Issue 16 (August 5)

On July 28, COSSA hosted the recent installment in the 2025 Headlines Webinar series. July’s meeting featured a discussion with research policy experts from COGR on topics like indirect costs, research compliance, and other timely developments impacting the social and behavioral science community.

Featured speakers:

• Krystal Toups, Contracts & Grants Administration Director, COGR
• Cindy Hope, Costing and Financial Compliance Director, COGR
• Kristin West, Research Ethics & Compliance Director, COGR

The recording is now available on the COSSA website.

Headlines is a webinar series available to COSSA member organizations. Watch for additional webinar announcements, and previous webinar recordings, on the COSSA website.

This month’s Why Social Science? post comes from Sam Goldstein from Science for Good, an organization dedicated to reimagining science with communities for social good.

Read on for more.

Eva Lettiere started as COSSA’s policy intern in May. Before she signs off, she provided some reflections from her time at COSSA.

How did you learn about COSSA and the opportunity to serve as a policy intern? 

I learned about COSSA through the director of career services at the University of Chicago, who sent me some summer internship opportunities she thought I might be interested in. Out of all of them, COSSA was the only one that truly captured my interest. I loved that the application process gave me the chance to talk about my experiences with social science research and my policy areas of interest, because those are both things that influenced how I approached the internship and its responsibilities in the first place. 

How did the internship fit into your academic or career planning? 

I feel fortunate that, thus far, I’ve had a diverse range of internship and work opportunities—I’ve been in legislative and constituent-oriented settings in congressional offices, both Washington- and district-based, and I’ve also done specific qualitative and quantitative social science research. Before joining COSSA, I had experience at both ends of the policy research-to-legislation spectrum, but I didn’t have very much experience with the part in the middle, whereby policy research is effectively translated into public policy. Dedicated advocacy is, to me, the key to bridging that gap. Through interning with COSSA, I have experience at all stages of the policymaking process, which begins far beyond the walls of Capitol Hill. I feel that COSSA helped me understand the nuances of policy advocacy that are instrumental to generating concrete, positive policy outcomes. I feel that, because I had this experience working with COSSA, I can become a far more effective policy analyst in the future while still maintaining my dedication to public service.

What stood out to you most about your internship (i.e., did you learn anything interesting/eye opening or was there a task that you enjoyed most)? 

Before working with COSSA, I knew federal statistical agencies were integral to the production of accurate social science research, but now I’ve come to understand their intricacies and importance. I feel as though statistical agencies are an oft-overlooked aspect of the government, and I know of many people outside the political science sphere or even in different parts of the political science sphere, who don’t really know anything about the crucial work they do and don’t know what massive losses in funding and staff they’re facing. I feel like I can now effectively articulate the importance of statistical agencies to life in the US and why cuts to these agencies are so disastrous.  

Additionally, and this is a little less important, I’ve honestly really enjoyed my time scanning COSSA’s historical documents. It’s interesting to track the history of one non-profit and see both how social science priorities have changed over the years and how non-profit interactions with the federal government and the policymaking enterprise in general have changed.  

What would you tell future policy interns about the opportunity and/or about interning in-person in Washington, DC? 

It’s fun to go to events you’re invited to! There’s so much happening in DC all the time—people love hosting briefings on Capitol Hill—and going to them is a great way to explore policy areas you might be interested in, but also get a sense of the structure of policy advocacy in DC and the different ways in which people incorporate policy analysis and research into their advocacy. I tend to treat events—briefings, receptions, hearings–less as events where I can network and more as events where I can gain knowledge I wouldn’t otherwise seek out myself. I have genuinely learned a lot about various policy sectors—immigration, agriculture and nutrition, and healthcare, among others—that I didn’t know before and that showed me I was interested in policy sectors different than what I initially assumed. To me, the primary goal of an internship should be to learn, both in terms of content and skills, and there are a lot of events in DC that are the perfect venue for that.  

What’s next for you? 

In August, I’ll begin my final undergraduate semester at George Washington University (GW), located in Washington, DC, before graduating with my bachelor’s degree in December. After that, in January, I’ll immediately go back to GW and become a full-time student in the Master of Public Policy Program. Working at COSSA has opened a whole new career realm for me, so I hope I can explore it more and put many of the skills I gained at COSSA to use. I’m also excited for the opportunity to do more policy research and analysis at the graduate level.  

Before departing for August Recess, the Senate advanced several bills through the Appropriations Committee, including the Commerce, Justice, and Science (CJS) bill, and Labor, Health and Human Services, Education (LHHS) bill (previous COSSA coverage). Both the Senate CJS and LHHS bills included relatively flat funding levels, rejecting the draconian cuts proposed by the Trump Administration earlier this year (see COSSA’s analysis). 

Notably, on July 31, the Senate Appropriations Committee held a mark-up for the LHHS bill in which several amendments were offered, including Senator Dick Durbin’s (D-IL) call for the Trump Administration to restore all grants that had been terminated. The amendment, which failed on a 15-14 party line vote, drew the attention of various Republican members, including the Chair of the LHHS Subcommittee, Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), who argued that she would support a similar amendment that applied only to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), stating, “Every Administration has the prerogative to implement new goals and priorities.” The Chair of the Appropriations Committee, Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), agreed with Sen. Capito, opting for a “more surgical approach” to the issue. However, when Sen. Durbin offered to draft an NIH-specific amendment, Sen. Capito withdrew her offer of support.

