Trump’s first-term pick to run the National Science Foundation quits: ‘I have done all I can’

NSF Director Resigns Amid Trump-Era Cuts and New Government Spending Rules

Sethuraman Panchanathan, the director of the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF), stepped down Thursday amid sweeping changes to the agency’s priorities. The $9 billion science body now faces new directives under the Trump administration and the recently formed Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

Panchanathan, who was appointed by President Donald Trump in 2020 and confirmed by the Senate, said his work at the agency had reached a natural conclusion.

“I believe I have done all I can to advance the critical mission of the agency,” he said in a statement shared with CNN. “I feel that it is time for me to pass the baton to new leadership.”

The resignation marks a turning point for the NSF, which plays a key role in supporting research across science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

Sweeping Budget Cuts

Earlier this month, the NSF announced it would cancel more than $230 million in research grants. The decision followed a January executive order from President Trump aimed at reducing federal spending. That order instructed agencies to cut or stop work on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts.

Among the canceled projects were grants titled “Racial Equity in STEM,” “Antiracist Teacher Leadership,” and “Advancing Gender Equity in Computing.” Other topics cut from funding included research on misinformation, vaccine trust, and speech-related topics.

A statement from the NSF explained the reasoning behind the grant terminations. The agency said it would no longer fund work focused on “misinformation,” “disinformation,” or “malinformation” due to First Amendment concerns.

NSF officials wrote that such research “could be used to infringe on the constitutionally protected speech rights of American citizens.”

Pushback from the Research Community

The scientific community responded quickly to the changes. The Federation of Associations in Behavioral & Brain Sciences (FABBS) issued a statement criticizing the shifts in funding policy.

“Researchers are caught in the middle of a political tug-of-war,” the statement read. “This is wasting valuable time and resources.”

FABBS also urged the agency to stick with its long-standing review processes. “NSF has a tested process for evaluating the intellectual merit and broader impact of proposed investigations,” the group stated. “We encourage NSF to honor it.”

The statement reflects growing concern that political influence is undermining research freedom. Experts say these decisions could hurt the United States’ global leadership in science and technology.

“This is a pivotal moment for our nation in terms of global competitiveness,” Panchanathan said before leaving. “NSF is an extremely important investment to make U.S. scientific dominance a reality. We must not lose our competitive edge.”

A Larger Trend

This shift in federal science funding comes at a time of increasing tension between government policy and academic research. The Trump administration’s approach marks a significant departure from past strategies that supported broad, inclusive scientific exploration.

Earlier this year, the administration also nominated an unconventional pick to lead NASA. That move sparked concern about the future of U.S. space exploration, particularly the agency’s goals around Mars missions.

The National Science Foundation, founded in 1950, funds nearly 25% of all federally supported academic research in the U.S. Outside of medical research, no other agency matches its reach or influence.

But with DOGE’s growing role and budget-cutting mandate, many expect additional changes to follow.

For now, the NSF’s future remains uncertain as it adapts to new leadership and a very different political environment.

‍