Last week, the Trump Administration released their “National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence,” a proposed legislative framework to help guide Congress’ work in crafting a national policy with regard to AI. In the announcement accompanying the release, the Administration says, “the Federal government is uniquely positioned to set a consistent national policy that enables us to win the AI race and deliver its benefits to the American people, while effectively addressing the policy challenges that accompany this transformative technology.”
The framework is organized around seven key objectives:
Protecting Children and Empowering Parents
Safeguarding and Strengthening American Communities
Respecting Intellectual Property Rights and Supporting Creators
Preventing Censorship and Protecting Free Speech
Enabling Innovation and Ensuring American AI Dominance
Educating Americans and Developing an AI-Ready Workforce
Establishing a Federal Policy Framework, Preempting Cumbersome State AI Laws
The computing research community will likely find the fifth objective, which addresses innovation, to be the most relevant. It focuses on, “removing barriers to innovation, accelerating deployment of AI applications across sectors, and ensuring broad access to the testing environments needed to build world-class AI systems.” Specifically, the Administration suggests that Congress: establish regulatory sandboxes for AI applications; provide resources to make federal datasets accessible to industry and academia in AI-ready formats; and not create any new federal rulemaking body to regulate AI, and should instead support development and deployment of sector-specific AI applications through existing regulatory bodies.
The sixth objective, while relevant to the computing research community too, primarily focuses on workforce training objectives. This emphasis is potentially problematic because it doesn’t place a focus on education, despite the heading’s implication, and doesn’t address the numerous persistent education research questions around AI.
The proposed framework raises several areas of concern, notably its silence on AI research and funding. In fact, the document contains no mention of the words “research” or “funding” at all. Furthermore, the objective covering education and workforce development merely suggests utilizing “existing programs” rather than proposing new initiatives or programs. In many ways, this framework appears to support the current status quo instead of proposing meaningful legislative changes for national AI policy.
The immediate impact of this framework is unclear. While it represents the most significant federal proposal on artificial intelligence to date — arguably a low benchmark — the politics surrounding the issue are complex and contentious. For example, the proposal to preempt state AI regulations is expected to face intense, bipartisan, and ideological opposition. However, since this is merely a proposal, and not a binding framework, Congress is free to chart whatever course it deems best for national policy. Ultimately, a full understanding of this proposal’s impact will require more time for the situation to develop. CRA will continue to track this issue.
Since the NSF Director position requires Senate confirmation, and the President has not formally submitted O’Neill’s nomination to the chamber, the timing of him taking up the agency’s leadership remains uncertain. If confirmed, he would be the first NSF director without an advanced degree in a science or engineering field.
At a high level, CRA and USTPC share NSF’s high-level goals—to “Ensure American excellence,” “Advance American leadership,” and “Support national security”—but we express profound concerns that the proposed strategies risk undermining the nation’s science and engineering ecosystem. The core of our message is a call for NSF to return to its foundational, broad mandate and to rebuild trust with the academic community.
NSF’s request for comment is structured around four questions:
1. What opportunities exist that could help enable progress toward NSF’s objectives and strategies?
The most significant opportunity for NSF to succeed is to return to the broad mandate set out by Congress in the agency’s organic act. We urge NSF to:
Restore Foundational Funding: Progress in priority areas like AI and quantum science is built on fundamental computer science, mathematics, and engineering. The current “cluster” approach risks creating silos and diverting resources away from the basic research that seeds future breakthroughs.
Leverage the Full Academic Ecosystem: NSF must actively remove systemic barriers for groups underrepresented in STEM to tap into the full domestic talent pool. We argue that “geographic diversity” alone is an insufficient proxy for the comprehensive diversity needed to drive innovation.
2. How might NSF foster partnerships with a wide range of organizations to implement the strategies in its FY 2026-2030 Strategic Plan?
Partnerships are vital, but they depend on trust and stability. Recent actions have eroded this necessary foundation. To implement Strategy 2 under Goal 1 of the strategic plan, NSF must:
Rebuild Trust with Universities: The community is highly concerned about the proposed imposition of a 15% indirect cost cap and the retroactive cancellation of awards. Implementing partnerships effectively requires NSF to guarantee that signed grant agreements will be honored.
Acknowledge Industry’s Role: While industry collaboration is essential, it cannot replace federal support for basic research. We caution that the Plan’s emphasis on “market-ready solutions” (Strategy 3, Objective 1.2) risks turning NSF into a product development agency, hindering its primary role as a discovery engine.
3. What data or evidence should NSF consider as it develops mechanisms to evaluate progress and measure success in achieving the objectives in its FY 2026-2030 Strategic Plan?
NSF’s metrics must account for the potential negative consequences of recent restructuring, not just the “successes” of priority clusters. We recommend tracking:
“Lost” Science: In addition to measuring “Number of patents,” NSF should track the volume of highly-rated proposals in foundational areas (e.g., theoretical computer science) that are now unfunded due to resource diversion.
Workforce Retention: Beyond measuring the “Average number of days to hire,” NSF must track retention rates of career scientific staff and loss of institutional memory to address Goal 3 (Modernizing Operations).
Impact of Security Measures: In relation to Objective 1.3 (“Safeguarding the research enterprise”), NSF should measure the chilling effect of new security protocols, collecting data on international collaborations abandoned due to excessive bureaucratic hurdles or fear.
4. Is there any other information that would assist NSF in achieving the goals and objectives under its FY 2026-2030 Strategic Plan?
Our overall concern is that NSF’s Draft Strategic Plan, in the context of recent actions (including budget cuts, staff reductions, and the politicization of grantmaking), appears to codify a restructuring that threatens to dismantle the nation’s science and engineering ecosystem. Further, we urge NSF to be mindful and careful when implementing language derived from the “Restoring Gold Standard Science” Executive Order. We make the point that scientific integrity is maintained by peer review and community consensus, not by political priority, and achieving “American Excellence” requires that NSF defend and uphold academic freedom.
In closing, CRA and USTPC affirmed that both organizations stand ready to work with NSF to restore the agency’s ability to fulfill its statutory mission. Our great fear is that a poorly-executed reorganization will hobble the nation’s S&T research and risk ceding the 21st century to nations that continue to invest broadly and boldly in their research ecosystems.
Today, seven leading organizations — AAAI, ACM, ADSA, CASC, CRA, SIAM, and USENIX — representing more than 310,000 people in computing, information technology, science, and innovation across industry, academia, and government, joined together to thank the leadership of both Congressional Appropriations Committees for protecting the U.S. research enterprise, and safeguarding research funding for critical federal research agencies, particularly at the National Science Foundation, in the Fiscal Year 2026 Federal budget.
January 28, 2026
The Honorable Tom Cole
House of Representatives
Chair, Committee on Appropriations
Washington, DC 20515
The Honorable Rosa DeLauro
United States House of Representatives
Ranking Member, Committee on Appropriations
Washington, DC 20515
The Honorable Susan Collins
Senate
Chair, Committee on Appropriations
Washington, DC 20510
The Honorable Patty Murray
Senate
Vice Chair, Committee on Appropriations
Washington, DC 20510
Dear Chairman Cole, Chairwoman Collins, Ranking Member DeLauro, and Vice Chairwoman Murray:
As seven leading organizations representing more than 310,000 people in computing, information technology, and technical innovation across industry, academia, and government, we write to thank you for protecting the US research enterprise by safeguarding research funding for critical federal research agencies. Your continued support of the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Science, the National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST), and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) in the Fiscal Year 2026 (FY2026) appropriations process will help ensure that the U.S. maintains its position at the forefront of science and engineering.
We remain optimistic that, as the FY2026 budget process continues, important research funding at the Defense Department and the National Institutes of Health (NIH), as well as other critical technology and innovation-driven agencies, will be protected as well.
