Amending Executive Order 14007

Background

Before it was revoked, Executive Order 14044 played a significant role in expanding the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). By increasing the number of permissible members from an unspecified but smaller number to 32, the order sought to enhance the scope and depth of scientific and technological advice available to the President. This expansion aimed to incorporate a wider range of expertise and perspectives, fostering a more comprehensive advisory process on issues related to scientific research, technological innovation, environmental policy, and more. This inclusivity was seen as a beneficial move to address increasingly complex global challenges that require multidisciplinary insights.

In terms of operational adjustments, federal agencies involved in scientific and technological policy had aligned their priorities to support PCAST’s expanded role. By bringing together more voices from diverse scientific fields, agencies were able to streamline their research agendas with the broader goals set by the council. This led to more coordinated federal research efforts and facilitated interagency project collaborations. Additionally, it likely influenced the direction of grant funding towards areas that matched the broadened advisory capacity of PCAST, thereby impacting scientific inquiry priorities nationwide.

Moreover, the executive order did not have a substantial direct regulatory impact but operated more as a structural and advisory enhancement. It did not trigger rulemaking processes but rather influenced policy through the recommendations the council provided. The intention was to enable the United States to remain competitive in global science and technology arenas through strategic counsel and to prepare for emerging issues like cybersecurity threats and climate change impacts through informed policymaking.

Reason for Revocation

President Donald Trump’s decision to revoke this order on January 20, 2025, occurred in a context that signaled a broader shift in administrative priorities, reflecting a return to a more constrained view of government advisory bodies. This revocation can be seen as part of an ideological shift towards reducing the federal government's size and influence. Trump has historically promoted a more streamlined, business-oriented governance model that typically involves fewer advisors and committees, preferring decision-making processes that align more closely with business practices rather than broad scientific consensus.

Another potential reason for the revocation relates to budgetary concerns. By reducing the number of advisory board members, the Trump administration might have sought to curb direct and indirect costs associated with maintaining a larger council. These costs include administrative support, travel expenses for additional members, and the potential for increased advisory requests. Cost-efficiency is often cited as a justification for trimming down such committees.

Regulatory and policy agility may also have been considerations. A belief in more rapid decision-making processes might underpin Trump’s preference for smaller advisory groups. Large councils with wider representation can sometimes result in slower policy formulation, as each additional member may introduce more diverse opinions and the need for consensus-building, which could be interpreted as bureaucratic excess.

Furthermore, this step aligns with the previous tenure of Trump’s presidency, characterized by skepticism towards scientific advisory groups that often challenge private sector growth narratives, particularly in energy and industrial sectors. Removing newcomers to the council could suggest a pivot towards prioritizing industries that may be affected by progressive technological or scientific policy recommendations.

Winners

Industries likely to benefit from the revocation include those that have historically favored less regulatory oversight. The fossil fuel sector, for example, might perceive less influence from a scientifically robust council as favorable, given that scientific advisories often elevate climate change initiatives that conflict with this industry's interests. A smaller council might result in fewer urgent policy proposals addressing environmental regulations that can constrain these businesses.

Corporations in technology sectors focused on rapid innovation without stringent government interference could see the revocation as a boon. Reducing the advisory council’s size potentially means fewer regulations on emerging technologies, allowing companies to advance with less federal scrutiny. For example, some Silicon Valley players might benefit from non-interventionist approaches to data privacy and artificial intelligence deployment.

Particularly, smaller startups or industries at the intersection of technology and traditional sectors, such as agri-tech or logistics, could gain from a government stance that favors business innovation over scientific advisories. The reduction of strong scientific oversight could mean faster go-to-market strategies without comprehensive environmental or societal impact reviews that a full council might advocate for, leading to speedier government ratification of new technologies.

Losers

The scientific community is arguably the most directly impacted group, losing a vital platform to influence national policy effectively. Before its revocation, expanding PCAST was seen as a way to confront issues like climate change and public health decisively. A reduced council might limit the avenue for scientific voices to guide critical long-term planning and policy development in these areas, potentially stalling efforts against climate change escalation.

Environmental advocacy groups might also find themselves at a disadvantage as their concerns are diminished without the backing of a more diverse scientific council. With less representation in key advisory positions, climate policy that directly challenges industrial polluters could lack the robust backing it had under an expanded, scientifically-geared council. The rollback could delay or dilute crucial policy initiatives aimed at environmental conservation and sustainability that rely on expert scientific advice.

Additionally, public health policymakers may encounter challenges due to the revocation. A vibrant PCAST plays a role in advising on matters like pandemic preparedness and biotechnological advancements. A diminished council may slow down the momentum for necessary health tech innovations or nationwide public health recommendations, significantly impacting responsiveness to emerging health crises.