<p>Scientific advisory bodies supported political decision-making during the COVID-19 pandemic but faced criticism for either being overly advocacy-driven or not advocating enough. Within scholarly research, the role of science in democratic political decision-making remains controversial, too. While the traditional – in practice still prevailing – viewpoint holds that science should be objective and value-free, a growing scholarship contends that science, including scientific policy advice, is inherently political. This study investigates this discrepancy between theory and practice, asking: How did academic policy advisors navigate tensions between political impartiality and entanglement during the COVID-19 pandemic? Following a constructivist grounded theory approach, this study analyses qualitative interviews with COVID-19 academic policy advisors and policy reports issued by the national scientific policy advisory bodies in Switzerland, Germany, and the United Kingdom. Academic policy advisors across countries perceived tensions between scientific objectivity and political entanglement, making them deconstruct and reconstruct their ideal roles. Interviews indicated linked role constructions as scientific policy advisors and public communicators, indicated by country-specific strategies of how academic policy advisors engaged in public communication activities. In conclusion, ideal roles of scientific policy advisors fluctuate in a spectrum between political engagement and impartiality, especially in crisis contexts. Advisors’ role perceptions are shaped by their internalized views of value-free science, public expectations of politically independent advisors, political cultures, and media portrayals. Scientific advice should acknowledge its political dimension while maintaining financial, organizational, and communicative independence and adapting to the relevant political culture and history.</p>