This past week delivered another gut punch for science in the US. This time, the target was the National Science Foundation—a federal agency that funds major research projects to the tune of around $9 billion. The foundation’s efforts were overseen by a board of 22 prominent scientists. On Friday last week, they were all fired.
The NSF has been without a director since April 2025, when former director Sethuraman Panchanathan stepped down in the wake of DOGE-led funding cuts and mass firings. Trump’s nominee for the role is Jim O’Neill, an investor and longevity enthusiast who does not have a science background.
It’s hard to predict exactly how things will shake out for science. But it’s not looking great.
The NSF was established in 1950 to “promote the progress of science,” among other goals. It has served as a major source of support for research and education since then. In 2024, the agency spent $9.39 billion—a substantial figure but only 0.1% of all federal spending.
Key decisions about how that money is spent have been made by the National Science Board. Each of the scientists who made up the board until last week was appointed by a US president to serve, at least initially, a six-year term. Those members were responsible for establishing NSF policies, authorizing major expenditures and providing oversight, says Keivan Stassun, a physicist and astronomer at Vanderbilt University who was appointed to the board in late 2022.
A few years ago, the board was responsible for establishing a new “directorate” within the agency to channel funding to “technology, innovations and partnerships,” for example. The board also authorized funding for the US Extremely Large Telescope Program.
“It’s a relatively small group with a tremendous amount of responsibility and authority,” says Stassun. He viewed his appointment as “a tremendous honor.”
Then, last Friday, the email landed in his inbox. “It said: On behalf of President Trump, this letter is to notify you that your position as a member of the National Science Board is terminated effective immediately. Thank you for your service,” says Stassun. “It was deeply disappointing.”
Still, Stassun wasn’t surprised, given the administration’s actions across federal science agencies over the past year.
Since Donald Trump took office at the start of 2025, the NSF—along with many other federal agencies—has frozen, unfrozen, and terminated grants. “The board was not involved in any of those [terminations],” says Stassun. Members had no say in the firing of agency staff either, he says. Staff numbers are currently down 40%, he adds.
In a 2026 budget request, the Trump administration sought to cut the NSF’s budget by around 57%. Last summer, NSF staffers wrote a letter of dissent arguing that such substantial cuts would “cripple American science.” The proposed cuts would have hit biological sciences, engineering, and STEM education particularly hard.
Those cuts were rejected by Congress earlier this year. But grant terminations and firings are essentially allowing them to take effect regardless, says Stassun. “The funds that the White House has been dispersing to the agency … have been far less than what Congress intended,” he says.
Many ambitious research projects are grinding to a halt as a result. “The Extremely Large Telescope Program appears to be dead in the water for now,” says Stassun. And the NSF arm dedicated to science education “has effectively zeroed out,” he says.
But not all of them. While the administration’s 2027 budget request states that NSF will “close out” its directorate for social, behavioral, and economic sciences, it describes AI and quantum information science as key “frontier initiatives.” Biotechnology is described as a “focal point.”
When asked for comment, the NSF directed MIT Technology Review to the White House press office. The White House did not respond directly to questions about the firing of NSB members and said in a statement, “The National Science Foundation’s work continues uninterrupted.”
Jim O’Neill, Trump’s current candidate for the position of NSF director, is certainly interested in biotechnology. Specifically, when I spoke to O’Neill in February, he told me that he supposes he is a Vitalist—a hardcore supporter of efforts to extend human longevity who believes that death is wrong.
O’Neill was deputy secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services and acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention until a leadership shakeup a couple of months ago. But he isn’t a scientist. And that has some scientists worried. He has yet to be confirmed by the Senate for the role.
In the meantime, the administration’s efforts are having a real impact on research. “We [NSB members] tried to stand for a continued investment in science, engineering, and technology, and in science education broadly,” says Stassun. “The administration will now be able to operate the agency the way that [it wants to, with] no governance body in the way.”