Issue 01 (January 13)

Trump Administration Actions (all actions available here):

• Addressing Addiction through the Great American Recovery Initiative (1/29/26)
• Memorandum: Withdrawing the United States from International Organizations, Conventions, and Treaties that are Contrary to the Interests of the United States (1/7/26)
• Increasing Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research (12/18/25)
• Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence (12/11/25) (MORE INFORMATION)
• President’s Management Agenda (12/8/25) (MORE INFORMATION)
• Launching the Genesis Mission (11/24/25) (MORE INFORMATION)
• Ensuring Continued Accountability in Federal Hiring (10/15/25)
• Fiscal Year (FY) 2027 Administration Research and Development Budget Priorities and Cross-Cutting Actions (9/23/25) (MORE INFORMATION)
• Restriction on Entry of Certain Nonimmigrant Workers (9/19/25)
• Memorandum: Use of Appropriated Funds for Illegal Lobbying and Partisan Political Activity by Federal Grantees (8/28/25)
• Improving Oversight of Federal Grantmaking (MORE INFORMATION) (8/7/25)
• Ensuring Transparency in Higher Education Admissions (MORE INFORMATION) (8/7/25)
• Preventing Woke AI in the Federal Government (MORE INFORMATION) (7/23/25)
• Creating Schedule G in the Excepted Service (7/17/25) (MORE INFORMATION)
• Memorandum: Ensuring Accountability and Prioritizing Public Safety in Federal Hiring (7/7/25)
• Establishing the President’s Make America Beautiful Again Commission (7/3/25)
• Enhancing National Security by Addressing Risks at Harvard University (6/4/25)
• Restricting the Entry of Foreign Nationals to Protect the United States from Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats (6/4/25)
• Restoring Gold Standard Science (5/23/25) (MORE INFORMATION)
• Increasing Efficiency at the Office of the Federal Register (5/9/25)
• Improving the Safety and Security of Biological Research (5/5/25)
• Improving the Safety and Security of Biological Research (5/5/25)
• Strengthening Probationary Periods in the Federal Service (4/24/25)
• White House Initiative to Promote Excellence and Innovation at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (4/23/25)
• Reforming Accreditation to Strengthen Higher Education (4/23/25)
• PROPOSED RULE: Improving Performance, Accountability, and the Civil Service (4/23/25)
• Transparency Regarding Foreign Influence at American Universities (4/23/25)
• Extension of Hiring Freeze (4/17/25) 
• Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History (3/27/25) (MORE INFORMATION)
• Improving Education Outcomes by Empowering Parents, States, and Communities (3/20/25) (MORE INFORMATION)
• Continuing the Reduction of the Federal Bureaucracy (3/14/25) (MORE INFORMATION)
• Additional Rescissions of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions (3/14/25)
• Implementing the President’s DOGE Cost Efficiency Initiative (2/26/25) (MORE INFORMATION)
• Ensuring Lawful Governance and Implementing the President’s DOGE Deregulatory Initiative (2/19/25) (MORE INFORMATION)
• Radical Transparency about Wasteful Spending (2/18/25) (MORE INFORMATION)
• Establishing the President’s Make America Healthy Again Commission (2/13/25)
• Implementing the President’s “Department of Government Efficiency” Workforce Optimization Initiative (2/11/25) (MORE INFORMATION)
• Advancing United States Interests When Funding Nongovernmental Organizations (2/6/25) (MORE INFORMATION)
• Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling (1/29/25)
• President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (1/23/25)
• Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence (1/23/25)
• Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity (1/21/24) (MORE INFORMATION)
• Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing (1/20/25)
• Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Trust to the Federal Government (1/20/25)
• Establishing and Implementing the President’s “Department of Government Efficiency” (1/20/25)
• Restoring Accountability to Policy-Influencing Positions within the Federal Workforce (1/20/25) – Reinstates Trump Administration’s 2020 EO creating a new Schedule F in the Federal Excepted Service 
• Withdrawing the U.S. from the WHO (1/20/25)
• Putting America First in International Environmental Agreements (1/20/25) – Withdraws the U.S. from the Paris Climate Accord, among other actions.
• Hiring Freeze (1/20/25) (MORE INFORMATION)
• Return to In-Person Work (1/20/25) (MORE INFORMATION)
• Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship (1/20/25)
• Initial Rescissions of Harmful Executive Orders and Actions (1/20/25) – Rescinds dozens of Biden Administration Executive Orders

Find COSSA’s full list of Trump’s Executive Actions and more information here or on the Social Science Space Tracker.

