Science Policy News from AIBS

AIBS Statement on Recent Executive Actions Impacting Science

The American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) is deeply concerned about the harmful impacts to science, both short-term and long-term, caused by recent Executive Orders and directives. These actions have impeded vital scientific research, disrupted scientific meetings and review panels, delayed salary payments for early-career researchers, and hindered workforce development programs. Such actions threaten scientific progress at a crucial time and undermine the nation's leadership in science.

Science must remain free from political, ideological, and financial influence to ensure sound policies that benefit public health, the economy, the environment, and national security. The Administration's pause on federal grants created unnecessary instability, disproportionately affecting early-career scientists and long-term research initiatives. Although the temporary freeze has been lifted, ongoing reviews of previously approved grants raise serious legal and ethical concerns. Efforts to terminate grants that include language promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion or climate science contravene congressional mandates and obstruct vital research. Importantly, merit-based peer review is fundamental to the integrity of scientific funding and to the success of our national scientific enterprise. Politicizing this process by subjecting previously awarded grants to additional scrutiny based on Executive Orders undermines the credibility of research funding mechanisms. Furthermore, Congress, not the Executive Branch, holds authority over federal spending. Any actions circumventing the U.S. Constitution and federal laws threaten democratic governance and the stability of the scientific enterprise.

AIBS strongly contends that science and society are strengthened by the open exchange of diverse perspectives and ideas. To effectively apply scientific knowledge in developing treatments and cures for diseases, enhancing resilience against natural and human-made disasters, safeguarding biodiversity and ecosystems, and ensuring national security, we champion diversity in all its forms. AIBS remains committed to these ideals and opposes any initiatives that seek to dismantle programs designed to broaden participation from underrepresented groups.

AIBS strongly opposes any efforts to censor scientific information, restrict research topics, or limit academic freedom. The selective removal of taxpayer-funded scientific data from federal websites violates federal laws governing transparency and accessibility, and threatens informed decision-making. Public data are essential for scientific research, policymaking, and economic planning. AIBS urges Congress to call for the restoration of removed federal data and ensure continued public access to taxpayer-funded information. In addition, public communication from federal research agencies must remain transparent, uninterrupted, and free from political interference in order to maintain public trust and the integrity of the scientific enterprise.

The United States has long been a global leader in scientific research and education, driving discovery, technological advancements, and economic growth. Recent developments, however, including anticipated staff reductions at the National Science Foundation and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, along with drastic cuts to indirect cost rates at the National Institutes of Health, raise concerns about the U.S.'s commitment to maintaining this leadership role and sustaining a strong research infrastructure. Slashing the federal scientific workforce under the guise of enhancing efficiency will undermine U.S. competitiveness, hinder innovation, and give strategic advantages to our global competitors. Also essential to maintaining the nation's leadership in science and technology is a stable and predictable funding environment. AIBS urges the Administration and Congress to prioritize sustained investment in research and development to secure the nation's long-term scientific and economic standing.

The United States must reinforce its commitment to evidence-based decision-making and global leadership in science by fostering an environment that supports open, independent, and innovative research.

Action Alert: Write to Congress about the Impacts of Recent Executive Actions on Science

Recent Executive Orders and directives have created widespread confusion and uncertainties for the U.S. scientific community. The abrupt freeze in spending, planned mass layoffs at the National Science Foundation, slashed indirect cost rates at the National Institutes of Health, and review of already approved federal research grants could severely undermine U.S. leadership in science and technology. These actions have led to disruption of vital scientific research, canceling of scientific meetings and travel, dismantling of critical workforce-focused programs, and delayed salary payments for students and postdocs-all hindering scientific progress at a critical time.

It is critical for scientists to communicate with their lawmakers about the far-reaching impacts of these policies and urge congressional oversight. Please take a few moments to write to your members of Congress using the template letter provided at the link below. We encourage you to personalize the message with your own stories and examples.

Take Action.

You may also call your members of Congress and leave them a voice message (look up their contact information).

Mass Firings Begin at Science Agencies

The Trump administration has started efforts to slash the federal workforce, which includes thousands of scientists. Initial efforts have focused on an estimated 200,000 probationary workers across the government, who do not receive the same protections as other federal employees. Some longtime federal employees could also fall under probationary status when they switch positions or receive a promotion.

