The criticism centers on a shift in purpose, at least according to those raising concerns. The American Parents Coalition is taking aim at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, arguing that the congressionally chartered nonprofit has moved away from its original role and into territory shaped more by ideology than by technical guidance.
Established in 1863 under a congressional charter signed by President Abraham Lincoln, the National Academies has long served as an advisory body on scientific, engineering, and medical issues. Its work has typically focused on research standards, policy recommendations, and advancing STEM fields. That legacy is now part of the argument being made against it.
APC Executive Director Alleigh Marré framed the issue as a departure from that foundation, pointing to what she described as a growing emphasis on topics tied to political or social frameworks. In a report compiled by the organization, APC highlights funding decisions and partnerships that it says reflect a focus on climate advocacy and environmental justice initiatives. Those programs, according to Marré, often approach environmental issues through considerations of race and socioeconomic status.
One example cited in the report is EcoRise, a group that provides K-12 curriculum materials centered on sustainability and student-led environmental projects. Materials referenced by APC include lessons that connect environmental issues with systemic inequality, along with classroom exercises exploring concepts such as equality, equity, and liberation.
The debate extends into STEM education itself. A 2025 report published by NASEM outlined disparities in access to STEM opportunities, attributing differences to factors including race, gender, and income.
It proposed several frameworks for addressing those gaps, including expanding access and incorporating social considerations into STEM learning. Critics, including APC, argue that such approaches move beyond technical education into broader social messaging.
Additional concerns raised by APC involve programming related to gender identity. The group pointed to a 2023 workshop focused on supporting transgender and gender-diverse youth, which included discussions around classroom practices such as the use of affirming pronouns. For critics, that example reinforces their argument that the organization is straying from its core mission.
At this stage, APC is looking to take the issue beyond public criticism. The group is preparing to bring its concerns to lawmakers, with the stated goal of reevaluating federal funding tied to the National Academies. No formal action has been taken yet, but the report signals an effort to push the debate into Congress.
NASEM has not responded publicly to the specific claims outlined in APC’s report.
