By AAU Staff
A recent analysis by Nature magazine “shows that the Trump administration has terminated more than 100 advisory committees to science agencies — and reduced the transparency and independence of those that remain.” The reporting underscores why Americans should be concerned not only about the recent dismissal of all 22 members of the National Science Board (NSB), but more broadly about the amount, quality, and transparency of the advice that federal science agencies are receiving from experts outside the government.
The Nature analysis dove into significant changes in the numbers of, the meeting frequency of, the composition of, and the openness to the public of committees and panels constituted under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). These changes under the second Trump administration, Nature found, are significant departures from historical practice.
While the NSB is a statutory board and not itself a FACA body, it serves a parallel role in the federal advisory system by providing independent, expert judgment from outside the government itself. The Nature analysis therefore raises concerns not only about the dismantling of formal FACA committees, but the broader erosion of scientific independence and transparency reflected in the wholesale dismissal of the members of the NSB. Together, these actions suggest a concerning shift by this administration that risks weakening the long‑standing protections independent boards like the NSB were created to provide -- helping insulate scientific agencies (such as the National Science Foundation, which the NSB advises) from being unduly influenced by shifting political tides.
What is a FACA Advisory Committee?
Many federal advisory committees are subject to the 1972 statute, which sets the rules for how such panels are established and chartered, operated and managed, and terminated when no longer needed. FACA requires committees to hold open meetings (with limited exceptions) and provide public notice and access to records. Most importantly, FACA requires that committees have a balanced membership in terms of “the points of view represented and the functions to be performed by the advisory committee.” A database of all the FACA committees is here.
What Do These Federal Advisory Committees Do?
Federal advisory committees covered by FACA are legally regulated groups of external subject-matter experts who provide transparent, non-binding advice to the United States government. Members typically include scientists, industry representatives, academics, and public stakeholders who offer perspectives that the government may not receive from its own internal experts. Historically, these committees have helped guide policy on issues related to important national priorities regarding public health, national security, economic growth, energy and environmental policy, and U.S. science and technology goals.
Why Are These Federal Panels important, and What Are the Risks of Disbanding Them?
FACA committees are key mechanisms for bringing independent scientific and technical expertise into policymaking while ensuring that the advice they offer is visible, balanced, and accountable to the American public. Eliminating, underutilizing, and ideologically unbalancing these committees – or hiding their work from public view – may have lasting negative effects on federal science policy, including how research priorities are set and how risks (e.g., health, environmental) are evaluated. It may also reduce public visibility into how science informs government decisions.
Nearly a year ago, the Trump administration articulated a robust science policy in its “Restoring Gold Standard Science” executive order. That policy espouses a renewed commitment to American global leadership in science as well as working to improve the transparency of, and increase public trust in, the federal scientific enterprise. But the dismissals of the National Science Board and the other actions regarding FACA panels outlined in the Nature analysis run a significant risk of undermining both of those principles.