As you know well, the United States currently leads the world in critical and emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence and quantum computing. This leadership is built upon a robust research ecosystem; what the National Academies described as “an extraordinarily productive interplay of U.S. universities doing federally funded research, industry and federal labs, and the flow of people and ideas between them.” History has repeatedly shown that breakthroughs supported by federal research agencies yield substantial returns, fueling new economic sectors. A study by the Dallas Federal Reserve estimates the return on investment of non-defense government R&D to be between 150 and 300 percent. In computing alone, a federal investment in research of just over $10 billion annually across 24 agencies and offices underpins a technology sector that contributes more than $2 trillion to the U.S. GDP each year.
In particular, we are pleased that H.R. 6938 will continue research funding at NSF at approximately the same level as FY2025, and that computing research at DOE’s Office of Science will see a funding increase. That funding will enable critical computing research in AI, Quantum computing, and cyber security, as well as in the fundamental areas of research that will enable the next generation of key technologies. We hope that additional effort will be made moving forward to support investments in computing talent pipeline programs such as NSF traineeships and important computing education efforts, both of which saw their funding levels decline in this bill. We would be pleased to help advance those efforts.
Thank you for standing up in support of the federal investment in fundamental research at a time when that investment is threatened. We stand with you and urge you to maintain your oversight and protection of this critical investment. We appreciate your leadership and the encouragement you provide your colleagues in Congress to protect science and technology research. Please let us know how we can be of help to you moving forward.
On Monday, House and Senate appropriators released a bipartisan, conferenced, three bill package of legislation, also known as a minibus, containing the Fiscal Year 2026 (FY26) budgets for the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Institutes of Standards & Technology (NIST), NASA, and the Department of Energy’s Office of Science (DOE SC). Generally speaking the proposed budgets represent a compromise between the two chambers’ budget plans, but also a general rejection of the Trump Administration harsh budget cuts from earlier in the year.
This news marks the first progress on FY26 funding legislation since the government shutdown ended in the fall. Previously, the two Appropriations Committees were divided: the Senate favored a five-bill minibus, while the House proposed a three-bill version. Monday’s announcement indicates that the House appropriators’ preference has prevailed.
As a reminder, Congress passed a government-wide year-long continuing resolution (CR) for Fiscal Year 2025 in March. That means, with a few exceptions, all accounts were funded at Fiscal Year 2024 levels for FY25.
NSF:
FY25 Final
FY26 PBR
FY26 House
FY26 Senate
FY26 Minibus
$ Change
% Change
NSF Total
$9.06B
$3.90B
$7.00B
$9.00B
$8.75B
-$310M
-3.4%
R&RA
$7.18B
$3.28B
$6.37B
$7.18B
$7.18B
$0
0
EDU
$1.17B
$288M
NA
$1.00B
$938M
-$232M
-20%
Let’s look at NSF first. At the top line, the minibus would fund NSF at $8.75 billion for FY26. This represents a cut of $310 million, or 3.4 percent, from the FY25 level of $9.06 billion. While any cut is not good, this is markedly better than the $3.90 billion requested by the President or the House’s proposed $7.00 billion budget plan.
Going into the details further, the Research and Related Activities (R&RA) account, home to NSF’s research portfolio, would fare much better, being flat funded at $7.18 billion for FY26. This is in line with the Senate’s proposed funding plan.
In terms of bad news, the EDU directorate would receive a significant reduction under this budget plan. It would go from $1.17 billion in FY25 to $938 million for FY26, a 20 percent reduction or a cut of $232 million. However, this plan rejects the Trump Administration proposal, supported by the House appropriators, to fold the EDU directorate into RRA. Instead EDU is maintained as a separate budget line.
Given how the FY26 budget process started for NSF, these numbers represent a big win for the agency and the nation’s research community.
DOE SC:
FY25 Final
FY26 PBR
FY26 House
FY26 Senate
FY26 Minibus
$ Change
% Change
DOE SC Total
$8.24B
$7.09B
$8.40B
$8.25B
$8.40B
+$160M
+1.9%
ASCR
$1.02B
$1.02B
$1.11B
$1.09B
$1.12B
+$100M
+9.8%
ARPA-E
$460M
$200M
$350M
$414M
$350M
-$110M
-24%
The minibus proposes $8.4 billion for the DOE Office of Science, a $160 million (1.9 percent) increase over the FY25 enacted level. Going further, the budget plan proposes $1.12 billion for the Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) program, which is home to most of the Office of Science’s computing research efforts. This figure represents an increase of 9.8 percent from the $1.02 billion enacted for Fiscal Year 2025.
It is worth noting that this number is higher than either the House or Senate proposed budgets for ASCR. This likely signals that Congressional appropriators see the program’s work, particularly in areas like artificial intelligence and quantum, as a high priority for the nation.
For ARPA-E, the minibus proposes a budget of $350 million, a $110 million (24%) reduction from the FY25 enacted levels. This is roughly half the cut that the Trump Administration proposed for the agency in their May budget plan and it is in line with the House’s proposal.
NIST:
FY25 Final
FY26 PBR
FY26 House
FY26 Senate
FY26 Minibus
$ Change
% Change
NIST Total
$1.46B
$833M
$1.28B
$1.60B
$1.85B
+$390M
+27%
STRS
$1.08B
$709M
$980M
$1.01B
$1.25B
+$170M
+16%
NIST’s budget continues to be a complicated situation. The minibus proposes a top line of $1.85 billion for the agency. That represents a huge 27 percent increase, or +$390 million, over FY25 enacted levels. However, this increase is because of roughly $660 million in Congressionally directed spending (AKA: earmarks). Removing those one-year projects, NIST’s year-to-year top line would be $1.18B, which would be a 2.3 percent increase from FY25 levels.
The Science and Technical Research and Services (STRS) account, where most of the agency’s research is housed, would see an equally eyepoping increase of 16 percent, going from $1.08 billion in FY25 to $1.25 billion for FY26. But again, when taking into account the earmarks, the actual number for the agency’s research account is less.
NASA:
FY25 Final
FY26 PBR
FY25 House
FY25 Senate
FY26 Minibus
$ Change
% Change
NASA Total
$24.8B
$18.8B
$24.8B
$24.9B
$24.4B
-$400M
-1.6%
Science
$7.33B
$3.91B
$6.00B
$7.30B
$7.25B
-$80M
-1.1%
Turning to NASA, the space agency’s total budget would be set at $24.4 billion in FY26, a slight cut of 1.6 percent (or $400 million) over FY25 levels. The Science account would receive a similar cut to the agency’s top line. At $7.25 billion, the proposed funding is a cut of $80 million, representing a 1.1 percent decrease from the FY25 enacted levels. While the top line is less than either the House or Senate numbers, the NASA Science number is a compromise between the two plans.
General Provisions:
In the general provisions of the legislative text, it’s clear that the appropriators are interested in reasserting Congressional control of the federal purse. In both the CJS and E&W titles of the minibus, they prohibit the research agencies from deviating from the negotiated indirect costs rates. There is also approving language for the higher-education community’s proposed FAIR model for reforming indirect cost reimbursements to research institutions. Additionally, there is a section that emphasizes that agencies can’t transfer funds into or out of any account in excess of 5 percent or it will be considered “reprogramming” and they have to provide Congress 30 days notice. While such a provision is not unusual, it takes on new significance in the face of the Trump Administration’s cancelling of already approved awards and grants. All of these are good developments for the research community.
Conclusion:
The House of Representatives is expected to vote on this minibus later this week. Senate action is unclear right now, but they could act on it well before the current CR expires on January 30. If both chambers pass this legislative package, it would head to the president’s desk for potentially being signed into law and closing out the FY26 budgets for these agencies. However, there are a lot of things that need to go right before the budget reaches the finish line.