The National Science Foundation (NSF) fired 168 employees, roughly 10% of its workforce. Those fired included most of the agency's probationary employees, but also all of its experts--contractual workers who specialize in niche scientific fields. "The removal of experts was completely at the agency's discretion," said Micah Cheatham, NSF's Chief Management Officer, as reported by Politico. "Because if we're asked to remove probationers, then we also need to remove at-will employees...This is the first of many forthcoming workforce reductions."

Democrats on the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, including Representative Haley Stevens (MI) and Ranking Member Zoe Lofgren (CA), expressed disappointment in NSF leadership. "They have failed American science by not standing up to [the Department of Government Efficiency] and protecting their employees. Dr. Panchanathan must reverse these firings." It was previously reported that NSF expects to cut up to half of its 1,500-person workforce.

Mass layoffs also took place at other science agencies:

At the Department of Health and Human Services, roughly 5,200 out of 80,000 employees were reportedly fired, including 1,165 employees at the National Institute of Health. Nearly 1,300 staff were expected to be fired at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, but so far about 750 employees have received termination letters. The inaugural Director of the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health, Renee Wegrzyn, was also let go along with much of the agency's staff.
Around 2,300 workers were reportedly laid off from the Interior Department, including about 800 from the Bureau of Land Management and 1,000 from the National Park Service. Firings also took place at U.S. Geological Survey, where reportedly 260 people lost their jobs, and the Fish and Wildlife Service, where an estimated 420 employees were laid off.
The U.S. Forest Service within the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has fired around 2,000 employees. Similar cuts have taken place at the National Institute of Food and Agriculture and the Natural Resources Conservation Service. Notably, the National Animal Health Laboratory Network, which coordinates the work of 58 facilities to respond to animal disease outbreaks, saw 25% of its central program office staff terminated. USDA later said it accidentally fired those officials, who were handling the government's response to bird flu, and was working to rehire them.
Roughly 2,000 employees were cut from the Department of Energy (DOE). Many DOE workers discovered they were fired only after being locked out of their computers. Congressional Democrats condemned the "reckless" mass layoffs, citing mismanagement--such as the firing of 300 National Nuclear Security Administration employees, most of whom were hastily rehired after the administration realized their critical roles.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fired nearly 400 probationary employees on February 14, but has since rescinded some terminations, leading to confusion among staff. Some dismissed workers were told their removals had been reversed, with equipment and credentials restored. But it is unclear how many firings were undone.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration was expected to lay off approximately 10% of its workforce on February 18, but the plan was put on hold at the last minute. The agency later cut a deal with the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to implement job cuts for probationary employees based on performance. "After working with OPM and a careful evaluation of our workforce and mission requirements, probationary separations will be performance-based or voluntary in accordance with agency policy," NASA said in a statement.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is also expected to lay off 10% of its probationary workforce, roughly 1,000 employees, in the coming days. It is also being reported that the Trump administration has plans to halve the overall NOAA workforce, from 12,000 to 6,000, and cut the agency's budget by 30%.

These layoffs are part of a broader reduction-in-force (RIF) strategy in response to a February 11 Executive Order. On top of these recent firings, about 75,000 federal employees have accepted the administration's buyout offer.

Federal employee unions have sued to block the mass firings of probationary employees, arguing the OPM unlawfully ordered agencies to terminate workers without regard for legal statutes. The lawsuit claims that OPM directed agencies to fire employees using a template email falsely citing performance issues, rather than acknowledging the layoffs as part of a broader workforce reduction. A U.S. court judge rejected a separate lawsuit from labor unions seeking to reverse the mass firings of probationary workers, ruling last week that the court likely lacks jurisdiction and that the claims must instead be brought before the Federal Labor Relations Authority.

Further adding to the chaos, this weekend, Elon Musk ordered workers across the federal government to detail their accomplishments from the prior week, warning that a failure to do so would be taken as a resignation. "Please reply to this email with approx. 5 bullets of what you accomplished this week and cc your manager," said the OPM email that went out on Saturday afternoon. Employees have been ordered to respond by midnight on Monday and not include any classified information.

