Trump Fires National Science Board Members, Ending NSF Basic Science Funding Guidance

President Donald Trump terminated multiple scientists who serve on an independent board established to guide the nation’s nearly $9 billion basic science funding agency, the Washington Post reported.

“Ranking Member Lofgren Reacts to Latest Trump Scheme to Undermine Science (Washington, DC) – Science Committee Democratic staff have learned from multiple sources that President Trump has fired the entirety of the National Science Board (NSB)”

House.gov

The Post said the scientists were terminated from their positions Friday, describing the board as one that guides the nation’s nearly $9 billion basic science funding agency.

House.gov

The Washington Post’s coverage was framed under the headline “Trump ousts National Science Board members,” with the byline “Democracy Dies in Darkness By Carolyn Y. Johnson.”

A separate Washington Post entry with the same story theme also stated that “National Science Board members dismissed by Trump.”

In Washington, DC, House.gov reported that “Science Committee Democratic staff have learned from multiple sources that President Trump has fired the entirety of the National Science Board (NSB).”

House.gov further explained that the purpose of the NSB is to advise Congress and the President on the activities of the National Science Foundation (NSF).

House.gov said the National Science Board (NSB) was established in the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, and it described the NSB’s role as advising Congress and the President on the activities of the National Science Foundation (NSF).

The Washington Post described the board as an independent body that guides the nation’s nearly $9 billion basic science funding agency, linking the board’s work to the scale of basic science funding.

House.gov

House.gov emphasized that the NSB “is apolitical,” and it framed the dismissals as a threat to the board’s function in guiding NSF leadership.

In its statement, House.gov said the NSB “advises the president on the future of NSF,” positioning the board as a key mechanism for shaping NSF’s direction.

The Washington Post’s story framing, “Democracy Dies in Darkness,” was attached to Carolyn Y. Johnson’s reporting, and it placed the terminations within a broader critique of governance and science.

Together, the sources describe the NSB as a formal advisory structure created by law and tied to NSF’s basic science mission, with the Washington Post focusing on the termination action and House.gov focusing on the board’s statutory purpose.

House.gov quoted Ranking Member Lofgren reacting to what it called “Latest Trump Scheme to Undermine Science,” describing the firing as “the latest stupid move made by a president who continues to harm science and American innovation.”

“Democracy Dies in Darkness By Carolyn Y”

Washingtonpost

The statement from Lofgren said, “The NSB is apolitical. It advises the president on the future of NSF.”

House.gov also said Lofgren warned that it was “no surprise” that a president who “has attacked NSF from day one would seek to destroy the board that helps guide the Foundation.”

In the same quote, Lofgren asked whether the president would “fill the NSB with MAGA loyalists who won't stand up to him as he hands over our leadership in science to our adversaries?”

The Washington Post did not include Lofgren’s quoted language in its excerpt, but it did describe the terminations as occurring “Friday” and linked them to the board’s role in guiding basic science funding.

The contrast between the two sources is that the Washington Post emphasizes the termination event, while House.gov emphasizes the political characterization and the implications for NSF’s leadership.

The Washington Post’s excerpt included a section describing “What readers are saying,” with comments expressing “strong criticism of President Donald Trump's actions, particularly his impact on science and innovation in the United States.”

It said “Many commenters believe that Trump's decisions, such as terminating scientists from an independent board, are damaging America's...” and it placed that reaction in the context of the NSB terminations.

House.gov

The Washington Post also included a “Most Read” list and referenced other science-related reporting by Carolyn Y. Johnson, including “Why Trump’s push for ‘gold-standard science’ has researchers alarmed May 31, 2025” and “Where U.S. science has been hit hardest after Trump’s first year April 19, 2026.”

The excerpt also showed other names in the “Most Read” section, including Elahe Izadi, Kara Voght, Scott Nover, Derek Hawkins, and Lydia Sidhom, as part of the site’s navigation and related content.

While those items were not directly part of the NSB termination narrative, they were presented alongside the story and contributed to how the Washington Post framed the broader science-policy context.

House.gov, by contrast, presented the action as a “scheme” to undermine science, using direct quotes from Ranking Member Lofgren to characterize the move.

House.gov’s statement tied the NSB firings to the question of who would replace the board and how that would affect NSF’s guidance, asking whether the president would “fill the NSB with MAGA loyalists who won't stand up to him as he hands over our leadership in science to our adversaries.”

“Democracy Dies in Darkness By Carolyn Y”

The Washington Post

It also asserted that the NSB “is apolitical” and that it “advises the president on the future of NSF,” making the personnel change central to the board’s function.

House.gov

The Washington Post’s excerpt, meanwhile, described the terminations as affecting “multiple scientists” serving on the independent board and said they were terminated “Friday” by President Donald Trump.

The Washington Post also connected the board to “nearly $9 billion basic science funding agency,” tying the board’s work to the scale of federal basic science funding.

In Washington, DC, House.gov’s release described the action as Democratic staff learning from “multiple sources” that Trump “has fired the entirety of the National Science Board (NSB).”

Across the sources, the immediate consequence described is the removal of NSB members and the resulting uncertainty about who will guide NSF and advise Congress and the President.