Despite being a bipartisan and bicameral funding plan, the outlook for this minibus is unclear. Fiscal conservatives, particularly in the House, are still demanding major reductions in federal spending, and they have vowed to not support any funding legislation that doesn’t meet their demands. Additionally, it’s unclear how interested Congressional Democrats in either chamber will be in scoring political points on this matter, seeing as they received a good amount of the blame for the fall government shutdown. And it is worth noting that President Trump could turn into a wild card at any point in the process. We will have to let this process play out more before we have any idea on final outcomes. Please check back for the latest updates.
Continuing our coverage of the Fiscal Year 2026 (FY2) federal budget process, we turn to the Senate Appropriations Committee’s Energy and Water (E&W) bill. This bill contains the budgets for the Department of Energy’s Office of Science (DOE SC) and ARPA-E. The Senate Appropriators crafted a bill not far off from their House counterparts and provided the Office of Science with a mostly flat budget while proposing a healthy increase for the ASCR program. This is in contrast to the Trump Administration’s stark budget request in May.
As a reminder, Congress passed a government-wide year-long continuing resolution (CR) for Fiscal Year 2025 in March. That means, with a few exceptions, all accounts were funded at Fiscal Year 2024 levels for FY25.
The Senate’s E&W bill proposes a less than 1 percent increase for the Office of Science over FY25 enacted levels, bringing the agency’s budget to $8.25 billion for FY26 (an increase of $10 million). Within the Office of Science, the Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) program, which houses the majority of the computing research at DOE, would see a rare increase of 6.9 percent – going from $1.02 billion in FY25 to $1.09 billion for FY26.
In the committee’s report, the Senate appropriators continued their support for the agency’s efforts in artificial intelligence and quantum information sciences (QIS). The committee put particular emphasis on QIS, providing $255 million broken roughly equally between research and, “up to five National Quantum Information Science Research Centers.” The Office of Science is directed to submit a “Quantum Computing & Energy Efficiency Roadmap” report to the committee within three years. A key requirement for this report is to, “estimate the energy usage of various scalable quantum computing modalities, including modalities researched and developed by small- and medium-size businesses,” in addition to meeting other specified criteria. Concerning ASCR, the appropriators speak highly of the program’s activities and, “strongly supports (ASCR) leadership in emerging areas relevant to (DOE’s) mission,” including AI and QIS, and, “commends ASCR’s pursuit of machine learning tools for scientific applications and its support for the development of algorithms for future deployable quantum computers and artificial intelligence.” The committee also supports ASCR’s Mathematical, Computational, and Computer Sciences Research program, saying, “maintaining international leadership in high performance computing requires a long term and sustained commitment to basic research in computing and computational sciences, including applied math, software development, networking science, and computing competency among scientific fields,” and recommends not less than $300 million. The committee further, “supports the computational sciences workforce programs and recommends not less than,” $15 million for the Computational Sciences Graduate Fellowship. Finally, the Senate appropriators direct ASCR to, “implement a hybrid High-Performance Computing [HPC]/Quantum Computing Pathfinder program at one or more national laboratories.”
The Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy, or ARPA-E, would receive a flat 10 percent cut, a reduction of $70 million compared to FY25 enacted levels. The agency would go from $460 million in FY25 to $414 million under the Senate’s FY26 plans. The committee’s report lacks specific policy justification for the proposed ARPA-E funding cut. This reduction may simply reflect the current political climate favoring a decrease in overall federal spending.
FY24 Final
FY25 Final
FY26 PBR
FY26 House
FY26 Senate
$ Change
% Change
DOE SC Total
$8.24B
$8.24B
$7.09B
$8.40B
$8.25B
+$10M
+<1%
ASCR
$1.02B
$1.02B
$1.02B
$1.11B
$1.09B
+$70M
+6.9%
ARPA-E
$460M
$460M
$200M
$350M
$414M
-$46M
-10%
Finally, in a general provision section covering indirect cost reimbursements, also known as facilities and administration costs, the Senate appropriators directs DOE to, “continue to apply the indirect cost rate to the same extent and in the same manner as was applied in fiscal year 2024.”
The Senate Appropriations Committee released the text of its Energy and Water bill just before Thanksgiving, though the full committee has not yet acted on it. With the next continuing resolution expiring on January 30, 2026, the short timeframe makes it unlikely for the full committee, or the Senate, to consider this bill. Instead, it will most likely be incorporated into a future omnibus or minibus package of appropriations bills.
However, we are waiting for Congressional leadership to come to an agreement on how to complete the FY26 budget. That is no small task, as there continues to be substantial disagreement between both Republicans and Democrats, and between Congress and President Trump, on how to fund the federal government this year. Even after a highly partisan 43 day government shutdown, the environment is still not conducive to compromise. The underlying political instability remains and there is considerable worry within the Washington science policy community about the possibility of another shutdown when the current funding legislation expires.
Consequently, another full-year continuing resolution is under discussion. If Congress passes another such CR with limited policy direction, it would grant the Trump Administration substantial discretion in making funding decisions. Given the administration’s budget request from May, this outcome could be disastrous, creating significant hardships for the research agencies and the broader research community. However, the FY26 budget process is not yet concluded, and the final outcome remains uncertain. We will continue to provide the latest updates as they become available.
In our continuing series looking at the Fiscal Year 2026 (FY26) budget, we turn to the House Appropriations Committee’s Commerce, Justice, and Science bill. This piece of legislation is important to the computing community, as it contains the budgets for the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The House appropriators have proposed difficult budgets for these agencies, with considerable cuts to all three. However, even with these cuts, these proposed budgets are significantly better than the deep cuts requested by the Trump Administration back in May.
As a reminder, Congress passed a government-wide year-long continuing resolution (CR) for Fiscal Year 2025 in March. That means, with a few exceptions, all accounts were funded at Fiscal Year 2024 levels for FY25.
First, let’s look at NSF. At the top line, the House’s proposal for NSF in FY26 calls for a substantial cut, reducing the agency’s funding to a flat $7.00 billion. This represents a cut of $2.06 billion, or 23 percent, from the FY25 level of $9.06 billion. While such a number is undoubtedly bad, it is markedly better than the $3.90 billion requested by the President back in May, yet still far short of the $9.00 billion planned by the Senate.
Going a little deeper, the Research and Related Activities (R&RA) account, home to NSF’s research portfolio, would appear to receive a relatively better $6.37 billion for FY26. That would represent only a 11 percent decrease, or $810 million, over FY25 enacted levels.
However, there is a catch with R&RA’s number and it involves the Directorate for STEM Education (EDU). The House appropriators agreed with the Trump Administration’s proposal to fold EDU into the R&RA budget line. Since Congress has historically not stipulated funding at the directorate level, and continues to do so in its FY26 plans, we do not have a specific budget number for EDU for this year. But to give an idea of the situation, if we combine the FY25 numbers for R&RA and EDU, it received $8.53 billion last year. Comparing that to the House appropriators’ number means they are proposing a $1.98 billion cut, or 24 percent, to the combined accounts for FY26. Undoubtedly EDU is receiving a significant cut.
Looking at the policy items in the Committee’s report, which contains the funding policy direction from the Appropriations Committee, there are several areas of interest. The first topic the Committee raises is “Maintaining American Leadership in Research.” In that section, the appropriators recognize the important role NSF plays in maintaining leadership in science and direct NSF to, “prioritize research that aligns with vital national security priorities, including initiatives to advance AI and quantum computing.” It also encourages the agency to, “leverage the Technology, Innovation, and Partnerships (TIP) Directorate to expand partnerships with the private sector through cooperative agreements and consortia that strengthen the domestic science and technology ecosystem.” In specific areas, the committee commends NSF for its “significant investments” in artificial intelligence research and encourages the agency to continue its workforce development efforts and support research on AI’s implications for society. The Committee also recommends $25 million for NAIRR and commends NSF for the work of the program. Finally, the House appropriators speak highly of NSF’s research security efforts.
