Washington, June 5: Democratic lawmakers have criticized the Trump administration’s decision to remove all 22 members of the National Science Board (NSB), warning that the move could weaken America’s scientific leadership and strengthen China’s position in the global race for technological and research dominance.
Leading the criticism are Indian-American Congressman Ro Khanna and Representative Haley Stevens, who have formally sought explanations from the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the White House Office of Presidential Personnel regarding the mass dismissal of the board’s members.
The lawmakers described the decision as a serious setback for scientific governance in the United States, arguing that it undermines independent expertise and weakens oversight at a critical time when global competition in science and technology is intensifying.
In a letter addressed to federal authorities, Khanna and Stevens expressed what they termed “grave concern” over the dismissals, contending that the action could have far-reaching consequences for America’s ability to maintain its leadership in research and innovation.
The controversy has gained attention because the National Science Board serves as an independent advisory body to the NSF and plays a central role in shaping US science, engineering and technology priorities. Established by Congress, the board also provides guidance to policymakers and government agencies on key scientific issues.
According to the lawmakers, the dismissals occurred shortly after the board released findings highlighting growing competition between the United States and China in scientific research and development.
Particularly significant was the board’s 2026 State of U.S. Science and Engineering Report, which concluded that China had surpassed the United States in research and development expenditure for the first time. The report underscored China’s growing investment in innovation, advanced technologies and scientific infrastructure.
The lawmakers said the board had also prepared a policy brief outlining the implications of these findings and recommending steps to strengthen America’s scientific competitiveness.
However, following the dismissal of all board members, the NSB has reportedly been unable to brief lawmakers on its findings or provide recommendations on policies aimed at preserving US leadership in science and technology.
Khanna and Stevens argued that the timing of the decision raises concerns, particularly as Washington and Beijing continue to compete in critical sectors such as artificial intelligence, semiconductor manufacturing, biotechnology, quantum computing and advanced research.
The lawmakers further alleged that the dismissals reflect a broader pattern of weakening independent institutions and scientific advisory bodies.
They cited criticism from former board members and academic leaders who have questioned the rationale behind the move. Among them was former National Science Board member Dr. Keivan Stassun, who reportedly characterized the action as part of a wider effort to diminish the influence of scientific institutions.
In their letter, the lawmakers requested detailed information about the circumstances surrounding the dismissals, including who ordered the action and the reasons behind it.
They have also sought clarification on how the National Science Foundation plans to address concerns raised in the board’s report regarding the widening research and development gap between the United States and China.
Additionally, they have requested the release of the board’s policy brief on scientific competition and demanded assurances that the NSF will continue to perform its key functions without disruption.
The lawmakers have set June 15 as the deadline for a formal response from the administration.
The dispute comes at a time when science and technology are increasingly viewed as central to economic growth, national security and geopolitical influence. Analysts have frequently pointed to sustained Chinese investment in research and innovation as a major factor reshaping global technological competition.
With questions now being raised about the future of independent scientific oversight in the United States, the debate is expected to intensify in the coming weeks as lawmakers seek greater transparency over the administration’s decision.
