Trump focuses on tech CEOs for science advisory panel

Trump appoints industry-heavy record of science and expertise 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 expertise {industry} executives.

Among the 13 PCAST members appointed are Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang, Oracle chief expertise officer Larry Ellison, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Google cofounder Sergey Brin, and Advanced Micro Devices CEO Lisa Su, certainly one of two girls named to the council. The sole member from academia is John Martinis, a physicist on 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 basic companion of the enterprise capital fund Craft Ventures and former particular adviser to the president for synthetic 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 picks 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 on 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 on the Union of Concerned Scientists, tells C&EN in an emailed assertion.

PCAST can have as much as 24 members, and the White House will identify extra quickly in addition to launch particulars concerning the council’s first assembly, it says in its March 25 announcement.

—Larry Pearl

White House delays nomination of a everlasting CDC director

The White House didn’t identify a candidate this week to guide the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), regardless of earlier expectations that it will accomplish that earlier than Thursday, when a statutory deadline stopping performing director Jay Bhattacharya from remaining within the function kicked in.

Dr. Bhattacharya, who additionally directs the US National Institutes of Health, will nonetheless “continue to oversee the CDC by performing the delegable duties of the CDC director,” in keeping with an announcement from the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) press secretary Emily Hilliard.

The CDC has been and not using a everlasting director since August, when Susan Monarez, who had been confirmed by the Senate to the function lower than a month earlier, was ousted by HHS secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. after refusing to preapprove vaccine suggestions.

According to reporting from the Washington Post, the Donald J. Trump administration is contemplating three individuals for the function: doctor and former Kentucky governor Ernie Fletcher, Mississippi state well being officer Daniel Edney, and Johns Hopkins University heart specialist Joseph Marine.

In response to a request for remark, White House spokesperson Kush Desai didn’t tackle questions concerning the rationale for the delay or share specifics on the qualities Trump is looking for within the subsequent CDC director however stated 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 everlasting CDC director “in short order.”

—Yaakov Zinberg, particular to C&EN

States and cities sue the EPA over transfer to rescind endangerment discovering

A bunch 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 company’s ultimate rule to overturn the 2009 climate endangerment finding. This is the newest in a collection of authorized actions regarding the discovering, the scientific justification for regulating greenhouse fuel emissions beneath the Clean Air Act.

The states bringing the lawsuit embrace the Democratic strongholds of Massachusetts, California, New York, and Illinois. The plaintiffs additionally embrace 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 legal professional basic 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 different states on March 6 to intervene on the EPA’s facet in litigation difficult the company’s actions.

This movement places the cities of Columbus and Cleveland on the facet of litigation reverse to that of Ohio legal professional basic Dave Yost.

In addition to the group of attorneys basic, quite a few oil, coal, trucking, agricultural, and enterprise teams have requested to hitch the lawsuit in assist 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 discovering recission. These lawsuits have been introduced earlier this 12 months by a number of teams, together with environmental and well being advocacy teams, a youth group, the Zero Emission Transportation Association, and the Metropolitan Congregations United for St. Louis and the Missouri Coalition for the Environment.

Legal consultants anticipate that the case will find yourself within the US Supreme Court.

—Leigh Krietsch Boerner

EPA proposes new {industry} compliance dates for two chlorinated-solvent guidelines

The US Environmental Protection Agency launched a proposal on March 24 (PDF) that will lengthen some compliance dates for ultimate risk-management guidelines on perchloroethylene (PCE) and carbon tetrachloride (CTC) beneath the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).

The EPA says that it’s not reviewing its previous findings that the chemical compounds current an unreasonable danger to human well being and that it’s not altering any employee protections already in place. Instead, it’s proposing to increase some compliance deadlines for office protections for nonfederal entities in order that they line up with federal company and contractor compliance dates. The EPA is proposing to push again compliance dates between 6 and 18 months, relying on the safety measure in query.

“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 known as perc, PCE is used primarily as a dry-cleaning solvent. The compound causes liver, kidney, mind, and testicular most cancers and has hostile results on the immune and reproductive techniques and the mind, liver, and kidneys, in keeping with the EPA’s risk assessment.

CTC is used as a uncooked materials to make refrigerants, aerosol propellants, foam-blowing brokers, vinyl chloride, and different merchandise. It could cause liver most cancers in addition to mind and adrenal gland tumors, according to the EPA, and it was banned in client merchandise by the US Consumer Product Safety Commission in 1970.

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

The final rule for PCE phases out all client makes use of and most industrial makes use of in 3 years and use in dry cleansing in 10 years. In August, the Donald J. Trump EPA opened the matter up for remark on its reconsideration of publicity limits and potential use of office protections as a substitute of phaseouts.

For CTC, the 2024 final rule says that new worker-safety necessities for present makes use of of the solvent are to be in place inside 3 years. The rule additionally bans makes use of of CTC which have already been phased out. In October, EPA administrator Lee Zeldin additionally sought remark on the company’s reconsideration of the rule, asking the general public if a distinct publicity restrict ought to be applied.

The ultimate guidelines for each PCE and CTC are at the moment being challenged in court docket.

—Leigh Krietsch Boerner

Wisconsin, New Mexico, and Michigan advance PFAS measures

States are persevering with to advance laws and regulation to analysis and clear up per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) contamination within the atmosphere in addition to to restrict PFAS in client merchandise.

The Wisconsin legislature handed a invoice on March 17 that spends greater than $130 million that had been beforehand earmarked to fight PFAS contamination. A companion invoice additionally exempts sure landowners and others from legal responsibility for contamination. The funds, allotted within the state’s 2023–25 price range, had remained in limbo till now as Governor Tony Evers (D) and Republican lawmakers debated how precisely to spend them. Evers has acknowledged he intends to sign the bills.

The New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board approved new rules (PDF) on March 23 requiring producers to place warning labels on merchandise which can be bought within the state and comprise deliberately added PFAS. The laws additionally implement a law passed last year that can part out gross sales of most client merchandise containing PFAS, starting with cookware, meals packaging, and toys in 2027.

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

—Delger Erdenesanaa

Education teams oppose GSA proposal to curb DEI applications by federal grantees

More than 1,500 feedback have been filed thus far on a US General Services Administration (GSA) proposal that will require potential federal grant recipients to adjust to federal antidiscrimination legal guidelines and government department steerage, together with a January 2025 executive order that seeks to eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs throughout the federal authorities.

“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,” in keeping with a draft of the text that grant candidates would wish to comply with. Examples of practices that would violate antidiscrimination legal guidelines embrace providing “race-based scholarships or programs,” conducting “race-based training sessions,” offering “access to facilities or resources based on race or ethnicity,” and hiring undocumented immigrants.

Many of the feedback to this point strongly oppose the rule, which the GSA proposed on Feb. 18 and whose remark interval ends on March 30.

In one of the comments, the American Council on Education and several other different increased schooling organizations be aware that schools and universities have already got to stick to state and native nondiscrimination legal guidelines 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 brand new necessities wouldn’t essentially imply that every one types of DEI would robotically be in violation of antidiscrimination legal guidelines, 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 group provides.

And if the administration deems a grant recipient in violation of federal antidiscrimination legal guidelines, it may probably “pursue civil and criminal penalties in addition to potential loss of federal funds,” says the Education Counsel, an schooling consulting agency.

—Krystal Vasquez