FY24
FY25
FY26 PBR
FY26 Senate
FY26 House
$ Change
% Change
NSF Total
$9.06B
$9.06B
$3.90B
$9.00B
$7.00B
-$2.06B
-23%
R&RA
$7.18B
$7.18B
$3.28B
$7.18B
$6.37B
-$810M
-11%
R&RA+EDU
$8.35B
$8.35B
$3.57B
—
$6.37B
-$1.98B
-24%
EDU
$1.17B
$1.17B
$288M
$1.00B
—
—
—
Turning to the National Institute of Standards & Technology’s (NIST), it fairs relatively better than NSF. The House Appropriations Committee proposes a 12.3 percent decrease, or a loss of $320 million, for the research agency in FY26. The agency’s top-line budget would go from $1.46 billion in FY25 to $1.28 billion in FY26.
While the top-line NIST number is not ideal, the Science and Technical Research and Services (STRS) account, where most of the agency’s research is housed, would see a less substantial cut of 9.3 percent, going from $1.08 billion in FY25 to $980 billion for FY26. However, the House appropriators included $273 million in the STRS account for “Scientific and Technical Research Projects,” which are earmarks for one-year Congressionally directed projects. If we were to exclude that number from the total and compare year-to-year funding, STRS would see a more substantial cut of 17.5 percent.
In terms of policy direction for NIST in the CJS report, there are no real surprises. The House appropriators continue to emphasize NIST’s work in critical and emerging technologies, such as AI, robotics, and quantum. In fact, there are sections on “quantum cryptography,” “university-based quantum user facilities,” and “AI advancement,” among several other specific topical call outs. Finally, the committee provides $10 million for “Evaluation of Chinese and U.S. AI Capabilities” and tells NIST to, “measure the capabilities of frontier Chinese AI models, benchmark Chinese AI models relative to U.S. AI models, detect vulnerabilities in advanced AI models, provide estimates on the gap between Chinese and U.S. frontier AI progress, provide estimates of likely and plausible future Chinese AI capabilities, and assess attempts by the PRC to exploit U.S. models to advance the PRC’s AI progress.”
FY24
FY25
FY26 PBR
FY26 Senate
FY26 House
$ Change
% Change
NIST Total
$1.46B
$1.46B
$833M
$1.60B
$1.28B
-$320M
-12.3%
STRS
$1.08B
$1.08B
$709M
$1.01B
$980M
-$100M
-9.3%
Turning to NASA, the space agency’s total budget would remain flat at $24.8 billion in FY26, matching the FY25 level. However, within this flat topline, the agency’s Science account faces a significant reduction. At $6.00 billion, the proposed funding is a substantial cut of $1.33 billion, representing over a 18 percent decrease from the FY25 enacted levels.
FY24
FY25
FY26 PBR
FY25 Senate
FY25 House
$ Change
% Change
NASA Total
$24.9B
$24.9B
$18.8B
$24.9B
$24.8B
$0
0
Science
$7.33B
$7.33B
$3.91B
$7.30B
$6.00B
-$1.33B
-18%
Finally, in a general provision covering “Facilities and Administrative (F&A) Costs of Research Institutions,” also known as indirect costs, the appropriators encourage the Trump Administration to “work closely” with the research community to, “develop an optimized (F&A) cost reimbursement solution for all parties that ensures the nation remains a world leader in innovation.” Unfortunately, the committee did not include language pausing or prohibiting unilateral agency action capping F&A. As a general provision, this language applies to NSF, NIST, and NASA.
Conclusion
The CJS bill was approved by the full Appropriations Committee on September 10 and is waiting for a vote by the full House of Representatives. We are waiting for Congressional leadership to come to an agreement on how to complete the FY26 budget. That is no small task, as there continues to be substantial disagreement on how to fund the federal government this year. Even after a highly partisan 43 day government shutdown, which ended begrudgingly by both sides, the environment is still not conducive to compromise. So the underlying political instability that caused the shutdown remains. Consequently, there is considerable worry within the Washington science policy community about the possibility of another shutdown when the current funding legislation expires. The deadline for Congress to act is January 30, 2026.
There is even discussion of another full year continuing resolution. If another year-long CR is passed, and coupled with limited policy direction from Congress, that would give the Trump Administration significant discretion in making funding decisions. Given the administration’s disastrous budget requests, such an outcome could be potentially terrible and sow confusion at the research agencies and within the wider research community. However, the final outcome of the FY26 budget process is uncertain at this time, and we must wait for its conclusion. Continue to check back for the latest updates.
Just before the Thanksgiving holiday, the White House issued an executive order (EO) launching the Genesis Mission. This new initiative, housed at the Department of Energy, is described as a, “new national effort to use artificial intelligence (AI) to transform how scientific research is conducted and accelerate the speed of scientific discovery.”
This new effort is described as a “whole-of-government approach” creating, “a national discovery platform that unites the world’s most powerful supercomputers, AI systems, and emerging quantum technologies with the nation’s most advanced scientific instruments.” According to the Genesis Mission’s website, this will, “form an integrated infrastructure for scientific exploration—an intelligent network capable of sensing, simulating, and understanding nature at every scale.” The EO directs the Secretary of Energy, Chris Wright, to implement the new program and appoint a senior political appointee as the project’s director, which is Under Secretary for Science Darío Gil.
The main feature of the Genesis Mission is the creation of, “an integrated AI platform to harness federal scientific datasets,” called the American Science and Security Platform. This will be used to, “train scientific foundation models and create AI agents to test new hypotheses, automate research workflows, and accelerate scientific breakthroughs.”
The order also directs Michael Kratsios, the director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, to “coordinate the national initiative and the integration of data and infrastructure from across the Federal government.” The order further directs Wright, Kratsios, and the Special Advisor for AI & Crypto (David Sacks) to, “collaborate with academia and private-sector innovators to support and enhance the Genesis Mission.”
The EO also outlines a series of specific steps for the program:
Within 90 days, DOE is tasked with identifying, “Federal computing, storage, and networking resources…including both DOE on-premises and cloud-based high-performance computing systems, and resources available through industry partners.” DOE is also tasked with identifying, “any additional partnerships or infrastructure enhancements,” that could support the American Science and Security Platform.
Within 120 days, DOE is tasked with identifying, “a set of initial data and model assets for use…including digitization, standardization, metadata, and provenance tracking.” It is also tasked with developing a plan, “incorporating datasets from federally funded research, other agencies, academic institutions, and approved private-sector partners, as appropriate.”
Within 240 days, DOE, “shall review capabilities across the DOE national laboratories and other participating Federal research facilities for robotic laboratories and production facilities with the ability to engage in AI-directed experimentation and manufacturing, including automated and AI-augmented workflows and the related technical and operational standards.”
Finally, within 270 days, DOE will identify, “an initial operating capability of the (American Science and Security Platform) for at least one of the national science and technology challenges.”
Another key task laid out in the EO is for DOE to identify at least 20 science and technology challenges in the areas of:
Advanced manufacturing;
Biotechnology;
Critical materials;
Nuclear fission and fusion energy;
Quantum information science; and
Semiconductors and microelectronics.
These will be reviewed by OSTP and will serve as the first challenges to be addressed by the mission. The EO also directs the mission to review and update the list on an annual basis.
It is important to note that this order does not direct any new funding to Genesis or its operations. However, the EO does direct Kratsios and OSTP to coordinate, “participating agencies in aligning…their AI-related programs, datasets, and research and development activities with the objectives,” of the mission.
Standing up Genesis and giving it this mission is incredibly ambitious and shows the Administration emphasis on it showing immediate results. That DOE must achieve the Platform’s initial operating capability in approximately nine months is a good example of this.
However, there are other concerns. There is a clear over emphasis on working with industry in public-private partnerships, and a lack of mention of the importance of academic research to furthering the development of AI. As well, DOE being assigned this leadership role naturally deemphasizes other research agencies, like NSF, who have unique capabilities to contribute to any federal AI effort. In many ways the ultimate success of Genesis will depend greatly on how DOE coordinates the mission’s activities with the other research agencies, and thus harnessing all of the research capabilities of the federal government.
