Did Trump dissolve the National Science Board—a sign that an era has ended?

On April 24, the Trump administration, via the Office of Presidential Personnel, emailed members of the National Science Board (NSB), announcing the immediate termination of their positions. The NSB is the statutory governing body of the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF), typically composed of members appointed by the President for staggered terms. It sets NSF policy, approves major funding initiatives, and advises the President and Congress on science and engineering policy. At the time of their removal, board members were preparing to convene—and, according to some members, finalizing a report on the state of U.S. science. Media reports indicate the White House justified the decision by claiming powers granted to the NSB under the 1950 law 'may require updating,' and asserted that NSF operations would remain unaffected. The scientific community responded with shock and concern. Organizations including the American Chemical Society, the American Astronomical Society, and the American Society for Microbiology issued public criticisms. Yet this was no isolated incident: since the start of Trump’s second term, over one hundred scientific advisory committees have been disbanded, merged, or otherwise disrupted. If this were merely the replacement of an advisory committee, it might be interpreted as a routine presidential housecleaning. But the NSB is no ordinary committee—it is a keystone of America’s postwar scientific infrastructure. Viewed alongside NSF budget cuts, personnel upheavals at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the CDC’s reconstitution of its vaccine advisory committee, this move transcends mere personnel reshuffling; it represents a stress test for the U.S. national science advisory system. Trump’s 'science wars' extend far beyond the NSF. In my earlier article, 'How American Scientists Are Resisting Trump,' I documented how, since the beginning of Trump’s second term, research and regulatory agencies—including the NSF, NIH, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)—have all faced funding reductions and political scrutiny. Clearly, these actions go beyond fiscal austerity: they constitute an effort to redefine which sciences merit federal support—and which experts may participate in policymaking. What further inflamed this conflict between Trump and the scientific community was the turmoil within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the CDC, which it oversees. After Robert F. Kennedy Jr. assumed the role of HHS Secretary, his most controversial move involved vaccine policy. In June 2025, he dismissed all 17 members of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), subsequently appointing eight new members—including several long-standing vaccine skeptics. Although, in 2026, a federal judge blocked several of his key efforts to reshape vaccine policy—including ACIP’s reconstitution and the reduction of federal recommendations for routine childhood vaccines—the fact remains that the executive branch has systematically targeted scientific advisors. Accompanying these institutional conflicts has been the government’s increasingly visible presence on the front lines of intensifying public health controversies. In 2025, Trump and Kennedy jointly promoted warnings about a potential link between prenatal use of acetaminophen—commonly sold in the U.S. as Tylenol (marketed in China as 'Tylenol' or 'Panadol')—and increased risks of autism or ADHD in children. Most scientists and pharmaceutical companies jointly rejected this claim.

Boundless Exploration, Unwavering Purpose: Nature’s Top Ten People of 2025 Announced

Negotiations involved 190 member states, with major disagreements among countries on core issues such as vaccine distribution, pathogen data sharing, and technology transfer. Wealthy nations expressed concerns about intellectual property leakage and economic losses, adopting a passive stance toward vaccine patent waivers and technology transfer. In contrast, developing countries urgently sought equitable vaccine access and stronger domestic public health systems—but lacked negotiating leverage. Moreover, many small countries, lacking technical expertise, could not meaningfully engage in negotiations, further complicating the process. As co-chair of the negotiations, Masoso played a pivotal mediating role. On one hand, she organized expert teams to provide technical support to developing countries, enabling their effective participation; on the other, she actively built platforms for dialogue, encouraging mutual understanding and consensus-building amid disagreement. After more than three years of intensive consultations, the WHO’s Executive Board formally approved the Pandemic Agreement resolution in May 2025—paving the way for the treaty’s official adoption. The treaty explicitly stipulates that pharmaceutical companies participating in the Pathogen Access and Benefit-Sharing System must supply the WHO with 20% of their real-time production output of vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics—prioritizing distribution to developing countries and regions in need. It also establishes a coordinated financial mechanism for pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response, alongside a global supply chain and logistics network to eliminate barriers to health product distribution. Masoso stated: 'This treaty marks a milestone in global public health cooperation—it enables us to learn from past pandemics and prepare for future ones.' Ten. Susan Monarez: Former CDC Director Who Refused to Compromise on Public Health Security The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), a globally authoritative institution in public health, saw its former director, Susan Monarez, serve for less than one month. A microbiologist and immunologist with nearly two decades of government scientific experience, Monarez was dismissed after steadfastly upholding scientific integrity—refusing to approve vaccine policies or fire colleagues without reviewing the relevant scientific evidence. Her principled stand earned widespread respect across the global scientific community, making her the representative of 'guardians of research integrity' among Nature’s Top Ten People of 2025. Monarez’s appointment had initially brought relief to the U.S. research community. Prior to her selection, the U.S. government had nominated vaccine skeptics for the CDC directorship—sparking broad concern. As a nonpartisan government scientist, Monarez brought extensive expertise in biosafety, artificial intelligence, and data analytics, and was widely regarded as the ideal candidate to lead the CDC. Upon taking office, she swiftly proposed a reform agenda centered on streamlining data workflows and delivering tailored public health guidance to individual states—aimed at enhancing the CDC’s capacity for epidemic surveillance and response. Yet before her reform plan could advance, she clashed sharply with U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Kennedy demanded that Monarez dismiss the CDC’s Chief Science Officer and pre-approve policies restricting COVID-19 vaccination for children and pregnant women—without considering the relevant scientific data. This demand violated Monarez’s scientific convictions: 'No self-respecting scientist would hastily approve anything without carefully reviewing the scientific evidence.'

CDC Vaccine Policy Recommendations Stall Under Health Secretary Kennedy

just now

CDC vaccine policy recommendations have stalled after Health Secretary Kennedy disrupted the advisory committee, leaving newly approved vaccines like mFlusiva without official endorsement. Legal challenges and administrative changes now create uncertainty regarding vaccine coverage and scheduling.

apnews

2026-09-26

CDC Vaccine Policy Recommendations Stall Under Health Secretary Kennedy

CDC Vaccine Policy Recommendations Stall Under Health Secretary Kennedy

FAQ