Trump wants to cut government advisory committees by one-third

At the beginning of his term, Trump ordered agencies to repeal two regulations for each new law created, and his office of management and budget affirmed his new authority over traditionally independent agencies. More recently, the Forest Service has proposed a streamlining of its environmental review process that would eliminate many of the current opportunities for public consultation.

The advisory committees provide expertise on almost every conceivable issue – for example, advising the Department of Homeland Security on the confidentiality of chemicals and data, or advising the Department of Transportation on the safety of drones and motorcycles.

Experts recognize that the system is flawed, but argue that an arbitrary reduction in all areas is a far from perfect solution.

Judd Deere, deputy press secretary for the White House, said: "There has been no government-wide study of FACA committees since 1993, and the President believes it is time to re-examine and eliminate those that are irrelevant and that provide are good stewards of taxpayers' money.

"The idea that a third of these committees will disappear is very troubling," said Sean Moulton, senior policy analyst at Project on Government Oversight, an independent monitoring organization. Moulton has previously served on a National Archives Committee to improve the Freedom of Information Act.

"The results will be that we will limit the amount of advice our agencies get on these important issues, or that by doing so, we will bring those tips back into the dark," he said.

Kirsten Stadium, Director of Advocacy at Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, said many jurisdictions have accumulated too much voice on committees.

"But the good solution is not to remove advisory committees," she said.

Ian Bassin, a White House deputy legal advisor to the Obama administration who has worked on advisory committee issues, said the elimination of outdated or ineffective committees could reduce the burden on the government. But there is also a danger in going too far, he said.

"There is a risk of depriving the government of expertise and access to democracy," said Bassin, who is now part of the Protect Democracy nonprofit advocacy group.

He noted that many commissions had been created by Congress to provide a particular type of expertise and that their removal might require the adoption of legislation.

David Verardo, president of the union representing employees of the National Science Foundation, said his agency relied heavily on advisory committees to evaluate science and award grants. A federal database shows that the foundation has 52 active advisory committees.

"How do you maintain what is supposed to be the gold standard when it comes to merit review around the world when you have to eliminate a third of the merit review board members?" he said.

Rush Holt, executive director of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, criticized the decision, saying that "sound decision-making should not be considered an option or dispensation."