On January 29, join COSSA for the first Headlines webinar of the year. The COSSA Staff will cover recent key policy updates and what the future holds for advocacy in 2026. Register now and join the conversation.

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

COSSA’s annual Social Science Advocacy Day is BACK and will take place March 23-24, 2026 in Washington, DC! This annual event brings together social and behavioral science researchers, faculty, students, association professionals, and other advocates from across the country. Together, we’ll meet with elected officials in Congress to discuss the value of our sciences and the importance of federal funding.

Early Bird Registration is open! Register now to take advantage of early bird pricing and don’t forget to check out our sponsorship opportunities (some including free regsitrations).

Curious about Social Science Advocacy Day 2026? Join us for an informational webinar! We will be hosting a session to provide an overview of Advocacy Day, how to register, answer any questions, and more. Register here and come with your questions! The webinar will be taking place January 21 at 2pm EST.

As previously reported by COSSA, Congress closed out 2025 with a continuing resolution (CR) that ended a historic 43-day government shutdown and punted the appropriations deadline for fiscal year (FY) 2026 to January 31. While there were rumors of a potential second year-long CR for FY 2026, Congress returned from their two-week recess with agreements on final funding levels for several remaining bills. Last week, House and Senate leaders released a three-bill package that includes the Commerce, Justice, and Science (CJS) bill—which provides funding for the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Census Bureau, the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), and others—as well as the Energy and Water, and Interior and Environment bills. The package, which can be found here, largely rejects the President’s proposed budget cuts to federal science agencies (with some exceptions) and instead, provides modest funding decreases for FY 2026. 

COSSA will be releasing a full analysis of the package later this week. In the meantime, here is a preview of what is included in the three-bill minibus: 

A summary of the bill from the House Republicans can be found here, and a summary from the House Democrats here.

If the package passes in the Senate, Congress will have six remaining bills to pass before the January 31 deadline, including the bill that funds the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Department of Education. 

On December 18, the House Science, Space, and Technology (SST) Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight held a hearing titled, Research Security: Examining the Implementation of the CHIPS and Science Act and NSPM-33. Witnesses included Dr. Rebecca Keiser, Acting Chief of Staff, National Science Foundation (NSF); Dr. Daniel Evans, Assistant Deputy Associate Administrator for Research, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA); Dr. Patricia Valdez, Chief Extramural Research Integrity Officer, National Institutes of Health (NIH); and Mr. Jay Tilden, Director of the Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).

Subcommittee Chairman Rich McCormick (R-GA), joined by House SST Chairman Brian Babin (R-TX), opened the hearing by raising concerns that universities and research organizations have found federal guidelines—including the National Security Presidential Memorandum 33 on National Security Strategy for United States Government-Supported Research and Development or NSPM-33, issued in January 2021, and the CHIPS and Science Act, passed in 2022—to be “confusing, inconsistent, or incomplete.” He commended the efforts of the Trump Administration to protect U.S. scientific research from foreign adversaries and urged a coordinated national response to reduce confusion and fill any gaps in protecting government research and data from theft. During a line of questioning from Rep. Luz Rivas (D-CA), Dr. Keiser stated that NSF would be coordinating with the other agencies to release a memorandum of understanding to assist universities with following their research security guidelines.

While both sides of the aisle spoke to the importance of bolstering research security in the U.S., the Trump Administration’s effect on the scientific enterprise remained a point of contention, with many Democrats arguing that the Trump Administration is undermining the current system. During her line of questioning, Ranking Member Emilia Sykes (D-OH) contended that “the White House is taking a flamethrower to the science research community” through workforce reductions, budget cuts, and agency reorganizations. When questioned by Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR), each witness stated that research security remains as high a priority for their agency. Further, Mr. Tilden told the committee that “If you were to look at it from Biden to Trump, the efforts that we’re doing internally are in a consistent slope to improve.” He further emphasized the importance of building a pipeline of U.S. scientists, and the necessity of continued funding to support those efforts.

Congresswoman Sykes questioned Dr. Keiser on the current staffing levels at the NSF Office of the Chief of Research Security Strategy and Policy, which is required by the CHIPS and Science Act to employ four full-time staffers in addition to the Chief of Research Security. While Dr. Keiser assured that the agency was in the process of onboarding a fourth staff member, it was noted that the office previously had seven staffers and had been reduced to three, not including Dr. Keiser who is serving in the office in addition to her role as Acting Chief of Staff. It is unclear whether the staffing shortage was a result of the federal workforce layoffs or budget cuts, but Ranking Member Sykes raised concerns that the current number of staffers was a violation of federal law.