Republicans Push Back Against Cuts

Some Republican lawmakers are starting to push back against the Trump administration's sweeping cuts to the government as they begin to impact their own constituents. Downsizing efforts at agencies such as the National Park Service (NPS), United States Agency for International Development (USAID), and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have sparked concern among GOP legislators.

Senator Jerry Moran (R-KS) has expressed concerns that USAID cuts will impact farmers in his state who sell crops through government food aid programs, while Senator Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) is arguing against NIH budget reductions that threaten research funding in her state.

Representative Mike Simpson (R-ID), whose district is home to a number of NPS sites, is worried about the government-wide hiring freeze affecting national parks.

Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Susan Collins (R-ME) issued a statement opposing the "poorly conceived directive imposing an arbitrary cap on the indirect costs that are part of NIH grants and negotiated between the grant recipient and NIH." She also pointed out that fiscal year 2024 appropriations legislation includes language that "prohibits the use of funds to modify NIH indirect costs."

At a recent hearing, the Chair of the House Science, Space, and Technology Subcommittee on Energy Randy Weber (R-TX) offered some pushback on the spending freeze after leaders at Department of Energy's national labs said that tens of millions of dollars in research efforts had been paused. "I hope that the Trump administration will work with Congress to fully fund the basic science programs at levels consistent with CHIPS and Science and reprioritize the department to focus on basic research and its labs," said Weber.

Despite their past support for the Department of Government Efficiency, a growing number of Republicans are now considering legislative avenues to reverse or soften the cuts, as they await potential court rulings to determine their legality. Senator Katie Britt (R-AL), who serves on the Appropriations Committee, is advocating for a more "targeted approach" to reducing waste. Others, like Senator Tommy Tuberville (R-AL), are continuing to back the administration's efforts.

NIH Officials Blindsided by Memo Slashing Indirect Costs

On February 7, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) abruptly announced a cap on indirect research cost rates, slashing them to 15%--a drastic cut from previously negotiated rates as high as 75%. It is now being reported that the memo came directly from the Department of Health and Human Services, with no advance warning and with instructions to post the announcement on the NIH website immediately.

Although the memo stated it came from the NIH Office of the Director, agency officials had not seen it until that very afternoon. The Atlantic reported that the memo blindsided NIH officials, who had no prior knowledge of it, and its rushed release caused confusion and outrage among researchers and universities, who feared lab closures and layoffs.

The Trump administration had previously attempted to cap indirect costs in 2017, but Congress blocked that effort. While federal courts have temporarily halted this latest directive, it has already caused significant disruption. Experts contend this aggressive approach by the administration bypasses standard policy-making processes and overrides agency expertise.

Meanwhile, the world's largest biomedical research agency is also grappling with the fallout from mass layoffs and a spending freeze. Despite lawsuits challenging the Trump administration's spending freeze order, NIH research grants remain stalled due to a procedural loophole. According to Nature, the administration has blocked NIH from scheduling grant-review panel meetings by preventing required notices from being posted to the Federal Register, effectively halting funding decisions indefinitely.

NIH is required to post its meetings at least 15 days in advance. However, the administration now plans to extend this to 35 days once postings resume, further delaying the process. Legal experts argue this tactic is unconstitutional, as Congress--not the president--controls federal spending.

The freeze has left researchers in limbo, forcing difficult decisions about hiring and ongoing projects. Compounding the crisis, the administration recently laid off over 1,100 NIH employees, further slowing the grant process. With a legal deadline to distribute funds by September 30, failure to act could result in canceled research grants and legal repercussions for NIH.

Trump Nominates Geologist to Lead USGS

President Trump has nominated geologist Ned Mamula to serve as the Director of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Mamula began his career at USGS in the 1970s before holding positions at the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Under Trump's first administration, he was part of the Department of the Interior's transition team before leading DOE's critical minerals program. In 2023, he joined the Washington-based project financing company GreenMet as chief geologist.

Mamula has advocated for expanding domestic mineral extraction, warning against reliance on China and Russia. He has also criticized the Biden administration's removal of several minerals from the critical minerals list. At an energy conference last year, Mamula praised USGS as a "venerable" organization but lamented the 1996 closure of the Bureau of Mines, arguing it led to a loss of critical expertise. GreenMet, his employer, is lobbying for its reinstatement.

