Trump Fires All 24 Members of America's National Science Board (science.org)
- Reference: 0182921582
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/26/04/26/0044212/trump-fires-all-24-members-of-americas-national-science-board
- Source link: https://www.science.org/content/article/trump-fires-nsf-s-oversight-board
But yesterday President Trump fired all 24 members of the National Science Board (NSB), the body that oversees the National Science Foundation (NSF), [3]reports Science magazine :
> In addition to advising the administration and Congress on national science policy, it has statutory authority to oversee the actions of the $9-billion NSF, setting policy and approving large expenditures. Its presidentially appointed members, typically prominent academics and industry leaders, serve 6-year terms, with eight members chosen every 2 years....
>
> Keivan Stassun, one of the dismissed board members, says the mass firing is the latest indication that the White House is ignoring the board's authority and dictating policies at NSF, which has been without a permanent director since [4]Sethuraman Panchanathan resigned exactly one year ago. Stassun, an astrophysicist at Vanderbilt University who was appointed to the board in 2022, thinks the board's public criticism in May 2025 of Trump's proposed 55% cut to NSF's current budget — which Congress ultimately ignored — antagonized the administration. "Maybe one way to say it from the administration's perspective," Stassun says, "is that this group of presidential appointees was advising the Congress to not follow the president's wishes."
[5] The Washington Post adds that "The White House did not immediately respond to inquiries about why the members were terminated."
[1] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-ousts-national-science-board-members/ar-AA21IGXz
[2] https://www.nsf.gov/impacts
[3] https://www.science.org/content/article/trump-fires-nsf-s-oversight-board
[4] https://www.science.org/content/article/nsf-director-resign-amid-grant-terminations-job-cuts-and-controversy
[5] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-ousts-national-science-board-members/ar-AA21IGXz
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
> Anybody would have been better.
FTFY
Re: (Score:1)
Squashed poop would have been better.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
> Hillary would have been better. Harris would have been better. Nikki Haley would have been better. Biden was better.
I agree. Those people aren't running next term.
First off, there's no guarantee Ivanka Trump won't win next term. Next term, we are going to have another reality TV star type as candidates, because democrats will try to field someone who can beat someone like Trump.
This is how Idiocracy happens. Not because people are genetically incapable, but because they don't know anything other than reality TV. It's the Ray Bradbury Farenheit 451 world.
Re: (Score:1)
newsom would be better, buttigieg would be better, pritzker would be better, beshear would be better, aoc would be better
your attitude is actually greatly a result of the conservative media machine itself. they want you despondent and cynical.
the idea that better things are possible is something republican want their opponents to have
Re: (Score:2)
> First off, there's no guarantee Ivanka Trump won't win next term
Ivanka's been keeping her head down, I seriously doubt she'll be running, and if she does she'll have the stink of the name on her.
> Next term, we are going to have another reality TV star type as candidates, because democrats will try to field someone who can beat someone like Trump
The Democrats didn't in 2020. The people most likely to run for the Democrats are not reality stars either - Newsom is fairly representative of the kind of
Re: (Score:2)
> Hillary would have been better. Harris would have been better. Nikki Haley would have been better.
> Biden was better.
It's not Niki Haley. It's Nimarata Nikki Randhawa. Just like it's Raphael Cruz.
As both of them would say, we don't use preferred names.
Re: (Score:2)
> It's not Niki Haley. It's Nimarata Nikki Randhawa. Just like it's Raphael Cruz.
> As both of them would say, we don't use preferred names.
No, it's Nikki Haley. And Ted Cruz. Because that's what they want to be called.
I call people by the names and pronouns they prefer. And I appreciate the same treatment back.
Re: He's fucking nuts (Score:2)
Do tell. What mental gymnastics will you do to justify trump being elected a third time? And howâ(TM)s this different to Putin gaming the Russian system with Medvedev a while back so he could remain president for life?
There goes the neighbourhood... (Score:5, Insightful)
Essentially all of the major scientific advancements that have led to the US's prominence in science in the last 80 years have been the direct result of government funding of the primary research. Industry and private enterprise are great at taking the results of primary research from the lab to the market, but the vast majority of investors have neither the foresight nor the patience to support the fundamental breakthroughs. Since the second world war the US government has been the largest funder of that, and the US has benefitted enormously for decades as a result. Now China is set to become the largest funder of primary research. You don't need to be a Nobel prize winning scientist to work out what is going to happen as a result.
Re: There goes the neighbourhood... (Score:1)
> You don't need to be a Nobel prize winning scientist to work out what is going to happen as a result.
Brawndo.
Re:There goes the neighbourhood... (Score:4, Insightful)
Trump wants to control the neighbourhood. It's a simple as that. Watch as the new board is filled with loyalists.
That's if there actually is a board in the future. There's evidence the administration finds the board inconvenient. Per the Science article linked in TFS:
> The White House’s decision last month to ask Congress to give NSF $900 million next year for a new Antarctic research icebreaker is another example of how the Trump administration’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has prevented the board from meeting its obligations, says [dismissed board-member Keivan] Stassun, who until yesterday chaired the group’s committee on large research facilities.
