Issue 16 (August 11)

As COSSA has been reporting, the Trump Administration has proposed eliminating the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences (SBE) Directorate in FY 2027. Advocates have been working tirelessly over the last several months to demonstrate to Congress the importance of SBE and the critical contributions made by social and behavioral science research. In fact, nearly 3,000 letters have been sent to Congress in response to COSSA’s Action Alert issued earlier this spring, urging lawmakers to save SBE.

Our work is not done. Too many Members of Congress remain unaware of this issue and need to be contacted immediately. Therefore, even if you have already sent a letter to your representatives in Congress, we ask that you promptly follow up with the new message.

It is especially important that Congress hear from the research community NOW. Why? Before leaving Washington for their August recess, the House and Senate began consideration of a continuing resolution (CR) that would push their deadline for passing the annual appropriations bills into December (FY 2027 officially begins October 1). The annual NSF appropriations bill is a vehicle advocates have been pursuing to save SBE. However, it is likely that the deadline to complete work on that bill will be delayed, increasing concerns that NSF will act to dismantle SBE without Congressional authorization. NSF needs to hear from Congress NOW!

The new letter calls on your Members of Congress to contact NSF immediately and urge them to abandon plans to dismantle the SBE directorate. Feel free to personalize our template message.

Want to do more? Members of Congress are back in their home states for the month of August. This is a great time to engage with them locally, by attending a town hall meeting or scheduling a local in-person meeting. Use COSSA’s At-Home Advocacy Guide for tips on how you can take additional steps to save SBE while your elected officials are home for the summer.

It is time to share your comments with your members of Congress! Instructions below.

As may you know, the White House Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) proposed rule on Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance received tens of thousands of comments from the public, the majority in opposition to the rule.

The draft rule included an implementation date of October 1, 2026; however, OMB has acknowledged privately that it is not likely to review all comments, as required by law, by then, likely resulting in a delay. In addition, the continuing resolution (CR) passed last week by the Senate to push Congress’ deadline for completing the fiscal year (FY) 2027 appropriations bills to December includes language prohibiting OMB from implementing the rule. (Note: The House and Senate passed different versions of the CR and will need to reconcile their differences when they return in September; the House bill does not currently include the OMB language.)

While OMB reviews the comments over the coming months, organizations and individuals continue to express their concern for the rule. It is critical that Congress hears your concerns about the rule!

If you submitted comments to OMB:

• Share your comments with your House Member and two Senators. The easiest way to do this is by emailing the offices and attaching your comments as a PDF (or including it in the body of the email if it is short).
• To ensure your message gets to the right person, we recommendcalling each office and asking for the name and email address of the staff member who handles science issues. You can find your Members of Congress and their Washington, DC phone numbers by visiting www.house.gov and www.senate.gov. If they will not provide the email address over the phone, you can ascertain it by following the steps in COSSA’s At-Home Advocacy Guide (page 11).
• Then simply send a friendly email to the staff person registering your concerns and offering to discuss further. Don’t forget to mention you are a constituent!

If you DID NOT submit formal comment to OMB:

• You can/should still weigh in with your Members of Congress about your concerns.
• Follow the same steps above.
• The most important thing is that your messages are respectful and fact-based. The goal is to get lawmakers to appreciate our concerns and act to stop the OMB rule from taking effect. 

Other ways to communicate with Congress

COSSA’s At-Home Advocacy Guide walks you through the many ways you can engage with your elected officials, especially now that they are back home for the August recess. In addition to sending an email, you can call their offices, attend a town hall meeting, or request an in-person meeting locally in the state. These are all appropriate options for discussing the OMB rule.

Do not hesitate to reach out to the COSSA team if we can assist you in contacting your members of Congress. Thank you in advance for your efforts!

Caroline Seo started as COSSA’s policy intern in June. 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?

My spring semester involved many hours of perusing William & Mary’s job post platform and asking professors if they had any connections with people working in the Northern Virginia area that they would be open to putting me in contact with. Both modes of searching were turning up unsuccessfully, probably because I have pretty specific interests. As a philosophy and sociology double major who is excited about pursuing as much formal education as possible and dreams of having the opportunity one day to do her own research at the intersection of both of her majors, I was well aware that I was asking for a lot when it came to finding an internship that would be perfect for my interests. I was explaining this to one of my professors, and she instructed me to “just Google: social science, intern, DC” — Google I did! I eventually found COSSA’s website and saw that they were looking for interns. After reading the “About” page and learning about COSSA’s mission of promoting social and behavioral sciences, I realized that COSSA could be a place that would help me learn about the very important intersection between academia and the government. I applied as quickly as possible.

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

After I finish my bachelor’s degree, I have my sights set on a doctorate in sociology. This will probably entail applying for grants and fellowships. This summer, I have been able to learn more about the policy that shapes how grants work and America’s research enterprise — it has been crazy at times, but very important and informative. On the career side, working with COSSA has allowed me to understand a bit more about what a job working in government relations is like. I think this has been invaluable. It was a special opportunity to see inside this industry since both of my majors aren’t government forward and I may not have gotten to otherwise.

