Merz Warns of Extremism After AfD Gains Power in Saxony-Anhalt 
CFTC Moves to Set New Crypto Rules After CLARITY Act Failure 
New York Declares Measles Disaster Emergency as Cases Surge 
Circle Urges EU to Revise MiCA Stablecoin Rules 
Israel Tightens Pilot Security After Flydubai Incident 
Trump Opens Tax-Exempt Dyed Diesel Access as Fuel Prices Surge 
Illinois Delays Crypto Tax Law Until July 2027 
Russia Targets Danish Ukraine Suppliers in Sabotage Campaign 
Tsai Warns of China’s Sustained Pressure on Taiwan 
Trump Backs Florida Golf Course as Presidential Retreat 
Iran Tanker Attacks Surge as Hormuz Oil Flows Near Prewar Levels 
US-Led Coalition Targets Global Factory Overcapacity 
North Korea Slams US Taiwan Arms Sales, Reaffirms Russia Support 
Florida Seeks Tougher Meta Rules to Protect Young Users 
US Conducts Non-Nuclear Explosion Test to Boost Nuclear Detection 
Hegseth Praises USS Abraham Lincoln Crew After Record Iran War Deployment 
Add as a preferred source on Google
The Trump administration has removed all members of the National Science Board, a major advisory group that oversees the National Science Foundation (NSF), according to statements from two former board members. The decision impacts more than 20 experts and has raised concerns about the future of independent scientific governance in the United States.
The National Science Board, established in 1950, plays a vital role in guiding U.S. science and engineering policy. Its members are typically appointed for six-year terms and come from diverse backgrounds, including academia, industry, nonprofits, and national laboratories. The board also advises both the president and Congress on key issues related to scientific research and innovation.
Yolanda Gil of the University of Southern California and Keivan Stassun of Vanderbilt University confirmed that all 22 members received an email on Friday notifying them of their immediate termination. Both stated that no reason was provided for the sudden dismissal. Gil highlighted the board’s diverse expertise, while Stassun noted that, although disappointing, the move was not entirely unexpected.
Experts believe the action reflects a broader strategy by the Trump administration, which began in early 2025, to reshape independent institutions. Critics argue that removing experienced board members and potentially replacing them with political allies could weaken objective scientific oversight and reduce critical input in policymaking.
The National Science Foundation referred questions to the White House. A White House official responded by suggesting that the board’s authority, established decades ago, may need to be updated. The official also emphasized that the NSF’s operations will continue without interruption.
This development has intensified discussions about the role of independent scientific bodies in the U.S., particularly their importance in ensuring unbiased, evidence-based policy decisions in science and technology.