Ranking Member Sykes also pressed the agency on indirect costs, noting that research security officers are often paid by universities using that funding, and to reduce or restrict the funding could further harm their ability to effectively respond to security threats. Rep. Luz Rivas (D-CA) raised concerns that reducing indirect costs could disproportionately affect smaller universities, to which Dr. Keiser assured the Safeguarding the Entire Community in the U.S. Research Ecosystem (SECURE) Program would still prioritize these institutions, and emphasized the need for consistency in funding to address potential threats, echoing Mr. Tilden’s earlier request (see previous COSSA coverage). Dr. Valdez and Mr. Tilden also highlighted the importance of the SECURE Program in harmonizing research security policy across the agencies.

Stay tuned for COSSA’s continued coverage on research security.

Following a year of unexpected federal workforce reductions, budget cuts and grant cancellations, and political uncertainty, lawmakers have returned for the second session of the 119th Congress with the 2026 midterm elections looming this November. Several Members of Congress have unexpectedly resigned, including Representative Marjorie Taylor Green (R-GA) following a public fall-out with President Trump in 2025. Other members have announced their retirement at the end of the term, including Senators Thomas Tillis (R-NC) and Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who both have publicly opposed the Trump Administration. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), who has served in Congress for 39 years and made history as the first female Speaker of the House in 2007, will also be retiring at the end of the term.

Perhaps most notably for the social and behavioral science community, Rep. Haley Stevens (D-MI), who currently serves as the Ranking Member for the House Science, Space, and Technology (SST) Research and Technology Subcommittee and is a vocal science champion, is not seeking re-election so she can pursue a Senate. seat Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), who previously served as House Majority Leader for several years and currently serves on the House Appropriations Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Subcommittee (LHHS), has also announced that he will retire after nearly 45 years in office. Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), who currently serves on the Senate Appropriations Commerce, Justice, and Science Subcommittee (CJS) and LHHS Subcommittee, and Gary Peters (D-MI), who currently serves on the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee and the Senate Appropriations CJS Subcommittee, will also be retiring at the end of the term.

With more announcements expected in the coming months, and a tumultuous midterm election season ahead, it’s clear there will be several power vacuums on committees important to the research community. It will also present opportunities for new champions to rise to the occasion.

In other news, before the end of the year, the House Science Committee welcomed Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA) back to the Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee. As is common with the start of a new year, more committee shake-ups are expected in the upcoming months.

Stay tuned for COSSA’s continued coverage on the 119th Congress.

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) recently released reports explaining some of the notable changes in grants policy at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). CRS is a component of the Library of Congress and is required by law to provide Members of Congress and staff with timely, confidential, and nonpartisan research and analysis on issues of national policy, as requested. Reports do not provide policy recommendations, but instead, ensure that Members of Congress are given the best possible information on which they can base policy decisions.

While directed at Congress, many CRS reports are publicly available and can serve as useful resource guides on complicated and emerging issues. CRS recently released the following reports:

• NIH Grants Policy Under the Second Trump Administration (December 11, 2025)
• NIH Indirect Costs Policy for Research Grants: Recent Developments (December 9, 2025)

In December, the White House released the President’s Management Agenda (PMA). Administrations have been issuing PMAs since the George W. Bush presidency in 2001. The agendas represent the President’s strategy for improving the management and performance of the federal government by identifying specific goals and metrics. Its signature feature has been a scorecard that tracks progress by each federal agency across several measures, such as human capital or budget performance.

Each Administration puts their own spin on the PMA; however, they have traditionally built off their predecessor’s agendas to ensure continuity in government improvement. However, the Trump Administration’s PMA released last month reads less like a plan for improving government efficiency and more like an extension of the President’s domestic policy agenda. For example, the three PMA priorities are:

• Shrink the government and eliminate waste
• Ensure accountability for Americans
• Deliver results, buy American

However, within each are specific goals, such as “eliminate woke and weaponized programs across government” and “defund DEI gender ideology, K-12 indoctrination, child mutilation, and open borders.” This is a different approach from PMA’s of past Administrations which focused on reforming federal agency structures to be more efficient, taking advantage of new technology, and reforms to the civil service (see President Bush’s 2001 PMA)

The PMA can be found on Performance.gov. However, the website currently contains only an outline of Trump’s management agenda. Missing are details about which agencies will be tasked with delivering on the stated goals and how they will be measured. 

