On April 24, every single member of the National Science Board got a two-sentence email. "Your position is terminated, effective immediately. Thank you for your service." That was it.

I think this is one of the most revealing moments in recent American political history, and most people scrolled right past it. The Trump administration fired all 22 seated members of the board that has overseen the $9 billion National Science Foundation since 1950, with no explanation, no warning, and no plan. That is not governance. That is a purge.

But here is the part that deserves far more attention: Congress already fought back. Quietly, bipartisanly, and effectively. The story of American science in 2026 is not just one of destruction. It is also one of unexpected institutional resilience.

The Firings Were Brazen. Congress Had Already Moved.

Let me give you the full picture. The Trump administration proposed cutting the NSF budget by 55% two years in a row. We are talking about slashing a $9 billion agency down to roughly $4 billion, gutting biological sciences, engineering, and STEM education in one stroke. Congress said no both times.

For the 2026 budget, lawmakers from both parties negotiated a deal that kept NSF's budget at $8.75 billion, a modest 3.4% cut instead of the catastrophic 55% the White House demanded. NASA science missions were protected. NIH received a $415 million increase over 2025 levels.

“Thanks to bipartisan support, Congress did its job and rejected a catastrophic proposal for FY26, which would have further damaged U.S. global competitiveness.”

— Sudip Parikh, CEO, American Association for the Advancement of Science

This is genuinely good news, and I do not say that lightly. The system worked. Not perfectly, not without damage, but the guardrails held when it mattered most.

The Board Firing Is Petty Revenge, Not Policy

So why fire the board now? Astrophysicist Keivan Stassun of Vanderbilt University, who sat on the board until April 24, has a theory: the board publicly criticized Trump's proposed 55% budget cut in May 2025. Congress listened to that criticism and ignored the White House. The board paid for it with their jobs.

I remember watching the NSB's public statements last year and thinking: these are presidential appointees doing exactly what they were designed to do. Some of them were even appointed by Trump himself in his first term. Roger Beachy, a biology professor emeritus at Washington University in St. Louis, was reappointed by Trump in 2020 and still got the termination email.

The White House cited a 2021 Supreme Court case, U.S. v. Arthrex, as justification, claiming it raised constitutional questions about the board's authority. Legal scholars contacted by NPR were, in the words of one report, "mostly confused" by that argument.

The Strongest Counterargument, and Why It Falls Apart

Some will argue that the president has every right to reshape advisory bodies, that science agencies should not operate as independent fiefdoms beyond democratic accountability. That argument has a kernel of legitimacy.

But it collapses the moment you look at the pattern. A Nature analysis found the Trump administration has terminated more than 100 advisory committees to science agencies. The EPA's Science Advisory Board was stacked with chemical industry employees. This is not accountability. This is capture.

Willie May, a chemist and former director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, put it plainly after his firing: "The National Science Board is simply the latest casualty." He is right. And the casualty list is long.

Congress Is the Real Story Here, and It Needs to Stay That Way

Here is what I find genuinely hopeful, and I do not use that word carelessly in 2026. Congress has now rejected catastrophic science cuts twice. The NIH got a budget increase. NASA science missions survived. Even some Republicans pushed back on proposed cuts to NASA, with grassroots advocates sending over 100,000 messages to Congress on space science alone.

The NSF now faces a proposed 55% cut again for 2027. The House Appropriations Subcommittee voted for a 20% cut instead, which is still painful but not annihilation. The Senate has historically pushed those numbers higher. The pattern is holding.

“If the White House wants the golden age of science that Trump has promised, now is not the time to go backwards.”

— Victor McCrary, dismissed NSB Chair, Catholic University of America

The NSF has lost more than 30% of its staff since January 2025. It had to cede its own headquarters building to another agency. New grants are being issued at a trickle. The damage is real, even when the worst budget cuts are blocked.

Would you trust a science agency with no board, no permanent director, and a nominee for director who has no science background? Because that is exactly where the NSF stands today. Jim O'Neill, Trump's nominee to lead the agency, is an investor and longevity enthusiast who has not been confirmed by the Senate.

Science Does Not Run on Four Year Cycles

Willie May said something that stuck with me: "Science does not operate on four-year cycles." The NSB's staggered six-year terms were designed precisely to insulate research priorities from political whiplash. That structure is now gone.

The good news is that Congress understands this, at least enough to act. The bad news is that the White House has found ways to slow-walk funding even after Congress appropriates it, with OMB directing agencies to spend at lower rates than Congress intended. Winning the budget fight is not the same as winning the war.

I believe the scientists who stayed, the lawmakers who pushed back, and the institutions that held the line deserve recognition. This is not a complete victory. But it is proof that the fight is worth having. The question now is whether Congress will keep showing up when the next round of cuts lands in October.