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)?

What has been especially eye opening is the work that I have done to stay up to date with Congress as its actions pertain to social science and research. I have never watched so many hearings, looked through every bill that has been introduced daily, or researched every member of the House to see who is running for reelection or not before. The perspective that this has given me on how the legislative branch functions is still surface level, but miles deeper than any understanding I had before. I know that I would not get the chance to research Congress had I not interned at COSSA this summer, so I am very grateful for this experience and knowledge. 

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

I would tell them to enjoy it as much as they can! I would also tell people who aren’t government or political science majors to consider applying. I think that anyone with interest in social science could benefit a lot from branching out and understanding the research-academia-government relationship more fully.

What’s next for you?

As I enter my third year at William & Mary, I look forward to being an executive for our philosophy club, taking a course on qualitative research methods, and hanging out at the library. Some interests that I look forward to exploring in the coming year include 17th and 18th century philosophy, quantitative research methods, and sociology of religion. I am also excited about researching PhD programs in sociology around the country and perhaps abroad. 

The most recent Why Social Science? post comes from Dr. Kenneth A. Bollen from the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill about how social sciences, though imperfect, remain our best and most reliable hope for understanding and solving many of the crises we face.

Read on for more!

Before departing for August recess, the Senate passed a bipartisan continuing resolution (CR) that would extend current federal funding through December 11 to allow Congress additional time to complete the fiscal year (FY) 2027 appropriations process (the current deadline is September 30). The Senate’s stopgap measure will need to be passed by the House, which is currently on recess and not slated to return until August 31. While the House also passed a CR before departing Capitol Hill, it did not include a list of anomalies requested by President Trump after the bill was sent to the Senate (see previous coverage).

Included in the Senate CR is several anomalies, including a temporary block of the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) proposed rule, Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance, which seeks to make major changes to the Uniform Guidance governing federal financial assistance, including federal research grants (see previous coverage). The proposed rule has been a point of contention on Capitol Hill and in the research community, and was originally slated to be implemented in October; however, Senator John Kennedy (R-LA) recently told reporters that the rule would not be ready for implementation before December, prompting Senate Republicans to accept the temporary block. If the CR is signed into law as-is, it’s expected that this provision will return and become a significant debate across the aisle in FY 2027 funding negotiations this December.

Stay tuned for COSSA’s continued coverage of the appropriations process.

On August 6, Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), who serves as the Ranking Member of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, and Representative George Whitesides (D-CA) sent a letter to Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) Director Michael Kratsios demanding answers about allegations that OSTP is directing the use of National Science Foundation (NSF) funding. The letter comes after the release of OSTP’s report, Science: A New Golden Age, and Director Kratsios appearing before the Committee on July 22 (see previous coverage). During the hearing, Kratsios repeatedly denied OSTP’s involvement in the direct oversight of NSF funding and research priorities, stating, “I am not aware of anyone at OSTP that is working on individual grant approvals. I have never asked for that, and I would never condone that, and I don’t think any of us are” (see previous coverage). However, according to the letter, just two days following the hearing, rumors of an “exfiltration of $300 million from NSF’s mathematics and physical sciences directorates to fund an OSTP-led program” titled Grand Research Challenges would be reported by Nature (read the article here).

In response, House Science Democrats requested a briefing on the new initiative by August 14 that “must include an explanation of the program, a breakdown of how this program is being funded, and a thorough description of how OSTP has been involved in the internal processes at NSF.” The letter can be read here.

On August 4, the National Science Foundation (NSF) released a notice of a new rule in the Federal Register to rescind portions of its Title VI regulations, effective immediately. This comes after a series of similar notices across several federal agencies, including the Department of Education in July (see here) and the Department of Commerce in April (see here). These actions are in response to the Trump Administration’s Executive Order, Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy from April 2025 which sought to “repeal or amend the implementing regulations for Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for all agencies to the extent they contemplate disparate-impact liability.” 

The first article, NSF Is Making Fewer Grants, Threatening the Future of Scientific Discovery, released July 10, notes that NSF’s Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences Directorate (SBE) has awarded only 38 grants this year compared to an average of 357 awards between fiscal years (FY) 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024. The article continues that the uncertainty regarding awards is leading to “a reduction in the ability of major universities to support and admit the same number of doctoral students in key STEM fields as they have in previous years.”

The second article, The Nation’s Federal Funding Source for Education Research Hangs in the Balance, released July 30, notes a similar concern, stating that “an estimated $289 million in FY25 funds have not been obligated” and that “millions more in FY26 funds will expire if they remain unspent by next September.” The article explores potential impacts on education research, including critical damage to the research pipeline and data infrastructure.