The quiet departure of Walter Koroshetz, longtime director of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, has sent ripples through the neuroscience and Parkinson’s communities at a critical moment, casting doubt among many in the Parkinson’s community.
The Trump administration failed reappoint Koroshetz to another term, effectively ending his leadership at NINDS after years overseeing one of the federal government’s largest neurological research portfolios. According to Science.org: “Koroshetz informed staff and colleagues late Friday that his reappointment to a third 5-year term has been denied,” in an email obtained by Science on Saturday morning.” Reaction on Reddit and other social media platforms sees it as a ‘punch in the gut’ and the decision to let him go as politicized, and the firing by email as being “blindsided.” Many are casting doubt about whether the National Plan To End Parkinson’s will be as effective as it was designed to be, thanks to the decision to let Koroshetz go, since he was slated to serve as a co-chair of the Federal Advisory Council on Parkinson’s Research, Care, and Services with David Goldstein, MS, who stepped down as Associate Deputy Director for the Office of Science and Medicine at HHS’s Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, leaving both co-chair positions open and no replacements announced.
While no formal public explanation accompanied the decision, the move came as the United States is in the early stages of implementing the National Plan to End Parkinson’s Act, a law designed to coordinate Parkinson’s research, care, and services across federal agencies.
As director of NINDS, Koroshetz played a central role in shaping the National Institutes of Health’s Parkinson’s research priorities. The NINDS is one of the largest funders of Parkinson’s disease research in the world, supporting a range of initiatives, from basic neuroscience to clinical trials and translational studies. That makes leadership continuity especially important as the federal government works to turn the goals of the Parkinson’s Act into action.
The law requires coordination, a long-term strategy, and collaboration among researchers, clinicians, advocacy groups, and individuals living with Parkinson’s. For many in the field, Koroshetz’s sudden exit raises questions about how smoothly that coordination will proceed without an experienced director in place during the rollout of the plan.
Advocacy groups and researchers have emphasized that the Act itself remains intact and legally binding. Funding streams and research programs continue. Still, leadership transitions at a time of policy implementation can slow momentum, particularly for large, multi-agency efforts that rely on institutional memory and established relationships.
For people living with Parkinson’s disease, the concern is less about one individual and more about stability. The National Plan to End Parkinson’s Act was designed to bring urgency, clarity, and accountability to a disease that affects millions and still has no cure. Whether that promise is fully realized will depend not just on legislation, but on consistent leadership within the agencies tasked with carrying it out.
Unless noted, all media by Chris Denny
