Trump fires National Science Foundation board, including 2 Catholic scientists
President Trump dissolved the National Science Board, ending the terms of all 22 members. The decision was justified by citing constitutional concerns from the 2021 Supreme Court case U.S. v. Arthrex. Two Catholic University of America officials—Vice Provost Victor McCrary (chair) and Executive Vice President Aaron Dominguez (vice chair)—were among those terminated. The White House indicated plans to work with Congress to revise the statute governing the board’s authority.
about 13 hours ago
The Trump administration terminated all 22 members of the National Science Board (NSB) on April 24, 2026, citing constitutional concerns raised by the 2021 Supreme Court decision in U.S. v. Arthrex. Among those removed were Aaron Domínguez, executive vice president and provost of the Catholic University of America (CUA), who served as NSB vice‑chair, and Victor McCrary, CUA vice‑provost and NSB chair 1.
The White House sent an email to each board member stating that their positions were terminated effective immediately. The NSB’s duties—including advising the president and Congress on science policy, approving NSF funding, and publishing major reports—will continue under the NSF, which the administration says will operate “uninterrupted” 1.
A White House official referenced the Supreme Court’s reasoning in U.S. v. Arthrex (2021), which questioned whether non‑Senate‑confirmed appointees may exercise powers that Congress assigned to the NSB. The administration plans to work with Congress to amend the statute so that a principal officer appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate can review or overrule board decisions 1.
Both officials did not respond to requests for comment, and the Catholic University of America declined to comment on the firings 1.
The board oversees the National Science Foundation, advises on science and engineering policy, approves billions of dollars in research grants, and produces influential publications such as Science and Engineering Indicators, Vision 2030, and reports on the skilled technical workforce 1.
While the board’s advisory and policy‑setting functions are halted, the NSF’s operational activities and grant programs are expected to continue without interruption, according to the administration 1.
Evaluate Catholic Church’s stance on scientific governance and constitutional authority
The Catholic Church does not oppose scientific knowledge or evidence-based policy. What it evaluates—and resists—is scientism/technocratic absolutism: the idea that public authority should be governed as if only empirical science (or only “technical solutions”) can determine what is true and what is just. In Catholic teaching, scientific methods have a real autonomy, but civil authority remains morally accountable to the dignity of the human person, the natural moral law, and a constitution that limits state power.
Catholic teaching explicitly rejects the view that science can function as the only legitimate way of knowing. In Evangelii Gaudium, the Church contrasts “positivism and scientism,” which “refuse to admit the validity of forms of knowledge other than those of the positive sciences,” with a different path: a synthesis that respects the proper methods of empirical sciences while also drawing on philosophy, theology, and faith—because faith “cannot contradict” reason.
The Catechism grounds this compatibility at the level of truth itself: “Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason,” because “the same God… has bestowed the light of reason,” so “truth never contradicts truth.” It further states that research carried out genuinely and without “override moral laws” “can never conflict with the faith.”
Pope Benedict XVI develops the practical implication: faith “does not come into conflict with science but, rather, cooperates with it,” offering “basic criteria” oriented to “the good of all” and asking science to relinquish only those endeavours that would produce harm “to the human being.”
Evaluation: On this account, a “scientific governance” model is acceptable insofar as it means using scientific knowledge to pursue human good—but it becomes unacceptable when it claims science can adjudicate moral questions by itself, or when it treats empirical success as sufficient proof of ethical rightness.
A key Catholic principle is the legitimate autonomy of the sciences: their proper method and domain. Gaudium et Spes affirms that the Council “affirms the legitimate autonomy of human culture and especially of the sciences,” while clarifying that this autonomy operates “within the limits of morality and the common utility.” It also adds that, regarding public authority, “it is not its function to determine the character of the civilization, but rather to establish the conditions and to use the means which are capable of fostering the life of culture among all….”
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith describes this as a Magisterial position: the Church “recognize[s] the autonomy of the sciences and of technology,” but insists that for them to be “of real service to the human person” they must “follow the fundamental criteria of morality.” It quotes the Catechism’s teaching that science and technology are “precious resources” when placed at the service of man, yet “by themselves… cannot disclose the meaning of existence and of human progress,” and therefore require “unconditional respect for fundamental moral criteria.”