Darío Gil and Stanford University physicist Kathryn Moler offered further context of the new program in a Science op-ed. The article explores the potential of using AI to speed up scientific discovery and discusses the obstacles currently preventing its full realization.
CRA will continue to monitor the roll out and initial actions of the Genesis Mission, and will report out any new developments. Please check back for the latest information.
In October, CRA and 12 other scientific organizations, representing over 300,000 researchers, students, labs, and companies, filed an amicus curiae, or “friend of the court,” legal brief. This litigation supports international students affected by actions of the Trump Administration and the Department of Homeland Security. Led by the American Physical Society, the brief is part of the case President’s Alliance vs. Kristi Noem, specifically advocating for international students whose visas were revoked due to the termination of their Student and Exchange Visitor Information System records. The case is currently pending in court.
CRA joined this amicus brief due to the significant impact that uncertainty surrounding federal student visa and immigration policies has on the computing research community. As CRA has said before, the nation’s investment in science and technology, including the students and postdocs who will drive future research, is fundamental to our global standing and quality of life. Disrupting the career paths of the next generation of innovators would be a costly error for the country, far outweighing any short-term gains.
With only two days remaining in the 2025 Fiscal Year, Congress and the Trump Administration are at an impasse regarding federal funding, raising the specter of a government shutdown.
Congressional Democrats are primarily demanding the extension of subsidies for Affordable Care Act marketplace enrollees. In contrast, Republicans and the Trump Administration seek a “clean” continuing resolution (CR) to extend funding until November 21. A clean CR would maintain government funding at current levels without any new policy mandates, changes, or contentious provisions.
Last week, the Trump Administration escalated the situation when the Office of Management and Budget issued a memo directing federal agencies to prepare for potential mass layoffs of federal workers in the event of a shutdown. Such an unprecedented move would likely have a detrimental impact on federal research agencies, a concern for the computing and IT research community.
While there are efforts in Congress to avoid a lapse in funding authority, the unfortunate reality is it might be too little, too late. The current political climate in Washington is not conducive to compromise, as Congressional Democrats aim to challenge President Trump and secure a political victory, while Republicans are determined to hold firm on a clean CR and deny the Democrats that win.
A meeting is scheduled for today between the four Congressional leaders and President Trump. The outcome of this meeting will likely determine whether a government shutdown happens. Even with a positive outcome, a brief shutdown (measured in hours or a day or two) is still possible. If the outcome is not positive, how long the impasse lasts is hard to predict. It will likely depend on which side yields first due to anticipated negative public reaction, but that could potentially last weeks or even months.
CRA continues to engage with our Congressional friends and allies to emphasize that a government shutdown would be severely disruptive to the nation’s research enterprise. The uncertainty surrounding the timeline for resolving such a shutdown could even be crippling. We are closely monitoring the situation and will report any new developments.
Please use the Category and Archive Filters below, to find older posts. Or you may also use the search bar.
Trump Administration Releases National AI Legislative Framework
/In: Artificial Intelligence, Information Technology R&D Highlights, Policy, R&D in the Press, Research, STEM /by Brian MosleyLast week, the Trump Administration released their “National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence,” a proposed legislative framework to help guide Congress’ work in crafting a national policy with regard to AI. In the announcement accompanying the release, the Administration says, “the Federal government is uniquely positioned to set a consistent national policy that enables us to win the AI race and deliver its benefits to the American people, while effectively addressing the policy challenges that accompany this transformative technology.”
The framework is organized around seven key objectives:
The computing research community will likely find the fifth objective, which addresses innovation, to be the most relevant. It focuses on, “removing barriers to innovation, accelerating deployment of AI applications across sectors, and ensuring broad access to the testing environments needed to build world-class AI systems.” Specifically, the Administration suggests that Congress: establish regulatory sandboxes for AI applications; provide resources to make federal datasets accessible to industry and academia in AI-ready formats; and not create any new federal rulemaking body to regulate AI, and should instead support development and deployment of sector-specific AI applications through existing regulatory bodies.
The sixth objective, while relevant to the computing research community too, primarily focuses on workforce training objectives. This emphasis is potentially problematic because it doesn’t place a focus on education, despite the heading’s implication, and doesn’t address the numerous persistent education research questions around AI.
The proposed framework raises several areas of concern, notably its silence on AI research and funding. In fact, the document contains no mention of the words “research” or “funding” at all. Furthermore, the objective covering education and workforce development merely suggests utilizing “existing programs” rather than proposing new initiatives or programs. In many ways, this framework appears to support the current status quo instead of proposing meaningful legislative changes for national AI policy.
The immediate impact of this framework is unclear. While it represents the most significant federal proposal on artificial intelligence to date — arguably a low benchmark — the politics surrounding the issue are complex and contentious. For example, the proposal to preempt state AI regulations is expected to face intense, bipartisan, and ideological opposition. However, since this is merely a proposal, and not a binding framework, Congress is free to chart whatever course it deems best for national policy. Ultimately, a full understanding of this proposal’s impact will require more time for the situation to develop. CRA will continue to track this issue.
President Trump to Nominate Jim O’Neill, Former HHS Official, to Be NSF Director
/In: People, R&D in the Press, Research /by Brian MosleyPresident Trump plans to nominate Jim O’Neill to be the next director of the National Science Foundation (NSF), White House staffers confirm. O’Neill most recently served as the Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. He has also previously served at HHS during the George W. Bush Administration and later was an investor at Breakout Labs, a program within the Thiel Foundation that funds early-stage commercialization of scientific research.
NSF has been without a director since Sethuraman Panchanathan resigned in April amid widespread grant cuts, a proposed $5+ billion cut to the agency’s budget in the presidential budget request, and the threat of staff cuts. Brian Stone, the agency’s chief of staff, currently serves as acting director.
Since the NSF Director position requires Senate confirmation, and the President has not formally submitted O’Neill’s nomination to the chamber, the timing of him taking up the agency’s leadership remains uncertain. If confirmed, he would be the first NSF director without an advanced degree in a science or engineering field.
CRA and ACM’s USTPC Respond to NSF’s Request for Community Input about its Draft Strategic Plan
/In: CRA, General, People, Policy, Research /by Brian MosleyIn response to a request for community input on the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) draft Fiscal Year (FY) 2026–2030 NSF Strategic Plan, CRA and the Association of Computing Machinery’s U.S. Technology Policy Committee (USTPC) submitted a joint response representing the nation’s computing research community.
At a high level, CRA and USTPC share NSF’s high-level goals—to “Ensure American excellence,” “Advance American leadership,” and “Support national security”—but we express profound concerns that the proposed strategies risk undermining the nation’s science and engineering ecosystem. The core of our message is a call for NSF to return to its foundational, broad mandate and to rebuild trust with the academic community.
NSF’s request for comment is structured around four questions:
1. What opportunities exist that could help enable progress toward NSF’s objectives and strategies?
The most significant opportunity for NSF to succeed is to return to the broad mandate set out by Congress in the agency’s organic act. We urge NSF to:
2. How might NSF foster partnerships with a wide range of organizations to implement the strategies in its FY 2026-2030 Strategic Plan?
Partnerships are vital, but they depend on trust and stability. Recent actions have eroded this necessary foundation. To implement Strategy 2 under Goal 1 of the strategic plan, NSF must:
3. What data or evidence should NSF consider as it develops mechanisms to evaluate progress and measure success in achieving the objectives in its FY 2026-2030 Strategic Plan?
NSF’s metrics must account for the potential negative consequences of recent restructuring, not just the “successes” of priority clusters. We recommend tracking:
4. Is there any other information that would assist NSF in achieving the goals and objectives under its FY 2026-2030 Strategic Plan?