If confirmed, Mamula's leadership is expected to prioritize mineral independence and domestic resource development.

President Trump's nominees to lead the Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS), Agriculture, and Commerce have been confirmed by the Senate. All Republicans, except Senator Mitch McConnell (KY), voted to confirm Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as HHS Secretary. Agriculture nominee Brooke Rollins was confirmed with a 72-28 vote on the floor, with 19 Democrats voting in favor. The Senate voted along party lines to confirm businessman Howard Lutnick as Commerce Secretary.

Senate Science Chair Targets DEI in NSF Grants

Earlier this month, Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee Chair Ted Cruz (R-TX), released a list of over 3,400 National Science Foundation (NSF) grants, worth about $2 billion, that he claims promote diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) or "neo-Marxist class warfare propaganda."

The list builds on a report he issued last fall, targeting grants awarded during the Biden administration. Many flagged grants mention public outreach or workforce diversity, aligning with NSF's "broader impacts" review criteria. In response to Trump's Executive Orders, both NSF and the National Institutes of Health are now reviewing grants using similar keyword searches, but flagged awards are undergoing further scrutiny by officials.

Democrats have criticized Cruz's methodology, arguing that broadly applied keyword searches create misleading conclusions. The database has also sparked backlash from scientists who argue their work is being mischaracterized. Flagged projects include research on medications, environmental science, and broadening participation of underrepresented groups in STEM--a congressional mandate for NSF since the 1990s.

AIBS Names 2025 Emerging Public Policy Leader

The American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) is pleased to announce that John Patrick "JP" Flores has been selected to receive the 2025 AIBS Emerging Public Policy Leadership Award (EPPLA). The award recognizes graduate students in the biological sciences who have demonstrated leadership skills and an aptitude for working at the intersection of science and public policy.

JP Flores is a Ph.D. candidate in bioinformatics and computational biology at the University of North Carolina (UNC) in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. He is interested in mechanisms of gene regulation, with his doctoral research focused on investigating the role of 3D chromatin structure in response to environmental stress. In 2024, Flores did a science policy internship at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of the Director Office of Science Policy, where he worked on developing a public vision and framework for including patient and community voices in the design and conduct of NIH-funded clinical research. He also serves as Director of External Affairs for the Science Policy and Advocacy Group at UNC.

Flores will travel to Washington, DC, in April to participate in an AIBS science communications training program and to meet with his members of Congress as part of the annual AIBS Congressional Visits Day. In addition, he will receive a one-year subscription to the scientific journal BioScience.

AIBS is also recognizing two additional outstanding leaders with an Honorable Mention award. Anna LoPresti is a Ph.D. candidate in ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of Colorado in Boulder, Colorado. Jon Judd is a Ph.D. student in genetics at Stanford University in Stanford, California. LoPresti and Judd will receive a one-year subscription to BioScience. Learn more.

AIBS Endorses Coalition Statement in Support of Science

AIBS has joined nearly 50 science organizations in supporting the statement below, led by the American Psychological Association.

"American science and innovation have advanced humanity for generations. The pursuit of science has led to humanity's greatest advances, improving people's lives and the health of our planet.

But today, science is under threat. The Pew Research Center found the share of Americans who say science has had a mostly positive effect on society has fallen and there's been a continued decline in public trust in scientists.

In this unpredictable time, we must remind ourselves of what remains the same. We need scientific research to support the health and safety of people and our planet. We need policy decisions that are grounded in research and data. We need researchers and educators who will seek scientific truths and prepare the next generation to carry on this critical work.

Science is at the core of our missions and we remain firmly committed to supporting, elevating, and fighting for science and those who further it.

This is our commitment to you.

We will champion scientific integrity, including academic freedom, the inclusion of diverse perspectives, and policies grounded in scientific evidence.
We will fight to ensure that research funding is stable and predictable, allowing scientists to pursue ambitious research and make meaningful discoveries.
We will work to ensure experts like you have the resources they need to pursue research with autonomy and integrity, including critical datasets.
We will continue to impress on others the importance of science as an objective, unbiased approach to understanding our world.

