Trump focuses on tech CEOs for science advisory panel

 

Trump appoints industry-heavy list of science and technology advisers

President Donald J. Trump on Wednesday appointed the initial members to his President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), with a heavy focus on technology industry executives.

Among the 13 PCAST members appointed are Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang, Oracle chief technology officer Larry Ellison, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Google cofounder Sergey Brin, and Advanced Micro Devices CEO Lisa Su, one of two women named to the council. The sole member from academia is John Martinis, a physicist at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and a winner of the 2025 Nobel Prize in Physics.

Michael Kratsios, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and David Sacks, a general partner of the venture capital fund Craft Ventures and former special adviser to the president for artificial intelligence and crypto, will cochair the council.

“Thirteen of the world’s most accomplished leaders in science and technology will join us as this PCAST’s initial members. Together we will make policy recommendations to ensure that America leads—and wins—in artificial intelligence and other cutting-edge technologies,” Sacks says in a post on X. 

But the selections are eliciting criticism.

“Not a single biologist and only one university researcher on PCAST. This leaves the country unbelievably ill prepared for an age of biotechnology, a race we are already beginning to lose,” Vaughn Cooper, a professor at the University of Pittsburgh, says in a post on Bluesky.

“What they lack in scientific credentials, they make up for in conflicts of interest. Nearly every one of these people—among them some of the world’s richest—has a direct financial stake in the policies that PCAST is supposed to advise the federal government on,” Jennifer Jones, director for the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, tells C&EN in an emailed statement.

PCAST can have up to 24 members, and the White House will name more soon as well as release details about the council’s first meeting, it says in its March 25 announcement.

—Larry Pearl

White House delays nomination of a permanent CDC director

The White House did not name a candidate this week to lead the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), despite earlier expectations that it would do so before Thursday, when a statutory deadline preventing acting director Jay Bhattacharya from remaining in the role kicked in.

Dr. Bhattacharya, who also directs the US National Institutes of Health, will nevertheless “continue to oversee the CDC by performing the delegable duties of the CDC director,” according to a statement from the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) press secretary Emily Hilliard.

The CDC has been without a permanent director since August, when Susan Monarez, who had been confirmed by the Senate to the role less than a month earlier, was ousted by HHS secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. after refusing to preapprove vaccine recommendations.

According to reporting from the Washington Post, the Donald J. Trump administration is considering three people for the role: physician and former Kentucky governor Ernie Fletcher, Mississippi state health officer Daniel Edney, and Johns Hopkins University cardiologist Joseph Marine.

In response to a request for comment, White House spokesperson Kush Desai did not address questions about the rationale for the delay or share specifics on the qualities Trump is seeking in the next CDC director but said that “restoring competence and confidence in CDC decision-making remains a top priority for the White House after the [Joe] Biden administration’s COVID excesses.” The White House, he added, will nominate a permanent CDC director “in short order.”

—Yaakov Zinberg, special to C&EN

States and cities sue the EPA over move to rescind endangerment finding

A group of 24 states, 13 cities and counties, and the US Virgin Islands filed a lawsuit March 19 against the US Environmental Protection Agency and agency head Lee Zeldin (PDF) over the agency’s final rule to overturn the 2009 climate endangerment finding. This is the latest in a series of legal actions concerning the finding, the scientific justification for regulating greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.

The states bringing the lawsuit include the Democratic strongholds of Massachusetts, California, New York, and Illinois. The plaintiffs also include the governor of Pennsylvania, the District of Columbia, and the cities of Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, and Columbus and Cleveland, Ohio.

“We will not stand idly by while the federal government abdicates its responsibility to protect the public and follow the law,” California attorney general Rob Bonta says in a statement.

The March 19 lawsuit follows a motion filed by the attorneys general of Kentucky, West Virginia, Ohio, and 22 other states on March 6 to intervene on the EPA’s side in litigation challenging the agency’s actions.

This motion puts the cities of Columbus and Cleveland on the side of litigation opposite to that of Ohio attorney general Dave Yost.

In addition to the group of attorneys general, numerous oil, coal, trucking, agricultural, and business groups have asked to join the lawsuit in support of the EPA.

The March 19 lawsuit was consolidated a day later with prior cases filed in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit against the EPA over its endangerment finding recission. These lawsuits were brought earlier this year by multiple groups, including environmental and health advocacy groups, a youth group, the Zero Emission Transportation Association, and the Metropolitan Congregations United for St. Louis and the Missouri Coalition for the Environment.

Legal experts anticipate that the case will end up in the US Supreme Court.

