According to science.org, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) is undergoing a major restructuring after the federal government pulled support from over 50 projects earlier this year. NAS President Marcia McNutt is shrinking permanent staff from 1,200 to 1,000, eliminating volunteer panels, and consolidating five discipline-based divisions into two broader centers. The hardest-hit areas were health, environment, and social sciences, while topics favored by the Trump administration like nuclear power and national security retained funding. Some 120 program staff were laid off, with more cuts possible if additional federal funding reductions take effect. The reorganization was announced in June and will create the Center for Health, People, and Places and the Center for Advancing Science and Technology.
The risks of getting smaller
Here’s the thing: when you cut 200 staff positions and eliminate expert panels, you’re not just trimming fat—you’re potentially cutting into institutional memory and specialized knowledge. Scientists on these panels are genuinely worried that a shrunken staff and smaller expert network will undermine NASEM’s authority. And they’ve got a point. How do you maintain the same quality of analysis on everything from nutrition to nuclear nonproliferation with fewer resources?
The anonymous complaints from laid-off staff are particularly troubling. One veteran said their projects remained funded—they just weren’t leading them anymore. Neither their supervisor nor their supervisor’s supervisor knew about the decision until informed. That suggests this restructuring might be happening with less transparency than ideal for an organization that prides itself on rigorous process.
McNutt’s efficiency argument
Marcia McNutt sees this as an opportunity rather than a crisis. She’s “really happy” about eliminating “disciplinary silos” and believes the new structure will make it easier to tackle real-world problems. The thinking goes that broader topical centers can be more nimble and interdisciplinary than traditional discipline-based divisions.
But is nimbleness what we really want from the National Academies? Their value has traditionally come from deep, specialized expertise and careful, methodical analysis. When you’re setting national priorities or evaluating complex scientific questions, maybe you don’t want an organization that can “easily move around to different areas” depending on funding availability. That sounds suspiciously like chasing dollars rather than pursuing the most important scientific questions.
The political elephant in the room
Let’s be honest—this isn’t just about efficiency. The funding cuts disproportionately affected health, environment, and social sciences—exactly the areas that don’t align with the current administration’s priorities. Meanwhile, defense-related work and topics like nuclear power are expanding. The National Academies have always had to navigate political currents, but this feels different.
The creation of a new Department of Defense-funded committee to identify emerging military technologies while environmental and health panels get “sunset” tells you everything about where the political winds are blowing. And when you consider that congressional language has accused NASEM of bias while threatening deeper cuts to indirect costs, it’s hard not to see this restructuring as partly defensive.
What happens next?
McNutt calls this reorganization a “first draft” that will evolve over the coming months, which is reassuring in its flexibility but concerning in its apparent lack of a clear endgame. The bigger question is what happens when she steps down in 2026. Her successor, Neil Shubin, may inherit a fundamentally different institution than the one McNutt took over.
Private philanthropy is helping fill some gaps—the Gates Foundation funding a math education board, a $20 million unrestricted gift from the Needleman family—but can philanthropy replace steady federal funding for core operations? Probably not. The National Academies are facing their most significant transformation in decades, and whether they emerge stronger or diminished remains very much an open question.
