonian Institution, USGS, USFWS, and EPA
AIBS has provided testimony to the House Appropriations Committee regarding fiscal year (FY) 2027 funding for biological research programs within the Smithsonian Institution, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The testimony reads, in part: "We encourage Congress to provide new funding to the Smithsonian Institution in FY 2027, including at least $60 million to the National Museum of Natural History (NMNH) with robust funding to support scientific and curatorial work. We urge Congress to provide the USGS with $1.85 billion in FY 2027 and preserve its Ecosystems Mission Area. We further request that funding for Science Applications within USFWS be sustained in FY 2027. Lastly, we request that Congress provide EPA Science and Technology with at least $876 million in FY 2027."
Robust federal investments in scientific research and monitoring that improves our understanding of biological diversity and ecosystem function must be a priority, urged AIBS, noting that the agencies funded by this appropriations bill are centrally involved in conducting, supporting, and using this scientific research. "Shrinking budgets and workforce for these agencies will strain our ability to address national challenges and remain a global leader in scientific discovery and innovation," argued AIBS.
Read the testimony submitted to House appropriators. A similar letter will be submitted to the Senate.
AIBS Submits Testimony in Support of FY 2027 Funding for NIH
AIBS has provided testimony to the House Appropriations Committee regarding fiscal year (FY) 2027 funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
AIBS urged Congress to provide NIH with a base budget of at least $51.3 billion in FY 2027, an increase of 8.7% over the FY 2026 enacted level, arguing that this level of funding is needed to "advance priority areas, including chronic and infectious diseases, cancer, heart disease, diabetes, neurodegenerative disorders, mental health, and nutrition science, as well as the application of artificial intelligence in biomedical research."
AIBS further requested Congress to ensure that appropriated funds are spent as intended and that funding for the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H) supplements, rather than supplants, NIH's base budget. "ARPA-H's mission to support high-risk, high-reward research should complement NIH's core role in advancing fundamental science."
Read the testimony.
Short Takes
.jpg "Image")
