Whether it’s car trouble or a medical diagnosis, people facing a big decision often like to get a second (or even a third) opinion. Getting input from multiple perspectives can be incredibly useful. For the major decisions being made by the federal government, federal advisory committees (FACs) serve a similar purpose. Consisting of experts in their respective fields from academia, local governments, non-profits, and industry, they provide guidance to policymakers on a range of high-stake issues that impact people every day–including their access to clean air and water.
Advisory committees, groups, and boards bring the public into the work of the government to provide advice in a deeply engaged way. It is a vital form of public participation and engagement. More than simply providing a public comment on one decision, advisory committees ideally meet frequently, have the opportunity to learn about the work of the government on their subject matter of interest, and have direct access to the people in the government who work on these topics. It is a great opportunity to be civically engaged and learn more deeply what government does. Since these bodies can be influential, presidential administrations have an interest in the type, composition, and meeting frequency of advisory committees, and sometimes carry out changes. But what we’ve seen in the early days of the Trump administration is more sweeping than usual: dismissing independent scientists, pausing FAC meetings indefinitely, and eliminating some FACs entirely. It’s important to learn more about these critical but under-discussed governmental bodies.
A staple of science in the federal government
FACs were originally designed to encourage decisionmakers and policymakers to include guidance from independent scientists and experts. FACs are made up of members exclusively outside of the federal government, and many are tasked with providing guidance to the federal government on specific policy issues based on the best available science and evidence. For example, the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council (NEJAC) is a FAC that provides independent advice to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It was created to provide advice to the EPA on how to integrate environmental justice principles into its policies, encourage involvement from overburdened communities in its decision-making, and facilitate communication between environmental justice experts and the EPA Administrator. Most recently, NEJAC made recommendations to the EPA to expand and improve its cumulative impacts framework, which seeks to address the disproportionate impact of multiple sources of pollution on communities of color and low-income communities.
Although FACs have unofficially played a role in the federal government since George Washington’s presidency, their management and oversight were not regulated until the establishment of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) in 1972. FACA lays out several requirements for how FACs are created and maintained, including the establishment of a committee charter and guidelines for a balanced membership to allow for a wide range of specializations and affiliations on the FAC.
For example, the charter for the National Vaccine Advisory Committee (NVAC), which provides recommendations to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) on how to increase the availability, safety, and efficacy of vaccines, requires that members have expertise in vaccine research and effects. If a FAC is not congressionally mandated by FACA, they go through administrative review, or an evaluation of their activities and responsibilities, every two years. FACs can exist outside of the confines of FACA and are not only limited to federal agencies such as the EPA; they’re also housed in the executive branch and in Congress.
Each FAC’s charter specifies the types of expertise that must be held by their members, as well as the affiliation of their work, including state or local governments, academia, or non-profit organizations. Many, if not all, FACs require their members to be experts in those issues, such as public health, the environment, or education, to ensure they’re equipped to understand the problem and provide evidence-based guidance to inform solutions. Some FACs provide independent scientific and technical advice to agencies; UCS completed an analysis of these “scientific advisory boards” here. They help ensure decisions that necessitate the use of science are free from political interference, corruption, and unintentional errors. In other words, they help ensure a role for the best available science, rather than allowing favored corporate interests or political actors to call the shots in policy decisions. That’s how it’s supposed to work, at least—FACs provide a reality check to create effective policies.
Attacking science: how FACs have been impacted since inauguration
Since Inauguration Day last month, James Payne, the Acting Administrator of the EPA, dismissed all members of the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) and Science Advisory Board (SAB) late last week. Both committees provide recommendations to the EPA Administrator. In the case of CASAC, they advise EPA on the scientific evidence underpinning new and updated air pollution regulations. SAB, on the other hand, facilitates review of scientific evidence across environmental programs in the EPA. Notably, SAB reviews the science supporting limiting and reducing hazardous chemicals under the Toxic Substances Control Act. This administration is not the only one to “reset” FACs, or replace all of their members. In 2021, then-EPA Administrator Regan “reset” both committees to include more independent scientists after they were sidelined under the first Trump administration. What’s different about Payne’s dismissal of CASAC and SAB members lies in the broader context of the Trump administration, past and present.
In the first Trump administration, there were many instances of corporate and political interests interfering in FACs. Independent scientists were replaced with industry representatives, and standards to guide decisions on ambient air pollution standards were made to be less objective. To counter this, researchers and advocates at UCS hosted an independent panel of environmental and public health experts a year after then-EPA Administrator Wheeler disbanded CASAC.
In the time since Trump’s second inauguration, FACs have been impacted in several other ways. Within days of being back in the White House, President Trump reinstated Executive Order 13875, which requires at least one-third of federal advisory committees across the government to be dissolved. The Trump administration also placed a number of restrictions on HHS and the agencies it oversees, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH) within its first week, forcing FAC meetings across a range of topics to pause indefinitely. These actions alone threaten science because the absence of FACs, or their inability to meet, will sideline the use of science in policy decisions where it should be heavily consulted.
The composition of other FACs have been impacted by the White House in the last few weeks as well. All members of the Federal School Safety Clearinghouse External Advisory Board (FSS EAB), which provides guidance on how to increase safety in K-12 schools, were dismissed. The White House also dismissed all members of the Aviation Security Advisory Committee (ASAC), which provides aviation safety recommendations to the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). The White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council (WHEJAC) was eliminated entirely when President Trump rescinded Executive Order 14008 on the first day of his presidency. As a council of experts in environmental justice, climate change, disaster preparedness, or racial inequity, WHEJAC gave recommendations around the geography and characteristics of areas requiring more environmental justice work and advised White House task forces directly.
DEI executive orders: how will they impact FACs?
In the flurry of executive orders that President Trump signed and rescinded since being back in the White House, many focused on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in the federal government. One executive order attempts to broadly ban consideration of DEI in any federal programs, activities, mandates, and policies, including any positions and programs that recognize environmental justice concerns. This order stands in stark contrast to the presence of DEI in FAC charters. For instance, CASAC’s charter emphasizes the EPA’s value on diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) when it comes to its membership composition. Eliminating the ability of CASAC to acknowledge and prioritize DEIA can potentially limit the perspectives of its members and their ability to evaluate impacts of air pollutants on overburdened communities. These perspectives may be critical to ensuring that public health regulations are based on real-world conditions in affected communities and designed in a way that reduces disparities. You can’t effectively solve problems if you willfully refuse to consider who is impacted by them.
Will history repeat itself?
Researchers at UCS analyzed how FACs were impacted during the first Trump administration. Compared to previous years, FACs met less often, their membership numbers decreased, and the number of independent scientists was lower than they had been since 1997. These changes threatened the role of science in the federal government then, and we’ll be monitoring whether we see similar shifts in membership and meetings during this administration as well.
We’ll also be continuing to monitor the membership calls for CASAC and SAB, and to what extent their resets will allow corporate interests to trump independent science.