House and Senate Committees Hold Hearings on the State of American Science

Both the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation (CST) and the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology (SST) held hearings recently regarding the American scientific research enterprise.

The House SST hearing was held on July 22 featuring testimony from the Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), Michael Kratsios. Kratsios used his testimony to unveil a new White House report, Science: A New Golden Age. The report makes several recommendations consistent with executive orders and other policy changes proposed by the Trump Administration.

Chairman Brian Babin (R-TX) and several other members across the aisle expressed concerns that China is and will continue to surpass the U.S. in scientific innovation, particularly in biotechnology and artificial intelligence (AI). However, Republican and Democratic members disagreed about whether Trump’s Executive Orders, such as Improving Oversight of Federal Grantmaking (see previous coverage) and the proposed rule on federal grant making from the Office of Management and Budget (see previous coverage) are helping to solve or exacerbating the poor state of American science.

Ranking Member Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Representative Suzanne Bonamici (D-WA), and other Democrats questioned Kratsios specifically about reports that White House officials are engaging directly in the National Science Foundation (NSF) proposal review process, suggesting that the White House is involved in making funding decisions that align with Administration positions. Kratsios denied White House involvement in determining which proposals get funding at NSF. Rep. Lofgren asked if any of the funds appropriated by Congress for FY 2026 are being diverted to the Genesis Mission, the President’s initiative aimed at building an AI platform to use Federal scientific datasets to drive innovation. In his response, Kratsios said he was “not familiar with those details.” Other lines of questioning from both sides focused on rising water and electricity prices due to data center construction.

The Senate CST hearing was held on July 21 with testimonies from Vice President Emeritus for Research and Technology Transfer at the Colorado School of Mines Walter Copan; Director of Bio-Strategy and Leadership at the Hoover Institution Drew Endy; Founder and Senior Fellow at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation Robert Atkinson; and Science Policy Advocate and former member of the National Science Board (NSB) Julia Phillips.

In Ranking Member Tammy Baldwin’s (D-WI) opening statement, she criticized the Trump administration for “undermining institutions that make our scientific leadership possible.” For example, she mentioned OMB’s proposed rule (noted above), the alleged $3 billion in grants that have been terminated or frozen by the Trump Administration, recent attempts to dismantle the Department of Education, and the firing of all the members of the NSB. 

Atkinson’s statements focused on the security of American data, evaluating grants based on global competitiveness, the number of Chinese post-docs allowed into the U.S., and increasing regulations for international university collaborations. Philips disagreed with Atkinson’s sentiments, arguing that chronic underspending on NSF is a major threat to the country’s long-term prosperity and safety – not foreign PhD students. Additionally, Phillips expressed concern with OMB’s proposed rule, claiming that it will make it difficult to preserve U.S. scientists’ access to international labs that are necessary for research. Phillips was adamant that cutting off American scientists’ ability to utilize international resources would leave the U.S. vulnerable to falling further behind. She was also concerned with the prospect of NSF’s funding decisions being made by political appointees rather than experts and scientists. More broadly, Copan stated that recent “self-inflicted wounds have slowed our research enterprise and weakened American capacity.”

When questioned about balancing the need for basic and applied research, Endy stated that the “public treasure” is best spent on foundational science and engineering research. He argued that public funding is vital for fundamental research because it often needs to be funded long-term, and results can be utilized in the private sector where entrepreneurs and industry use it for applied research and commercialization.

A recording of the Senate hearing can be found here. A recording of the House hearing can be found here. Stay tuned for COSSA’s continued coverage on the federal grant making process.

This article was contributed by COSSA Intern Caroline Seo.