Scientific truths are nonpartisan. It has never been more important to recommit to scientific knowledge, and to ensure you have access to data, are free from censorship, and are able to do your valuable work.

We are committed to working every day to ensure that the researchers who have devoted their lives to discovery and truth can safely continue working to improve lives and benefit society."

AIBS Signs Letter Opposing the Removal of Federal Data

AIBS endorsed a letter led by the Council of Professional Associations on Federal Statistics (COPAFS) to Senate and House leadership expressing opposition to the unprecedented removal of taxpayer financed data from federal agency websites.

"Removing or curtailing access to these data, even temporarily, erodes the public trust that federal statistical and scientific agencies have earned," the letter reads. "We are also alarmed that this violation of trust through this restriction of access to public data was done without regard for legal and administrative precedent. Federal laws, including the Paperwork Reduction Act, Title 44 of the U.S.C., and the Evidence Based Policymaking Act, are but a few of the major laws governing the collection, dissemination, and protection of federal data."

The letter, signed by more than 230 national, state, and local organizations and 2,600 individuals representing data users from the private, public, non-profit, and scientific sectors nationwide, calls on Congress to "demand the complete restoration of any federal data that have been removed and to work with the Administration to prevent any future purge or removal of data from federal agency websites and portals."

Participate in the 2025 AIBS Congressional Visits Day

Join the American Institute of Biological Sciences on April 28-30, 2025 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 30.

Who should participate?

Scientists, graduate students, educators, or other 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 29, 2025 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 28-29, 2025. 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. Click here for more information, including cost, for this two-day training program.

Registration

Express your interest in participating in the event by registering. Registration closes on March 3, 2025. 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 Department of the Interior has rescinded Biden-era guidance aimed at protecting endangered Rice's whales from oil and gas drilling in the Gulf of Mexico (renamed by Trump to the Gulf of America). The decision aligns with Trump's Executive Order to ease energy regulations. The rollback comes ahead of a court-ordered deadline for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to revise its biological opinion on how offshore drilling affects the whales. A previous biological opinion was rescinded by a judge for violating the Endangered Species Act and Administrative Procedures Act. NOAA estimates fewer than 100 Rice's whales remain. NOAA was expected to deliver a draft opinion by March.
The Trump administration has moved to scrap decades-old National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) rules, replacing them with voluntary guidance aimed at expediting project approvals. Critics fear this move could reduce public input, create confusion among agencies, and weaken environmental protections. The new guidance shifts decision-making to individual agencies, potentially leading to inconsistencies. Environmental groups warn it undermines environmental justice and cumulative impact considerations, while industry advocates argue it streamlines permitting. Legal challenges and uncertainties are expected as agencies adapt to the changes.
Senate and House Republicans have released their respective budget reconciliation blueprints to advance President Trump's agenda on defense, national security, energy, and tax cuts. The Senate plan outlines broad spending and cut priorities without naming specific programs and tasks various committees with identifying savings in key areas. The resolution allows for at least two reconciliation bills, with the first proposing $85.5 billion in new spending over four years, offset by cuts. The House Budget Committee released a fiscal blueprint aiming for $4.5 trillion in tax cuts and $1.5 trillion in spending cuts over the next decade. It includes up to $300 billion in new border and defense spending and allows a $4 trillion increase in the debt limit, extending it for about two years. President Trump expressed his support for the House plan, which consolidates his priorities into one comprehensive bill. The House, however, faces obstacles, particularly from swing-district Republicans concerned about deep cuts to safety-net programs, especially Medicaid.
President Trump has nominated Kathleen Sgamma, president of the Western Energy Alliance, to head the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), overseeing the use of 245 million acres of federal land. Sgamma, an MIT-educated policy expert, has been a strong advocate for increased oil and gas access on public lands and less regulation. Her nomination marks a shift from the Biden administration's green energy focus to Trump's commitment to expanding oil and gas production. With 18 years of industry experience, Sgamma has been involved in several legal challenges regarding drilling on federal land.

From the Federal Register

The following items appeared in the Federal Register from February 10 to 21, 2025.

Agriculture

Commerce

Executive Office of the President