Evaluation: This means Catholic teaching can support governance that is highly scientific in method—but it denies governance that is morally self-authorizing or governed by technical imperatives alone.
Catholic critiques become sharper when science is treated as a substitute for moral governance.
In addressing the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Pope Francis argues for “a normative system that includes inviolable limits” so that new power derived from a techno-economic model does not cause irreversible harm to ecosystems, societies, democracy, justice, and freedom.
He also criticizes the “submission of politics to a technology and an economy which seek profit above all else,” describing delay and disregard for environmental agreements and warning that harm follows when decision-making is captured by profit-driven techno-power rather than the common good.
Similarly, Francis stresses a “positive service” that he calls the “charity of knowledge,” expecting science not merely to “follow principles of ethics” but to be directed toward the common good—especially the poor—while insisting that the “scientific world… must not be considered separate and independent; indeed, it is called to serve the human family and its integral development.”
At the level of public discourse, Francis urges that inclusive policy-making should be “informed by different scientific disciplines” but also marked by “the participation of all segments of society.” The sciences “must never lose sight of the importance of using that knowledge to serve and enhance the dignity of individuals and humanity as a whole.”
Evaluation: The Church’s stance is not “anti-science”; it is anti-technocracy understood as:
Catholic teaching affirms public authority but also insists on limits.
The Catechism states that “The political community and public authority are based on human nature and therefore… belong to an order established by God” (quoting Gaudium et Spes).
At the same time, the Catechism of the Ukrainian Catholic Church emphasizes that “the limits of state authority are delineated by its earthly and temporal character,” that state authority acts within its functions, and that “the limits of state authority are defined by a constitution.” It further states the state “cannot fulfill its functions if it violates the dignity of the individual and the moral principles of society.”
Catholic social teaching also describes the purpose of political authority: attaining the common good. In the material you provided, the cited text says responsibility for attaining the common good belongs “also to the State,” because the common good is the reason political authority exists; institutions make available goods (material, cultural, moral, spiritual) so persons can live a truly human life.
Evaluation: For the Church, constitutional authority is not merely procedural. A constitution is the legal form that expresses the rightful limits of political power, preventing the state from becoming absolute.
Where many “scientific governance” models become contentious is in moral or bioethical policy—cases where scientific capability is strong, but moral obligations are disputed.
The sources you provided stress that the state must respect freedom of conscience in relation to natural moral law and the common good. The quoted teaching says the State is obliged “not only to recognize” but also “to foster” freedom of conscience with respect to the dignity of each human person, while clarifying that freedom of conscience does not entail a right to “indiscriminate recourse to conscientious objection” when it would limit others’ rights.
It also cites the principle that “representatives of the State have no power to bind men in conscience, unless their own authority is tied to God’s authority, and is a participation in it.”
Evaluation: Catholic teaching implies that constitutional authority is real, but it is not ultimately sovereign over conscience. When the state compels acts that are intrinsically unjust, constitutional power cannot claim ethical legitimacy simply because the policy is technically enforceable or administratively rational.
Finally, the Church’s stance on governance includes a political-theological warning: if all “justification of morality” is monopolized by the state—whether by ideology or by technocratic rationalism—freedom of conscience is threatened.
The provided source discusses an argument (via Ratzinger and John Paul II) that totalitarianism develops when the duality of co-existing authorities disappears—specifically when the Church is removed as a public authority, so that the state becomes the sole “party” claiming moral justification, becoming “total itself,” imperilling freedom of conscience for individuals and for the Church.
Centesimus Annus is invoked in the quoted material to describe how “the totalitarian State tends to absorb within itself the nation, society, the family, religious groups and individuals themselves,” and it frames defense of the Church’s freedom as defense of the human person who must obey God rather than men.
Evaluation: This reinforces the constitutional theme: the Catholic Church favors a plural social order where public authority is limited, conscience is respected, and moral truth is not reduced to what the state can impose—whether the state uses ideological language or “scientific” language.
From these sources, a Catholic evaluation can be summarized as follows:
Catholic teaching therefore supports a form of governance that is evidence-informed and scientifically competent, while refusing any model that makes science (or technology) the final moral authority. The Church places constitutional limits on state power, insists that public authority is accountable to the dignity of persons and moral principles, and warns that technocracy can slide into a modern form of totalitarianism when it monopolizes moral justification and overrides conscience.