Our overall concern is that NSF’s Draft Strategic Plan, in the context of recent actions (including budget cuts, staff reductions, and the politicization of grantmaking), appears to codify a restructuring that threatens to dismantle the nation’s science and engineering ecosystem. Further, we urge NSF to be mindful and careful when implementing language derived from the “Restoring Gold Standard Science” Executive Order. We make the point that scientific integrity is maintained by peer review and community consensus, not by political priority, and achieving “American Excellence” requires that NSF defend and uphold academic freedom.
In closing, CRA and USTPC affirmed that both organizations stand ready to work with NSF to restore the agency’s ability to fulfill its statutory mission. Our great fear is that a poorly-executed reorganization will hobble the nation’s S&T research and risk ceding the 21st century to nations that continue to invest broadly and boldly in their research ecosystems.
You can read the joint response here.
Seven Leading Computing Organizations Thank Congress for Protecting the Nation’s Research Enterprise
/In: CRA, People, R&D in the Press, Research, Statements /by Brian MosleyToday, seven leading organizations — AAAI, ACM, ADSA, CASC, CRA, SIAM, and USENIX — representing more than 310,000 people in computing, information technology, science, and innovation across industry, academia, and government, joined together to thank the leadership of both Congressional Appropriations Committees for protecting the U.S. research enterprise, and safeguarding research funding for critical federal research agencies, particularly at the National Science Foundation, in the Fiscal Year 2026 Federal budget.
Download the letter.
FY26 Appropriations Update: Congressional Appropriators Release Minibus Spending Bill, Rejecting Harsh Funding Cuts for NSF, DOE SC, NIST, & NASA
/In: Funding, FY26 Appropriations, Information Technology R&D Highlights, Research /by Brian MosleyOn Monday, House and Senate appropriators released a bipartisan, conferenced, three bill package of legislation, also known as a minibus, containing the Fiscal Year 2026 (FY26) budgets for the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Institutes of Standards & Technology (NIST), NASA, and the Department of Energy’s Office of Science (DOE SC). Generally speaking the proposed budgets represent a compromise between the two chambers’ budget plans, but also a general rejection of the Trump Administration harsh budget cuts from earlier in the year.
This news marks the first progress on FY26 funding legislation since the government shutdown ended in the fall. Previously, the two Appropriations Committees were divided: the Senate favored a five-bill minibus, while the House proposed a three-bill version. Monday’s announcement indicates that the House appropriators’ preference has prevailed.
As a reminder, Congress passed a government-wide year-long continuing resolution (CR) for Fiscal Year 2025 in March. That means, with a few exceptions, all accounts were funded at Fiscal Year 2024 levels for FY25.
NSF:
Let’s look at NSF first. At the top line, the minibus would fund NSF at $8.75 billion for FY26. This represents a cut of $310 million, or 3.4 percent, from the FY25 level of $9.06 billion. While any cut is not good, this is markedly better than the $3.90 billion requested by the President or the House’s proposed $7.00 billion budget plan.
Going into the details further, the Research and Related Activities (R&RA) account, home to NSF’s research portfolio, would fare much better, being flat funded at $7.18 billion for FY26. This is in line with the Senate’s proposed funding plan.
In terms of bad news, the EDU directorate would receive a significant reduction under this budget plan. It would go from $1.17 billion in FY25 to $938 million for FY26, a 20 percent reduction or a cut of $232 million. However, this plan rejects the Trump Administration proposal, supported by the House appropriators, to fold the EDU directorate into RRA. Instead EDU is maintained as a separate budget line.
Given how the FY26 budget process started for NSF, these numbers represent a big win for the agency and the nation’s research community.
DOE SC:
The minibus proposes $8.4 billion for the DOE Office of Science, a $160 million (1.9 percent) increase over the FY25 enacted level. Going further, the budget plan proposes $1.12 billion for the Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) program, which is home to most of the Office of Science’s computing research efforts. This figure represents an increase of 9.8 percent from the $1.02 billion enacted for Fiscal Year 2025.
It is worth noting that this number is higher than either the House or Senate proposed budgets for ASCR. This likely signals that Congressional appropriators see the program’s work, particularly in areas like artificial intelligence and quantum, as a high priority for the nation.
For ARPA-E, the minibus proposes a budget of $350 million, a $110 million (24%) reduction from the FY25 enacted levels. This is roughly half the cut that the Trump Administration proposed for the agency in their May budget plan and it is in line with the House’s proposal.
NIST:
NIST’s budget continues to be a complicated situation. The minibus proposes a top line of $1.85 billion for the agency. That represents a huge 27 percent increase, or +$390 million, over FY25 enacted levels. However, this increase is because of roughly $660 million in Congressionally directed spending (AKA: earmarks). Removing those one-year projects, NIST’s year-to-year top line would be $1.18B, which would be a 2.3 percent increase from FY25 levels.
The Science and Technical Research and Services (STRS) account, where most of the agency’s research is housed, would see an equally eyepoping increase of 16 percent, going from $1.08 billion in FY25 to $1.25 billion for FY26. But again, when taking into account the earmarks, the actual number for the agency’s research account is less.
NASA:
Turning to NASA, the space agency’s total budget would be set at $24.4 billion in FY26, a slight cut of 1.6 percent (or $400 million) over FY25 levels. The Science account would receive a similar cut to the agency’s top line. At $7.25 billion, the proposed funding is a cut of $80 million, representing a 1.1 percent decrease from the FY25 enacted levels. While the top line is less than either the House or Senate numbers, the NASA Science number is a compromise between the two plans.
General Provisions:
In the general provisions of the legislative text, it’s clear that the appropriators are interested in reasserting Congressional control of the federal purse. In both the CJS and E&W titles of the minibus, they prohibit the research agencies from deviating from the negotiated indirect costs rates. There is also approving language for the higher-education community’s proposed FAIR model for reforming indirect cost reimbursements to research institutions. Additionally, there is a section that emphasizes that agencies can’t transfer funds into or out of any account in excess of 5 percent or it will be considered “reprogramming” and they have to provide Congress 30 days notice. While such a provision is not unusual, it takes on new significance in the face of the Trump Administration’s cancelling of already approved awards and grants. All of these are good developments for the research community.
Conclusion:
The House of Representatives is expected to vote on this minibus later this week. Senate action is unclear right now, but they could act on it well before the current CR expires on January 30. If both chambers pass this legislative package, it would head to the president’s desk for potentially being signed into law and closing out the FY26 budgets for these agencies. However, there are a lot of things that need to go right before the budget reaches the finish line.
Despite being a bipartisan and bicameral funding plan, the outlook for this minibus is unclear. Fiscal conservatives, particularly in the House, are still demanding major reductions in federal spending, and they have vowed to not support any funding legislation that doesn’t meet their demands. Additionally, it’s unclear how interested Congressional Democrats in either chamber will be in scoring political points on this matter, seeing as they received a good amount of the blame for the fall government shutdown. And it is worth noting that President Trump could turn into a wild card at any point in the process. We will have to let this process play out more before we have any idea on final outcomes. Please check back for the latest updates.
FY26 Appropriations Update: Senate Appropriators Provide Flat Funding for DOE Office of Science While ASCR Gets an Increase
/In: Funding, FY26 Appropriations, Information Technology R&D Highlights, Research /by Brian MosleyContinuing our coverage of the Fiscal Year 2026 (FY2) federal budget process, we turn to the Senate Appropriations Committee’s Energy and Water (E&W) bill. This bill contains the budgets for the Department of Energy’s Office of Science (DOE SC) and ARPA-E. The Senate Appropriators crafted a bill not far off from their House counterparts and provided the Office of Science with a mostly flat budget while proposing a healthy increase for the ASCR program. This is in contrast to the Trump Administration’s stark budget request in May.
As a reminder, Congress passed a government-wide year-long continuing resolution (CR) for Fiscal Year 2025 in March. That means, with a few exceptions, all accounts were funded at Fiscal Year 2024 levels for FY25.