> “OMB basically said very directly to NSF’s chief of research facilities that ‘you will build a new research vessel,’ and there was no involvement by the board, which is required to approve and authorize any major infrastructure investment by NSF,” Stassun notes. “And when the board asked, the response was, ‘Well, OMB was very clear in its directive.’”
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
The "new eyes" thing is why the membership rotates on a regular basis.
But now, if you were someone whose opinions might be valuable... why would you bother wasting any time contributing to the board, knowing the rug could get randomly pulled for no reason? So, no actually open "eyes" will end up on whatever might get recreated in its place. Wonder what might be the over/under on the number of Fox news talking heads on the new board?
Re: (Score:3)
> Hell, maybe the whole government needs a good, solid shake-up to sort stuff out.
Remember that in November. Heave ho, and out they go!
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the same wishful thinking that got us into the current mess.
"Let's elect someone different and see what happens".
FAFO.
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
“What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”
Re: (Score:2)
From the movie [1] Billy Madison. [youtube.com]
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQCU36pkH7c
Re: (Score:3)
Member terms last 6 years, it's literally written in the summary.
Child Rapist Trump Does Putin's Work For Him (Score:1)
What a Maroon!
Republicans will avoid this thread (Score:5, Insightful)
Because the only way to stay Republican in 2026 is to either be balls to the walls stupid or two stick to safe spaces where your republicanism never gets challenged by facts or reality or basic human decency.
And is depressing as it is the people here on this site tend to be in the more intelligent side, relatively speaking of course, so simply put they're not stupid enough to naturally remain Republican
Board compensation? (Score:2)
Does anyone know if and how much board members get paid for serving on the board?
The second question is, if you serve on the board, and also are a professor at a university, do you get compensated for both the university as well as the board membership?
Are these people getting rich, top 5%, by servicing on the board?
A larger trend ? (Score:2)
These apparently look like a shake up to the high paying revolving door jobs between government, bureaucracy, government contractors, nonprofits, wall street, universities, lobbyists, corporations and NGOs.
Re: (Score:2)
> These apparently look like a shake up to the high paying revolving door jobs between government, bureaucracy, government contractors, nonprofits, wall street, universities, lobbyists, corporations and NGOs.
Well, you might see it that way. I, on the other hand, think this is an attempt by the administration to shed itself of anyone who provides advice that could potentially conflict with the administration's view of reality.
Welcome to the dictatorship! (Score:2, Informative)
Didn't you guys have a 'no kings' movement?
What is the point of a government if one man can rule 300 million people by executive decree?
Re: (Score:3)
Lol. A bunch of people decided to have a street party with a "no kings" theme, but now they're busy and don't want to take the time off to do another street party until whenever the oil price drops. Americans, eh?
Re:Welcome to the dictatorship! (Score:4, Insightful)
"What is the point of a government if one man can rule 300 million people by executive decree?"
To ensure that those people are ruled by executive decree. Is that a serious question? There is no executive to issue decrees without government. The nazis had government, otherwise how can you murder by the millions?
"Didn't you guys have a 'no kings' movement?"
We also had bowel movements. The president still wears diapers.
Re: Welcome to the dictatorship! (Score:5, Insightful)
All because they also gave the GOP the house and the senate and they are all too scared to hold Trump accountable or even assert their own power, they have given him total control. The Dems have very few weapons available to prevent the biggest abuses. Not to even mention he was allowed to fire virtually every single person that could have oversight or check on his power
NSF does outstanding work, most of the time ... (Score:1, Troll)
> Didn't you guys have a 'no kings' movement? What is the point of a government if one man can rule 300 million people by executive decree?
He fired 24 people that work in the branch of government that he is the chief executive of.
While the National Science Foundation does some absolutely outstanding work, and helps fund some absolutely groundbreaking research, some of the stuff it funds is a bit sketchy. The firing probably has something to do with the latter, a lack of oversight. I've been involved in NSF funded projects for well over a decade, observed a bunch of stuff at my university, and sometimes professors get a block of money and pa
Re:NSF does outstanding work, most of the time ... (Score:4, Insightful)
What you mean to say is enough of those funds aren't being directed to the Trump family.
Re: (Score:2)
Your post is pure conjecture and opinion. What NSF funding do you find “iffy”?
Re: (Score:2)
> Your post is pure conjecture and opinion.
Opinion of someone involved in numerous NSF funded projects for over a decade. Who been has involved with NSF projects at both the local and national levels.
As I said, overall it's outstanding work. However better control and oversight could be executed at the university level.
Re: NSF does outstanding work, most of the time .. (Score:3)
Nonsense. They weren't fired because of iffy grants, they don't decide grants. They're the interface between the NSF and Congress. They advise both groups on what the national priorities should be, like whether to fund a billion dollar telescope vs a collider.
They were fired because they unanimously wrote a letter pushing back on Trumps request to significantly cut NSF's budget last year. A request that Congress pretty much ignored in a bipartisan manner.
No they were fired for having the gall to questi