—Leigh Krietsch Boerner

EPA proposes new industry compliance dates for two chlorinated-solvent rules

The US Environmental Protection Agency released a proposal on March 24 (PDF) that would extend some compliance dates for final risk-management rules on perchloroethylene (PCE) and carbon tetrachloride (CTC) under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

The EPA says that it’s not reviewing its previous findings that the chemicals present an unreasonable risk to human health and that it’s not changing any worker protections already in place. Instead, it’s proposing to extend some compliance deadlines for workplace protections for nonfederal entities so that they line up with federal agency and contractor compliance dates. The EPA is proposing to push back compliance dates between 6 and 18 months, depending on the protection measure in question.

“The agency works to revise these rules to ensure they are practical and implementable to protect human health and the environment and maintain uses that power the US economy,” the EPA says.

Often called perc, PCE is used mainly as a dry-cleaning solvent. The compound causes liver, kidney, brain, and testicular cancer and has adverse effects on the immune and reproductive systems and the brain, liver, and kidneys, according to the EPA’s risk assessment.

CTC is used as a raw material to make refrigerants, aerosol propellants, foam-blowing agents, vinyl chloride, and other products. It can cause liver cancer as well as brain and adrenal gland tumors, according to the EPA, and it was banned in consumer products by the US Consumer Product Safety Commission in 1970.

The Joe Biden–era EPA finalized risk-management rules for PCE and CTC in December 2024.

The final rule for PCE phases out all consumer uses and most industrial uses in 3 years and use in dry cleaning in 10 years. In August, the Donald J. Trump EPA opened the matter up for comment on its reconsideration of exposure limits and potential use of workplace protections instead of phaseouts.

For CTC, the 2024 final rule says that new worker-safety requirements for current uses of the solvent are to be in place within 3 years. The rule also bans uses of CTC that have already been phased out. In October, EPA administrator Lee Zeldin also sought comment on the agency’s reconsideration of the rule, asking the public if a different exposure limit should be implemented.

The final rules for both PCE and CTC are currently being challenged in court.

—Leigh Krietsch Boerner

Wisconsin, New Mexico, and Michigan advance PFAS measures

States are continuing to advance legislation and regulation to research and clean up per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) contamination in the environment as well as to limit PFAS in consumer products.

The Wisconsin legislature passed a bill on March 17 that spends more than $130 million that had been previously earmarked to combat PFAS contamination. A companion bill also exempts certain landowners and others from liability for contamination. The funds, allocated in the state’s 2023–25 budget, had remained in limbo until now as Governor Tony Evers (D) and Republican lawmakers debated how exactly to spend them. Evers has stated he intends to sign the bills.

The New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board approved new rules (PDF) on March 23 requiring manufacturers to put warning labels on products that are sold in the state and contain intentionally added PFAS. The regulations also implement a law passed last year that will phase out sales of most consumer products containing PFAS, beginning with cookware, food packaging, and toys in 2027.

Michigan is launching a research grant program to study PFAS contamination on agricultural land in the state. The state’s Department of Agriculture and Rural Development put out a call for proposals on March 24, with letters of intent due on April 20 and full proposals due on June 1.

—Delger Erdenesanaa

Education groups oppose GSA proposal to curb DEI programs by federal grantees

More than 1,500 comments have been filed so far on a US General Services Administration (GSA) proposal that would require prospective federal grant recipients to comply with federal antidiscrimination laws and executive branch guidance, including a January 2025 executive order that seeks to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs within the federal government.

“Entities that receive federal funds . . . must ensure that their programs and activities comply with federal law and do not discriminate on the basis of race or color,” according to a draft of the text that grant applicants would need to agree to. Examples of practices that could violate antidiscrimination laws include offering “race-based scholarships or programs,” conducting “race-based training sessions,” providing “access to facilities or resources based on race or ethnicity,” and hiring undocumented immigrants.

Many of the comments to date strongly oppose the rule, which the GSA proposed on Feb. 18 and whose comment period ends on March 30.

In one of the comments, the American Council on Education and several other higher education organizations note that colleges and universities already have to adhere to state and local nondiscrimination laws and that “while executive orders and sub-regulatory guidance help provide context and understanding for how the federal government may interpret the requirements of federal law, they do not supersede state and local law.”

If finalized, the new requirements wouldn’t necessarily mean that all forms of DEI would automatically be in violation of antidiscrimination laws, says the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities. “However, given the political and legal uncertainty over precisely which types of DEI activities are unlawful and which are not, the proposed amendments may pose potential challenges for institutions seeking federal grants,” the organization adds.

And if the administration deems a grant recipient in violation of federal antidiscrimination laws, it could potentially “pursue civil and criminal penalties in addition to potential loss of federal funds,” says the Education Counsel, an education consulting firm.

—Krystal Vasquez