On December 11, the White House issued its latest Executive Order (EO) related to artificial intelligence (AI), Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence. The order states its aim to allow companies to innovate by eliminating “cumbersome regulation” at the federal level through the establishment of a “minimally burdensome national policy framework for AI.” Until national standards governing AI can be established, the EO directs the Attorney General to form an “AI Litigation Task Force” responsible for identifying and challenging state laws that appear inconsistent with the federal policy. Through the evaluation the Task Force will be looking for state laws that “require AI models to alter their truthful outputs, or that may compel AI developers or deployers to disclose or report information in a manner that would violate the First Amendment…” In other words, the Trump Administration, through the EO, will focus on rooting out state laws “requiring entities to embed ideological bias within models.”

The National Science Foundation (NSF), through its Technology, Innovation and Partnerships (TIP) Directorate, has launched a new initiative aimed at accelerating “practical research with real-world applications.” Tech Labs will support research, development and innovation (RDI) teams “focused on overcoming persistent barriers to the commercialization of emerging technologies.” According to the announcement, these teams “will focus on technical challenges and bottlenecks that traditional university and industry labs cannot easily solve on their own.”

NSF is seeking public input through a request for information. Comments are due January 20. In addition, NSF is hosting an informational webinar on January 14 (register here). 

As previously reported, the National Science Board (NSB), which is the policy-making body of the National Science Foundation (NSF), created a Commission on Merit Review in 2023 to take a fresh look at NSF’s current merit review criteria and make recommendations for potential improvement or modernization. After several delays, the Commission released its report on December 17. The report, Merit Review for a Changing Landscape, contains an in-depth evaluation of NSF’s longstanding review process and makes several recommendations, including:

1. Pursue renaming the “Broader Impacts” criterion to “Societal Benefits.”
2. Maintain the two current review criteria, presently named Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts, refine the definitions of each criterion, and clarify the use of additional review considerations.
3. Emphasize the imperative to both promote the progress of science and engineering and deliver societal benefits from NSF-funded research and education, in accordance with statute.
4. Strengthen the emphasis on expanding participation, including (but not limited to) institution type, geography, demographics, field of expertise, and sector of employment, as permitted by law.
5. Revise NSB’s Merit Review policy to clarify the alignment of award portfolios with agency strategy and outcomes.
6. Update Merit Review policies and processes to strengthen transparency and accountability and promote continuous improvement.

The release of the NSB report comes on the heels of new Merit Review rules that took effect December 15, 2025. Among the changes announced in an internal NSF memo include a reduction in the minimum of outside reviews from three to two and making panel reviews optional. Other changes may conflict with recommendations made in the NSB report. For example, the new policy limits the length of panel summaries to unsuccessful applicants to three to five sentences, while the NSB recommends reviews go into more detail, particularly when rating broader impacts. Another potential area of conflict relates to DEI; the NSB report calls for more attention to broadening participation in STEM while NSF, directed by the Trump Administration, has outlawed (and defunded) grants with specific DEI foci.

While the new NSF policy took effect December 15, the National Science Board states that it is working with the Foundation to implement the recommendations in its report. 

On December 10, the Population Association of America (PAA), a COSSA governing member, and the Association of Population Centers (APC) hosted a Congressional briefing, “U.S. Birth Rate Trends: Patterns, Drivers, and Implications for U.S. Families.” The in-person event drew interest from almost 100 registrants representing the U.S. House of Representatives, U.S. Senate, National Institutes of Health, Government Accountability Office, National Academies of Science, Congressional Research Service, a range of scientific and health stakeholder organizations, and the media.

The event was moderated by Dr. Jennifer Sciubba, President and CEO of the Population Reference Bureau, and featured presentations by Dr. Karen Benjamin Guzzo, Director of the Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill and Dr. Melissa Kearney, Gilbert F. Schaefer Professor of Economics, University of Notre Dame. The briefing focus was particularly timely given the Trump Administration’s interest in encouraging higher birth rates nationwide.

Dr. Guzzo’s presentation focused on recent U.S. birth rate trends, clarifying key terms such as the total fertility rate and replacement rate. She also shared recent research regarding the conditional factors that influence an individual’s decision to start a family. Dr. Kearney’s presentation put U.S. fertility rates in the context of international trends. She also explained how policy incentives have influenced these trends and addressed the economic implications of birth rate fluctuations.

Please see all visual and additional material here:

• Livestream recording
• Dr. Guzzo’s slides – Childbearing Trends in the U.S
• Dr. Kearney’s slides – The Demographic Challenge of Declining US Fertility
• PRB’s Guide – Beyond the Headlines: What’s Really Happening With Global Fertility?
• Speaker biographies
• Invitation and description

For more information, please contact Mary Jo Mitchell, Director, Government Affairs, Population Association of America/Association of Population Centers at maryjo@popassoc.org.