Trump’s Science Adviser Wants to Overhaul “Increasingly Calcified” U.S. Science Enterprise While Science Funding Lags

Research & Developments is a blog for brief updates that provide context for the flurry of news regarding law and policy changes that impact science and scientists today. A report released this week directs the U.S. government to spark a “new golden age” of science by ushering funds toward artificial intelligence, fostering closer relationships with private industry, and dismantling and rebuilding the federal science funding process. The report was written by Michael Kratsios, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. He outlined his recommendations to Congress at a hearing of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology on 22 July. Kratsios intended the report to emulate a letter written to President Franklin D. Roosevelt by Vannevar Bush in 1945, called Science, the Endless Frontier, which set the foundation for the current U.S. federal science process in which federal funds support university research. “As we celebrate the United States’ 250th anniversary, we have the responsibility to renew our foundations once more,” he wrote. Kratsios listed four goals to guide this approach to U.S. science: to “prioritize the individual scientist over legacy institutions,” to “fundamentally change how research dollars are allocated, distributed, and assessed,” to “set clear scientific goals and build the industrial muscle to translate scientific discovery into technological strength,” and to “prepare our research enterprise for the AI revolution.” The report recommends a handful of federal priorities to achieve these goals, including the Genesis Mission, a “national effort to harness AI for scientific discovery at a scale no other nation can match” led by the Department of Energy. At the 22 July hearing, Kratsios said the Genesis Mission “is the crown jewel of American AI for science” and announced that federal agencies have committed more than $5 billion to the project. So far, 278 awards have been made, the largest being a three-year, $60 million grant for a project that will “help deliver nuclear facilities faster and safer” with the use of AI, according to the Department of Energy. Some scientists viewed the report as a way for the government to justify steering research funds toward private industry and increasing political interference in science. “I think they’re trying to turn it into a venture capital model,” Jeremy M. Berg, a computational biologist and former director of the National Institute of General Medical Sciences at the National Institutes of Health, told The New York Times. “Under the hood,” the report is a “vision for faster technology development and commercialization while underinvesting in the fundamental research, expert peer review, and scientific workforce that make those advances possible,” Keivan Stassun, an astrophysicist and member of the National Science Board prior to its dissolution by the Trump administration, told Science. The recommendations in the document largely align with recommendations made by former National Academy of Sciences president Marcia McNutt in June. In the annual president’s address, McNutt encouraged the scientific community to “better understand the needs of industry” and embrace the use of AI to increase research efficiency. At the hearing, however, Kratsios agreed with Rep. Brian Babin (R-TX), chair of the committee, that the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine required more federal oversight, especially in light of its recent report on climate attribution science that Babin said raised “transparency concerns.” Kratsios said he looked forward to working with Congress to codify the recommendations made in the “new golden age” report. Funding the Golden Age The vision the report presents is accompanied by recommendations from Kratsios and Russell Vought, director of the Office of Management and Budget, for the FY 2028 budget. These recommendations include prioritizing funding for physical sciences, including quantum physics, chemistry and materials sciences, mathematics and computer sciences, engineering, and biological sciences. For FY 2028, “agencies should align their R&D investments, where appropriate, with the Administration’s national missions,” the report states, listing those “national missions” as AI, quantum computing, fusion power, the construction of a lunar base and return of humans to the Moon, autonomous robotics, and semiconductor technology. At the 22 July hearing, Democrats argued that the Trump administration’s actions have worked against the stated goals of Kratsios’s report. “Big new initiatives and promises mean nothing when agencies act capriciously, canceling grants midway, delaying awards for months, even after they’ve been selected through the rigorous merit review process, and blacklisting educational and research institutions,” said Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA). The report did not mention the Trump administration’s proposed FY 2027 budget, which, if finalized, would reduce the National Science Foundation’s budget by 53%, the U.S. Geological Survey’s budget by 37%, the NASA science budget by 42%, and NOAA’s budget by 28%. “I anticipate the report will be used as the rationale for making further cuts in the budgets and staffing of federal research agencies while limiting their authority and accountability to the American people,” Neal Lane, former director of the National Science Foundation, told Science. The report also did not mention recent sweeping cuts to the National Science Foundation’s FY 2026 budget, the fact that the National Science Foundation currently has no director, or a June proposal from the Office of Management and Budget that, if finalized, would give political appointees final approval power for scientific grants. “The report lays out a future in which the administration continues to dismantle the nation’s scientific capacity across a wide range of fields, replacing independent expert peer review with politically appointed decision-makers,” said Jennifer Jones, director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, in a statement. “The potential outcome is a loss of knowledge and expertise and the destruction of opportunities for that expertise to benefit the public good.” —Grace van Deelen (@gvd.bsky.social), Staff Writer These updates are made possible through information from the scientific community. Do you have a story about how changes in law or policy are affecting scientists or research? Send us a tip at [email protected]. Text © 2026. AGU. CC BY-NC-ND 3.0Except where otherwise noted, images are subject to copyright. Any reuse without express permission from the copyright owner is prohibited.