The Senate’s E&W bill proposes a less than 1 percent increase for the Office of Science over FY25 enacted levels, bringing the agency’s budget to $8.25 billion for FY26 (an increase of $10 million). Within the Office of Science, the Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) program, which houses the majority of the computing research at DOE, would see a rare increase of 6.9 percent – going from $1.02 billion in FY25 to $1.09 billion for FY26.
In the committee’s report, the Senate appropriators continued their support for the agency’s efforts in artificial intelligence and quantum information sciences (QIS). The committee put particular emphasis on QIS, providing $255 million broken roughly equally between research and, “up to five National Quantum Information Science Research Centers.” The Office of Science is directed to submit a “Quantum Computing & Energy Efficiency Roadmap” report to the committee within three years. A key requirement for this report is to, “estimate the energy usage of various scalable quantum computing modalities, including modalities researched and developed by small- and medium-size businesses,” in addition to meeting other specified criteria. Concerning ASCR, the appropriators speak highly of the program’s activities and, “strongly supports (ASCR) leadership in emerging areas relevant to (DOE’s) mission,” including AI and QIS, and, “commends ASCR’s pursuit of machine learning tools for scientific applications and its support for the development of algorithms for future deployable quantum computers and artificial intelligence.” The committee also supports ASCR’s Mathematical, Computational, and Computer Sciences Research program, saying, “maintaining international leadership in high performance computing requires a long term and sustained commitment to basic research in computing and computational sciences, including applied math, software development, networking science, and computing competency among scientific fields,” and recommends not less than $300 million. The committee further, “supports the computational sciences workforce programs and recommends not less than,” $15 million for the Computational Sciences Graduate Fellowship. Finally, the Senate appropriators direct ASCR to, “implement a hybrid High-Performance Computing [HPC]/Quantum Computing Pathfinder program at one or more national laboratories.”
The Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy, or ARPA-E, would receive a flat 10 percent cut, a reduction of $70 million compared to FY25 enacted levels. The agency would go from $460 million in FY25 to $414 million under the Senate’s FY26 plans. The committee’s report lacks specific policy justification for the proposed ARPA-E funding cut. This reduction may simply reflect the current political climate favoring a decrease in overall federal spending.
Finally, in a general provision section covering indirect cost reimbursements, also known as facilities and administration costs, the Senate appropriators directs DOE to, “continue to apply the indirect cost rate to the same extent and in the same manner as was applied in fiscal year 2024.”
The Senate Appropriations Committee released the text of its Energy and Water bill just before Thanksgiving, though the full committee has not yet acted on it. With the next continuing resolution expiring on January 30, 2026, the short timeframe makes it unlikely for the full committee, or the Senate, to consider this bill. Instead, it will most likely be incorporated into a future omnibus or minibus package of appropriations bills.
However, we are waiting for Congressional leadership to come to an agreement on how to complete the FY26 budget. That is no small task, as there continues to be substantial disagreement between both Republicans and Democrats, and between Congress and President Trump, on how to fund the federal government this year. Even after a highly partisan 43 day government shutdown, the environment is still not conducive to compromise. The underlying political instability remains and there is considerable worry within the Washington science policy community about the possibility of another shutdown when the current funding legislation expires.
Consequently, another full-year continuing resolution is under discussion. If Congress passes another such CR with limited policy direction, it would grant the Trump Administration substantial discretion in making funding decisions. Given the administration’s budget request from May, this outcome could be disastrous, creating significant hardships for the research agencies and the broader research community. However, the FY26 budget process is not yet concluded, and the final outcome remains uncertain. We will continue to provide the latest updates as they become available.
FY26 Appropriations Update: House Appropriators Propose Difficult Budget Cuts for NSF, NIST, and NASA
/In: Funding, FY26 Appropriations, Information Technology R&D Highlights, Research /by Brian MosleyIn our continuing series looking at the Fiscal Year 2026 (FY26) budget, we turn to the House Appropriations Committee’s Commerce, Justice, and Science bill. This piece of legislation is important to the computing community, as it contains the budgets for the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The House appropriators have proposed difficult budgets for these agencies, with considerable cuts to all three. However, even with these cuts, these proposed budgets are significantly better than the deep cuts requested by the Trump Administration back in May.
As a reminder, Congress passed a government-wide year-long continuing resolution (CR) for Fiscal Year 2025 in March. That means, with a few exceptions, all accounts were funded at Fiscal Year 2024 levels for FY25.
First, let’s look at NSF. At the top line, the House’s proposal for NSF in FY26 calls for a substantial cut, reducing the agency’s funding to a flat $7.00 billion. This represents a cut of $2.06 billion, or 23 percent, from the FY25 level of $9.06 billion. While such a number is undoubtedly bad, it is markedly better than the $3.90 billion requested by the President back in May, yet still far short of the $9.00 billion planned by the Senate.
Going a little deeper, the Research and Related Activities (R&RA) account, home to NSF’s research portfolio, would appear to receive a relatively better $6.37 billion for FY26. That would represent only a 11 percent decrease, or $810 million, over FY25 enacted levels.
However, there is a catch with R&RA’s number and it involves the Directorate for STEM Education (EDU). The House appropriators agreed with the Trump Administration’s proposal to fold EDU into the R&RA budget line. Since Congress has historically not stipulated funding at the directorate level, and continues to do so in its FY26 plans, we do not have a specific budget number for EDU for this year. But to give an idea of the situation, if we combine the FY25 numbers for R&RA and EDU, it received $8.53 billion last year. Comparing that to the House appropriators’ number means they are proposing a $1.98 billion cut, or 24 percent, to the combined accounts for FY26. Undoubtedly EDU is receiving a significant cut.
Looking at the policy items in the Committee’s report, which contains the funding policy direction from the Appropriations Committee, there are several areas of interest. The first topic the Committee raises is “Maintaining American Leadership in Research.” In that section, the appropriators recognize the important role NSF plays in maintaining leadership in science and direct NSF to, “prioritize research that aligns with vital national security priorities, including initiatives to advance AI and quantum computing.” It also encourages the agency to, “leverage the Technology, Innovation, and Partnerships (TIP) Directorate to expand partnerships with the private sector through cooperative agreements and consortia that strengthen the domestic science and technology ecosystem.” In specific areas, the committee commends NSF for its “significant investments” in artificial intelligence research and encourages the agency to continue its workforce development efforts and support research on AI’s implications for society. The Committee also recommends $25 million for NAIRR and commends NSF for the work of the program. Finally, the House appropriators speak highly of NSF’s research security efforts.
Turning to the National Institute of Standards & Technology’s (NIST), it fairs relatively better than NSF. The House Appropriations Committee proposes a 12.3 percent decrease, or a loss of $320 million, for the research agency in FY26. The agency’s top-line budget would go from $1.46 billion in FY25 to $1.28 billion in FY26.
While the top-line NIST number is not ideal, the Science and Technical Research and Services (STRS) account, where most of the agency’s research is housed, would see a less substantial cut of 9.3 percent, going from $1.08 billion in FY25 to $980 billion for FY26. However, the House appropriators included $273 million in the STRS account for “Scientific and Technical Research Projects,” which are earmarks for one-year Congressionally directed projects. If we were to exclude that number from the total and compare year-to-year funding, STRS would see a more substantial cut of 17.5 percent.
In terms of policy direction for NIST in the CJS report, there are no real surprises. The House appropriators continue to emphasize NIST’s work in critical and emerging technologies, such as AI, robotics, and quantum. In fact, there are sections on “quantum cryptography,” “university-based quantum user facilities,” and “AI advancement,” among several other specific topical call outs. Finally, the committee provides $10 million for “Evaluation of Chinese and U.S. AI Capabilities” and tells NIST to, “measure the capabilities of frontier Chinese AI models, benchmark Chinese AI models relative to U.S. AI models, detect vulnerabilities in advanced AI models, provide estimates on the gap between Chinese and U.S. frontier AI progress, provide estimates of likely and plausible future Chinese AI capabilities, and assess attempts by the PRC to exploit U.S. models to advance the PRC’s AI progress.”
