‘Structural racism’: Top taxpayer-funded academy rife with DEI programs, hefty executive salaries

Exploring NASEM’s Finances and Activities: A Closer Look

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) is a prestigious organization that plays a significant role in advising the federal government on critical issues such as science, technology, and public health. However, recent reports have brought attention to the organization’s financial operations, sparking debates about its use of taxpayer funds and its alignment with certain political ideologies. In 2023, NASEM received $200.6 million in federal grants and contracts, accounting for 70% of its budget, according to its Treasurer’s Report. This funding has raised questions about how the organization allocates its resources, including the salaries of its top executives and its involvement in various initiatives that some criticize as leaning toward progressive causes.

Executive Salaries and Organizational Leadership

NASEM’s financial disclosures reveal that its top executives earn substantial salaries, with several exceeding $1 million annually. For instance, Marcia McNutt, the president of the National Academies, received $1,061,843 in 2023, while Victor Dzau, president of the National Academy of Medicine, earned $1,026,973. Similarly, John Anderson, president of the National Academy of Engineering, took home $1,027,185. These salaries, while not unusual for leadership roles in large organizations, have drawn scrutiny given that the majority of NASEM’s funding comes from taxpayer dollars. Additionally, Laura Castillo-Page, NASEM’s chief diversity and inclusion officer, earned $333,788 in 2023, highlighting the organization’s investment in diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.

NASEM’s Role in Promoting Progressive Causes

Critics argue that NASEM has used its federal funding to advance liberal causes, particularly in areas such as climate change, racial equity, and public health. For example, in 2021, the organization hosted an event exploring how "environmental injustice" and "structural racism" disproportionately affect communities of color in the context of climate change. Attendees discussed strategies to influence climate policy through storytelling, including amplifying "the powerful indigenous voice" on environmental issues. Similarly, a 2021 workshop examined the concept of "spatial justice" and its impact on public health disparities in marginalized communities.

In 2022, NASEM organized another event focusing on the role of "structural racism" and social norms, such as media representation and body image, in contributing to obesity. The organization has also published reports advocating for policy changes to address "racial, ethnic, and tribal health equity" and outlining ways to combat racial discrimination in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEMM) fields. These initiatives, while intended to address systemic inequalities, have been criticized by some for veering into political advocacy rather than maintaining a neutral, scientific stance.

NASEM’s Response to Criticism and Policy Changes

In response to scrutiny over its activities and funding, NASEM has defended its mission and operations. A spokesperson emphasized that the organization conducts studies and workshops at the request of federal and state agencies, as well as private-sector sponsors, to address critical national issues. The spokesperson also noted that 58% of NASEM’s funding came from the government in 2024 and that the organization has taken steps to comply with recent executive orders, including closing its Office of Diversity and Inclusion. This move was reportedly in response to President Trump’s January 2023 executive order targeting DEI initiatives and wasteful government spending.

NASEM’s leadership, however, has not shied away from taking public stances on politically charged issues. For example, Marcia McNutt publicly criticized Elon Musk, the CEO of Twitter/X, for what she described as the platform’s role in spreading disinformation and undermining democracy. Her comments reflect a broader debate about the role of scientific organizations in public discourse and whether they should remain impartial or actively engage in social and political advocacy.

The Broader Implications of NASEM’s Actions

The controversy surrounding NASEM’s funding and activities highlights a growing tension between the scientific community and political leaders over the role of federal funding and the direction of scientific research. While NASEM and its defenders argue that its work is essential for advancing public health, national security, and global competitiveness, critics contend that the organization has overstepped its mission by engaging in what they see as politically motivated initiatives. The closure of NASEM’s DEI office and the removal of related content from its website suggest that the organization is feeling pressure to adapt to shifting political priorities, particularly under the Trump administration’s efforts to curtail DEI programs and reduce perceived wasteful spending.

As the debate continues, one thing is clear: NASEM’s actions and funding decisions will remain under close scrutiny, with implications not only for the organization itself but also for the broader scientific community and its relationship with the federal government. Whether NASEM can navigate this landscape while maintaining its credibility and fulfilling its mission remains to be seen.