On Sticks, Karats, and Charades: The Structural Dismantling of American Science
The displacement of NSF employees from their headquarters opens a new front in the dismantling of American leadership in science.
NSF vs. HUD
On Wed. June 25, Gov. Glenn Youngkin held a morning press conference with Scott Turner, the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to announce that HUD would be moving out of its Brutalist headquarters in DC and into a modern office building located in Alexandria. In normal times this transition could be seen as one of a potential suite of reasonably acceptable choices when faced with tradeoffs, e.g., balancing the benefit of localizing employees in a modern space vs. moving federal employees out of D.C. into a nearby and Metro-accessible location.
But these are not normal times.
The press conference celebrated the ‘The New Golden Age of HUD’ and included a large poster with those words and a picture of the office building to its side. One might think that construction had just wrapped up and the building was ready for move-in. Not true.
In fact, the new HUD headquarters is already occupied. This modern Alexandria office building has served as the long-term home of the National Science Foundation since their move from Balston to Alexandra in October 2017. Early reporting by Dan Garisto revealed that
NSF management was not involved in this decision.
NSF does not have a designated new headquarters location.
There is no current plan for relocating 1,800+ NSF employees.
Even worse, this displacement of NSF employees was announced just months after an early 2025 return-to-office notice. In other words, the White House required NSF employees to return to office and then – without consulting NSF management or personnel – literally took their headquarters away from them without any plan for relocation or appropriations to support a move of this independent federal agency. The displacement has many layers of impact including one that probably won’t make its way into national news stories.
Further Dismantling NSF
The NSF accomplishes its mission primarily by giving grants as part of competitive review processes. To do so, one of the major purposes of the headquarters is to serve as a convening destination for panels. No building means no space for in-person panels, further diminishing the ability of program officers to bring experts together to critically evaluate and support NSF’s mission to enable science, advance prosperity and secure the national defense.
This news comes on the heels of a sequence of steps in which the administration
Withheld NSF Postdoctoral Fellows paychecks, adding even more uncertainty to the daily lives of early career researchers & slashed graduate training support.
Slashed negotiated levels of research infrastructure support in federal grants – a decision that has now been stopped by a federal judge.
Proposed a >50% cut in support to research for NSF in FY26.
These actions have taken place while the White House, via its Office of Science and Technology Policy under the direction of Michael Kratsios (a non-scientist and former Peter Thiel deputy), have claimed that their decision-making is informed by an intention to restore “Gold Standard Science”. No matter what the White House says, the policy decisions and the FY26 budget proposal are incompatible with making American science the best in the world.
It would seem that the “Golden Age of HUD” is of the 24K variety and the “Restoring Gold Standard Science” initiative is fool’s gold. Those following the news on ongoing attacks on experts and expertise should not be surprised – even if the callous nature of this decision stands out.
The Charade of Surprise
It turns out that some appear to be surprised, including those who occupy senior positions of leadership in America’s premier scientific institutions. In response to criticism of the White House’s “Restoring Gold Standard Science” initiative, the Editor-in-Chief of Science Magazine (the flagship journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science) H. Holden Thorp criticized the White House critics and wrote that "it is possible to support science and hold it accountable at the same time.” Unsurprisingly, Kratsios and the White House immediately highlighted this high-profile editorial to bolster their 'Gold Standard' campaign.
“Gold Standard Science” sounds good, but the many layers of review, compliance, and ethical checks already represent the norm for the vast majority of scientists, journals, funding agencies, and institutions. These checks & balances are present because of community norms, standards, and requirements that have often bubbled up from within rather than via ‘provocation’ from the federal government. Yes there are flaws, and yes there needs to be further reform, but the White House is not interested in that at all. They seek something different.
In his Editorial, Thorp went on to say “Rather than filing lawsuits and hiding behind carefully crafted statements, the scientific community should be engaging in a conversation about problems and potential solutions.”
Let me be clear in terms that should pass any type of ‘carefully crafted statement’ litmus test: Thorp is wrong and misguided. He misreads the White House intent and his words will continue to be used to further the structural dismantling of American science – both physically (as in the NSF headquarters) and intellectually (as in the recent firing of the entire CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices whose members have been replaced by self-described anti-vaxxers).
Beyond slogans, the White House has tried to impose massive cuts on research infrastructure, cancelled billions in active research grants, and proposed a FY26 budget that would slash support to NSF, NIH, and beyond. These cuts are incompatible with 'supporting science'. It is notable that the EIC of Science failed to mention these facts in his editorial and signaled publicly that the White House is negotiating in good faith. Believing this is a choice and one that ages quickly.
Sticks, Karats, and Charades
We now face a situation where threats to science involve sticks, karats, and charades.
Sticks: The White House is threatening scientists and institutions with reductions in infrastructure support, grant terminations, large-scale reduction in budgets, and removal of experts from government service. These are bona fide threats. If successful, many will lose their jobs, students won’t have laboratories to continue their training, research will grind to a halt, and careers will be short-circuited.
Karats: The White House is using sloganeering (especially ‘Gold Standard Science’ and ‘MAHA’) as a means to imply that their detractors are unwilling to back what “we” all want – the sloganeering is also meant to imply that their approach will make us better off (and rich! and strong!), even as their actual policy changes are focused on dismantling evidence-based inquiry and will lead to pseudoscience and snake oil cures.
Charades: Leaders of major science organizations – whether H. Holden Thorp of Science Magazine or Marcia McNutt of NAS – continue to engage with the White House talking points as if they were good faith arguments. By doing so, institutional leaders may be trying to appear ‘reasonable’ but in doing so risk institutional reputations in ways that further confuse the public and unintentionally collaborate in dismantling American leadership in science.
What is happening in science remains an issue that remains largely below the radar – but the impacts of decisions to uproot science and research will reverberate. There is strong bipartisan support for federally funded research. The scientific enterprise is vital and thriving in many ways – even if imperfect – and reform is not incompatible with support. But support of federally funded research is in fact incompatible with ongoing White House efforts to structurally dismantle science and scientific institutions. The decision to displace NSF employees from their headquarters and to terminate all members of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) should make the White House’s goal clear: a depleted research ecosystem unable to support American’s innovation economy.
That may not be what the administration tells us, but it doesn’t matter what the slogans say, just pay attention to what they do.
😬
As a person living with MS, invisible to others, the daily struggle is overlooked. RK is ignorant.