Turning to NASA, the space agency’s total budget would remain flat at $24.8 billion in FY26, matching the FY25 level. However, within this flat topline, the agency’s Science account faces a significant reduction. At $6.00 billion, the proposed funding is a substantial cut of $1.33 billion, representing over a 18 percent decrease from the FY25 enacted levels.
Finally, in a general provision covering “Facilities and Administrative (F&A) Costs of Research Institutions,” also known as indirect costs, the appropriators encourage the Trump Administration to “work closely” with the research community to, “develop an optimized (F&A) cost reimbursement solution for all parties that ensures the nation remains a world leader in innovation.” Unfortunately, the committee did not include language pausing or prohibiting unilateral agency action capping F&A. As a general provision, this language applies to NSF, NIST, and NASA.
Conclusion
The CJS bill was approved by the full Appropriations Committee on September 10 and is waiting for a vote by the full House of Representatives. We are waiting for Congressional leadership to come to an agreement on how to complete the FY26 budget. That is no small task, as there continues to be substantial disagreement on how to fund the federal government this year. Even after a highly partisan 43 day government shutdown, which ended begrudgingly by both sides, the environment is still not conducive to compromise. So the underlying political instability that caused the shutdown remains. Consequently, there is considerable worry within the Washington science policy community about the possibility of another shutdown when the current funding legislation expires. The deadline for Congress to act is January 30, 2026.
There is even discussion of another full year continuing resolution. If another year-long CR is passed, and coupled with limited policy direction from Congress, that would give the Trump Administration significant discretion in making funding decisions. Given the administration’s disastrous budget requests, such an outcome could be potentially terrible and sow confusion at the research agencies and within the wider research community. However, the final outcome of the FY26 budget process is uncertain at this time, and we must wait for its conclusion. Continue to check back for the latest updates.
White House Announces Genesis Mission with the Aim to Accelerate Scientific Discovery through AI
/In: Artificial Intelligence, Information Technology R&D Highlights, Policy, R&D in the Press, Research /by Brian MosleyJust before the Thanksgiving holiday, the White House issued an executive order (EO) launching the Genesis Mission. This new initiative, housed at the Department of Energy, is described as a, “new national effort to use artificial intelligence (AI) to transform how scientific research is conducted and accelerate the speed of scientific discovery.”
This new effort is described as a “whole-of-government approach” creating, “a national discovery platform that unites the world’s most powerful supercomputers, AI systems, and emerging quantum technologies with the nation’s most advanced scientific instruments.” According to the Genesis Mission’s website, this will, “form an integrated infrastructure for scientific exploration—an intelligent network capable of sensing, simulating, and understanding nature at every scale.” The EO directs the Secretary of Energy, Chris Wright, to implement the new program and appoint a senior political appointee as the project’s director, which is Under Secretary for Science Darío Gil.
The main feature of the Genesis Mission is the creation of, “an integrated AI platform to harness federal scientific datasets,” called the American Science and Security Platform. This will be used to, “train scientific foundation models and create AI agents to test new hypotheses, automate research workflows, and accelerate scientific breakthroughs.”
The order also directs Michael Kratsios, the director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, to “coordinate the national initiative and the integration of data and infrastructure from across the Federal government.” The order further directs Wright, Kratsios, and the Special Advisor for AI & Crypto (David Sacks) to, “collaborate with academia and private-sector innovators to support and enhance the Genesis Mission.”
The EO also outlines a series of specific steps for the program:
Another key task laid out in the EO is for DOE to identify at least 20 science and technology challenges in the areas of:
These will be reviewed by OSTP and will serve as the first challenges to be addressed by the mission. The EO also directs the mission to review and update the list on an annual basis.
It is important to note that this order does not direct any new funding to Genesis or its operations. However, the EO does direct Kratsios and OSTP to coordinate, “participating agencies in aligning…their AI-related programs, datasets, and research and development activities with the objectives,” of the mission.
Standing up Genesis and giving it this mission is incredibly ambitious and shows the Administration emphasis on it showing immediate results. That DOE must achieve the Platform’s initial operating capability in approximately nine months is a good example of this.
However, there are other concerns. There is a clear over emphasis on working with industry in public-private partnerships, and a lack of mention of the importance of academic research to furthering the development of AI. As well, DOE being assigned this leadership role naturally deemphasizes other research agencies, like NSF, who have unique capabilities to contribute to any federal AI effort. In many ways the ultimate success of Genesis will depend greatly on how DOE coordinates the mission’s activities with the other research agencies, and thus harnessing all of the research capabilities of the federal government.
Darío Gil and Stanford University physicist Kathryn Moler offered further context of the new program in a Science op-ed. The article explores the potential of using AI to speed up scientific discovery and discusses the obstacles currently preventing its full realization.
CRA will continue to monitor the roll out and initial actions of the Genesis Mission, and will report out any new developments. Please check back for the latest information.
CRA Joins Amicus Brief in Support of International Students
/In: Impediments to Research Highlights, People, R&D in the Press /by Brian MosleyIn October, CRA and 12 other scientific organizations, representing over 300,000 researchers, students, labs, and companies, filed an amicus curiae, or “friend of the court,” legal brief. This litigation supports international students affected by actions of the Trump Administration and the Department of Homeland Security. Led by the American Physical Society, the brief is part of the case President’s Alliance vs. Kristi Noem, specifically advocating for international students whose visas were revoked due to the termination of their Student and Exchange Visitor Information System records. The case is currently pending in court.
CRA joined this amicus brief due to the significant impact that uncertainty surrounding federal student visa and immigration policies has on the computing research community. As CRA has said before, the nation’s investment in science and technology, including the students and postdocs who will drive future research, is fundamental to our global standing and quality of life. Disrupting the career paths of the next generation of innovators would be a costly error for the country, far outweighing any short-term gains.
FY26 Appropriations Update: Government Shutdown, and an Uncertain Future, Loom
/In: Funding, FY26 Appropriations, Information Technology R&D Highlights, Policy, Research /by Brian MosleyWith only two days remaining in the 2025 Fiscal Year, Congress and the Trump Administration are at an impasse regarding federal funding, raising the specter of a government shutdown.
Congressional Democrats are primarily demanding the extension of subsidies for Affordable Care Act marketplace enrollees. In contrast, Republicans and the Trump Administration seek a “clean” continuing resolution (CR) to extend funding until November 21. A clean CR would maintain government funding at current levels without any new policy mandates, changes, or contentious provisions.
Last week, the Trump Administration escalated the situation when the Office of Management and Budget issued a memo directing federal agencies to prepare for potential mass layoffs of federal workers in the event of a shutdown. Such an unprecedented move would likely have a detrimental impact on federal research agencies, a concern for the computing and IT research community.
While there are efforts in Congress to avoid a lapse in funding authority, the unfortunate reality is it might be too little, too late. The current political climate in Washington is not conducive to compromise, as Congressional Democrats aim to challenge President Trump and secure a political victory, while Republicans are determined to hold firm on a clean CR and deny the Democrats that win.
A meeting is scheduled for today between the four Congressional leaders and President Trump. The outcome of this meeting will likely determine whether a government shutdown happens. Even with a positive outcome, a brief shutdown (measured in hours or a day or two) is still possible. If the outcome is not positive, how long the impasse lasts is hard to predict. It will likely depend on which side yields first due to anticipated negative public reaction, but that could potentially last weeks or even months.
CRA continues to engage with our Congressional friends and allies to emphasize that a government shutdown would be severely disruptive to the nation’s research enterprise. The uncertainty surrounding the timeline for resolving such a shutdown could even be crippling. We are closely monitoring the situation and will report any new developments.