Since President Trump took office last year, nearly 95,000 science employees and over 10,000 PhD scientists have been laid off or left their jobs.
As a former federal scientist and White House Office of Science and Technology Policy official, these losses are deeply personal to me. I’ve seen firsthand how science, data, and evidence help policymakers make informed decisions that improve people’s lives, which is why the erosion of the federal scientific workforce, agencies, and norms are so concerning as we grapple with extreme heat waves and danger season due to climate change, the fastest-growing Ebola outbreak ever recorded, nationwide cyclosporiasis infections from unsafe food and water, and an AI data center boom that is roiling communities across the country, among other things.
And beyond this loss of technical expertise of career federal employees, a less well-known path for science-informed government decision-making has also been in the crosshairs of the Trump administration: federal science advice from experts outside of government, who volunteer their time and expertise to inform government decisions through federal advisory committees.
More than 750 Federal Advisory Committees (FACs) currently exist across 51 U.S. government agencies, with 484 of these FACs specifically housed within 9 federal agencies with science-related missions—including the Department of Energy, National Science Foundation, and Department of Health and Human Services.
FACs were created to provide independent, unbiased, and up-to-date technical expertise to inform policy decisions across agencies and issue areas. Historically, they’ve been comprised of the nation’s best independent experts and scientists from academia, state and local government, industry, and nonprofits. Not every government scientist is an expert in every area that they’re expected to inform policies for, so bringing in outside expertise is crucial to their process.
Expert input is essential for science-based responses to complex challenges with global impacts: from the outbreaks of deadly diseases and flood or wildfire disasters to air pollution standards and appropriate pesticide use. And, as we’ve previously written, FACs also bring the public into the work of government, representing a vital form of public participation and civic engagement in a government of, by, and for the people.
Since 2018, we’ve been tracking how the Trump administration has sidelined science advisory committees and outside scientific expertise in federal policymaking. To hold the administration accountable, we documented stalled and disbanded scientific advisory committees, cancelled meetings, and dismissed experts. Expert input was important then, but it’s arguably even more crucial now with the mass firings of federal scientists and decimation of in-house expertise by DOGE.
Now, in President Trump’s second administration, the federal science advice infrastructure has been disrupted, which is especially damaging in a corrupted misinformation-rich environment. After a flurry of executive orders, including one dissolving at least one-third of FACs across the government, it was clear that the administration was intent on disrupting federal science advice. In its first six months, the Trump administration terminated or disbanded 27 percent of active science FACs.
One year later, we have a much better picture of the rubble.
As of this writing, the FACA database—a government-run database that hosts information on past and current FACs—has not updated its data for terminated committees beyond 2024. So, we crunched these numbers.
The consequences of even a single disruption to these FACs can be far-reaching. For example:
At UCS, we are building an alliance for independent science, a pillar of our Science Rising initiative, in response to Trump’s attacks on science and authoritarian efforts to remove facts, data, and evidence from policymaking.
To counter the Trump administration’s erosion of independent science and build the nation’s capacity to use science for the public good, scientists from several committees that were disbanded or terminated have independently convened to offer policy recommendations on important issues, a powerful and courageous response. Their doing so preserves a vital channel for scientific advice.
In collaboration with the Environmental Protection Network, we are providing strategic guidance, training, and coordination for independent scientists to provide their expertise and recommendations for evidence-based policies, starting with:  
It’s encouraging and energizing to see such a broad and clear response from the scientific community in defense of independent science. At a time when fear and reluctance to criticize the administration persist from pockets of the scientific community, this kind of solidarity and commitment to independent science are desperately needed for the public good. Current and former science advisors should speak out when they perceive that federal agencies and others in the government are sidelining important scientific work and findings.
We must draw on our expertise, our networks, and our collective resources to adapt our strategies and focus our efforts where they can have the greatest impact. Doing so will require rebuilding the infrastructure, institutions, and communities from outside government to preserve what’s being dismantled within it.
To find out whether there is an FAC in your field of research or interest that has been dismantled, use our guide to the FACA database. To continue the work of dismantled federal FACs, you can use our toolkit for running an independent science advisory committee.
And to help make issues of science and democracy more visible for members of Congress and advocate for hearings on the status of science advisory committees, and ensuring they are carrying out the Federal Advisory Committee Act appropriately, I invite you to join our Science Rising Action Corps.
Action is the antidote to despair, and these are important steps toward reimagining and building a better, stronger federal scientific enterprise.
Posted in: Science and Democracy
Tags: CASAC, EPA, federal advisory committee, federal brain drain, federal science, independent science, independent scientists, scientific advisory committees, Second Trump Administration
About the author
Gretchen Goldman is president and CEO of the Union of Concerned Scientists. She is an environmental engineer with deep expertise at the nexus of science and policy.
Kei Koizumi
Senior Advisor
Kristie Ellickson
Senior Scientist
Liza Gordon-Rogers
Research Associate
Get email updates
For text alerts, text “SCIENCE” to 67369 or sign up online.
Receive urgent alerts about opportunities to defend science. Recurring messages. Reply STOP to cancel. Msg & data rates may apply. Terms, Conditions, and Privacy Policy.
© Union of Concerned Scientists We are a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. 2 Brattle Square, Cambridge MA 02138, USA (617) 301-8000
We use cookies to improve your experience. By continuing, you accept our use of cookies. Learn more.