The National Science Board was scheduled to meet at NSF headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia, on May 5 and 6. The meeting did not happen. It was the second cancellation of an NSB meeting in five weeks — the April 16 election meeting was canceled before the firings; the May 5-6 meeting was canceled because there is nobody left to attend. [2] Inside Higher Ed reported on May 4 that 13 former NSF directors and former NSB chairs — service spanning Republican and Democratic administrations, with one director's tenure stretching back to 1976 — had written to the Senate and the White House demanding restored leadership. [1] The Trump administration has been silent on whether it will name new board members before Congress amends the founding statute.

The paper's Tuesday account — Senate Approps' rescue funding against the Day-11 disbandment — established the mechanical reactor still moving. Monday's piece on the JCVI's 96-hour Anders/Dale succession made the British vaccine committee's instant continuity the contrast that exposed the U.S. vacuum. Today the contrast hardens: a board meeting that should have happened did not. The artifact is what is missing.

The structural reading is the one the 13 former leaders pushed in their letter. "We write with a single purpose: to underscore the urgency of restoring full leadership and governance at the National Science Foundation during a period of intense international competition," they wrote. They warned of "scientific surprise" — the national-security risk that comes from a competitor reaching a research milestone first because your own portfolio has lost its strategic compass. "NSF's portfolio, spanning every field of inquiry and selected on merit alone, is the nation's primary hedge against the risk of scientific surprise. NSF needs both its Director and its Board to meet its mission." [1]

The signatories' service records run a quarter-century deep on each side of the aisle. France Cordova, NSF director under both the Obama and Trump administrations. Diane Souvaine, former NSB chair appointed in the first Trump term. Dan Reed, NSB chair appointed by Trump. Walter Massey, who was nominated to lead NSF in 1990 by George H.W. Bush. The letter is bipartisan in a literal sense — half its signatories are Republican appointees writing to a Republican president to ask him to fill the seats he just emptied. Their argument is not partisan. It is institutional. NSF lacks a director, a deputy director, and a board for the first time in the agency's 76-year history.

The White House's stated reason for the April 24 firings — that the 2021 Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v. Arthrex raised "constitutional questions about whether non-Senate confirmed appointees can exercise the authorities that Congress gave the National Science Board" — has not held up to scrutiny. Duke University law professor Jeff Powell, an expert on the appointments clause, told NPR there is "a puzzling disconnect between firing the Board members and the [White House] statement." If Arthrex applies, Powell said, "eliminating the [NSB] members leaves it unaddressed." Julia Phillips, a fired NSB member, told AIP FYI the board had been aware of Arthrex and had taken steps to ensure its activities did not cross the ruling — emphasizing that its positions were recommendations to NSF, not approvals or orders. [3] The administration's legal rationale, in other words, does not survive contact with the people whose firings it is meant to justify.

What the administration has not said is whether it will appoint new members under the existing statute or wait for Congress to rewrite it. "We look forward to working with the Hill to update the statute and ensure the NSB can perform its duties as Congress intended," a White House spokesperson told NPR, AIP, and C&EN in identically worded emails. [3] The administration has not responded to follow-up questions from Inside Higher Ed about whether new appointments would precede a statutory change. [1] Nominee Jim O'Neill, the biotech investor Trump named in February to be the next NSF director, has not been advanced through committee. The Senate has not held a hearing.

The National Academy of Education's April 28 board statement called the dismissals an interruption of "deliberate nonpartisan design" — the staggered six-year terms designed to preserve "institutional memory and ensure continuity across changes in political leadership." The American Society for Microbiology said the move "will only continue the destabilization of American fundamental research." The Association of American Universities called for congressional oversight. [4] None of these organizations has filed suit. Because NSB was created by statute, only Congress can dissolve it. But the entity that has standing to sue — the firing of executive-branch advisors with no protected tenure — is not obviously the National Academies, the AAU, or the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities. It is the fired board members themselves. None has sued. Roger Beachy, fired after being twice appointed by Republican presidents, told Nature he was concerned the board had been cleared "to make way for O'Neill's hand-picked members."

The functional consequence: the board's pending report, which fired members told Nature was nearly finalized, was a State of U.S. Science and Engineering 2026 assessment of how the U.S. is "ceding ground to China" on basic research. Days before that report was set to publish, the board responsible for publishing it was dismissed. Boing Boing's Jason Weisberger noted the timing in a one-line summary: "The report may be delayed. The message about who controls the science agenda wasn't." Senate Approps last week appropriated $9 billion for NSF for the coming fiscal year, the same level Congress maintained in 2026 against an administration request to cut the agency by more than half. The funding is there. The governance is not.

What the next 72 hours produce — any board appointments, any statutory introduction in the House Science Committee, any litigation — will be observed. Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), House Science ranking member, has called the firings a "real bozo the clown move" and questioned whether Arthrex even applies to the NSB. [3] House Science chairman Brian Babin (R-TX) told NPR he looked forward "to seeing whom President Trump selects." The committee has not scheduled a hearing.

The 13 former leaders' closing line, omitted from most coverage, deserves quotation. "The NSF Director ensures the agency executes effectively and serves the country. The National Science Board, composed of distinguished scientists, engineers, and public servants drawn from every field and every corner of the nation, provides the vision, strategic oversight, national perspective, and connection to the research frontier. Together, they make NSF greater than the sum of its parts." [1] What the letter does not say, but what its signatories' service records demonstrate, is that the architecture they describe has worked across 12 administrations. It is not currently working. The chairs at the Wednesday meeting that did not happen are the artifact. They are also the question.

-- SAMUEL CRANE, Washington