Despite this contentious back-and-forth, there has been Congressional support of scientific research in recent weeks. On July 23, the Science and Technology Action Committee (STAC) hosted a reception on Capitol Hill on the importance of federal investment in scientific research. The event featured positive remarks from Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Ranking Member of the Senate Commerce Committee; Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA), Chair of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions; Rep. Jim Baird (R-IN), member of the House Science Committee; and Rep. Deborah Ross (D-NC), member of the House Science Committee.

Further, on July 25, 14 Republican Senators, led by Sen. Katie Britt (R-AL), sent a letter to Russell Vought, Director of the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), demanding the disbursement of fiscal year (FY) 2025 appropriated funds for the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Republican Senators John Boozman (R-AR), Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Bill Cassidy (R-LA), Susan Collins (R-ME), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Dave McCormick (R-PA), Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Jerry Moran (R-KS), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Tim Scott (R-SC), Dan Sullivan (R-AK), Thom Tillis (R-NC), and Todd Young (R-IN) cosigned the letter. The funds were later released by OMB after receiving the letter, which can be viewed here.

Read on for details of the Senate’s FY 2026 CJS and LHHS appropriations bills as approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee. COSSA will continue to report on the progress of FY 2026 funding legislation in the weeks and months ahead. You can follow our coverage here. 

Temporary Pause in NIH Funding Released After Chaotic Few Hours 

On July 29, the Washington Post reported on a temporary pause on the release of National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding, which was later lifted (see related article above). In a budget document authored by the White House Office of Management and Budget to NIH, the agency was given its “full-year apportionment” of funding for fiscal year (FY) 2025—which ends September 30. However, the document included a footnote that appeared to limit how the money could be spent, including on research grants. Democratic lawmakers were quick to respond, with statements issued by Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), Ranking Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, and Rep. Rosa DeLauro, Ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee. 

On August 1, President Trump abruptly fired the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Commissioner Erika McEntarfer after baselessly accusing her of deliberately reporting false numbers in the Employment Situation report released that morning. The White House released an accompanying statement in which the Administration accused McEntarfer of having a “lengthy history of inaccuracies” that harmed the public’s trust in the agency. This unprecedented removal of a Congressionally-approved agency head greatly undermines the credibility of the federal economic statistical enterprise, which has been the gold standard for U.S. labor data collection for almost 150 years.

COSSA joins the Friends of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, of which COSSA is a member, in calling for “Congress to respond immediately, to investigate the factors that led to Commissioner McEntarfer’s removal, to strongly urge the Commissioner’s continued service, and ensure that the nonpartisan integrity of the position is retained.” The full statement condemning the action can be found here.  

Last month, employees from the National Science Foundation (NSF) and NASA were the latest to publicly express concern about the Trump Administration’s actions at their respective agencies. In a July 21 letter to House Science Committee Ranking Member Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), NSF employees under the American Federation of Government Employees Local 3403 outlined eight “categories of harm” being inflicted by the Trump Administration, including staff and grant terminations, massive budget cuts, and the unannounced move from the NSF headquarters in Alexandria, VA. The letter asks the Science Committee to: (1) shield NSF employees from “politically motivated” firings; (2) end the illegal impoundment of appropriated funds to NSF; (3) defend against further interference into the peer review process; (4) demand transparency from NSF and White House officials about employment policies and agency relocation plans; and (5) reaffirm NSF’s scientific independence.  

As previously reported, current and former employees from the National Institutes of Health and Environment Protection Agency raised their concerns publicly earlier this year. 

On July 23, the Trump Administration unveiled Winning the Race: America’s AI Action Plan, which outlines future federal policy actions designed to ensure the U.S. is a leader in global Artificial Intelligence (AI) development across scientific, practical, and creative uses. The plan is divided into three pillars—Accelerating AI Innovation, Building American AI Infrastructure, and Leading in International Diplomacy and Security—with various sub-goals, including exporting American AI models, deregulating data center construction and private AI development, increasing the use of AI in the government, and cementing AI skill development as a core part of education and workforce training. The report also details plans to increase the use of AI in science, and directs the National Science Foundation (NSF) and other agencies to invest in “automated, cloud-enabled labs” for scientific fields, creating “AI-ready” datasets, and prioritizing research that advances AI capabilities.  

Responses to the action plan have ranged from positive to strictly objective. Several COSSA member universities, including the University of Colorado Boulder (CU Boulder), the University of Texas at Austin (UT), and Brown University, received renewed funding for their AI initiatives from the National Science Foundation (NSF) in an effort to align with the Administration’s goals. Georgetown and Stanford have released comprehensive recaps of the report and its implications for academia and research, framed as mostly positive, as well as its limitations, such as a lack of specific actors and mechanisms.  

The report comes as the Trump Administration ramps up its efforts to shape the emerging AI landscape in the US, including through the signing of three executive orders on AI exports, expedited data center permitting, and removing “woke” ideologies from AI models.  

This article was contributed by COSSA Intern Eva Lettiere.