Inside (the Beltway) Scoop

By: Ellen Kuo
Thursday, July 30, 2026
Unleashing the Golden Age of Science
The House Science, Space, and Technology Committee convened with an ambitious question before it: What should America's scientific enterprise look like in the coming years? At the witness table was Michael Kratsios, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), author of Science: A New Golden Age, to present the Trump Administration's vision for a "Golden Age of Science." 

From the outset, Kratsios argued that the United States is engaged in a global competition for technological leadership. He said federal science investments should be directed toward research that strengthens national security, drives economic growth, and delivers tangible benefits to the American people. Rather than measuring success by how much the government spends, he emphasized investing strategically in areas that would provide the greatest return for the country.

Artificial intelligence quickly emerged as one of the hearing's central themes. Kratsios described AI as a transformative tool that could dramatically accelerate scientific discovery, from biomedical research to materials science and engineering. He argued that the federal government should help build the computing infrastructure and research ecosystem needed for scientists to harness AI's potential fully. AI needs data sets and data centers, and the concern over the environmental impact and higher electricity costs came up during the hearing.

The discussion then turned to reforming the federal research enterprise itself. Kratsios maintained that scientists currently spend too much time navigating administrative requirements instead of conducting research. He advocated reducing regulatory burdens, streamlining grant processes, encouraging high-risk, high-reward research, and making it easier for discoveries to move from laboratories into commercial products that strengthen the U.S. economy.

Republican members generally welcomed the Administration's emphasis on innovation, deregulation, and ensuring that taxpayer-funded research contributes directly to American competitiveness. Many praised the focus on strategic technologies such as artificial intelligence, biotechnology, quantum information science, advanced manufacturing, and energy technologies. Rep. Rich McCormick wanted to know how OSTP was strengthening the biotech workforce. Kratsios said he wanted to see funded grants focused on biotech as a priority. McCormick also wanted to see stronger bridges between industry and academia to reindustrialize America.

Democratic members agreed that maintaining American scientific leadership is essential, but they questioned whether the Administration's proposed budgets would provide sufficient support for agencies such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the Department of Energy Office of Science. They also raised questions about the future of peer review, workforce development, and international scientific collaboration. Ranking member Zoe Lofgren said there are now multiple credible reports of the administration's so-called taxing up to 30 percent of funds for each of NSF's research directorates to apparently create some kind of slush fund for administration priorities and calling it a direct contravention of the funding law that Congress passed in January and would be illegal. 

Another Democrat Rep. George Whitesides said young scientists are seeing fewer opportunities and money is being slowly rolled out the door. He held up two large posters at the hearing and said we see that the National Science Foundation has awarded 55 percent fewer grants at this point this year than at the same point in 2024, and on the other poster showing disbursements, that there has been a 30 percent cut, the lowest in six years. OSTP defended the situation as needing to ensure grants are being aligned with the administration. Rep. Bill Foster was also concerned that a smaller insular group of people is steering the ship when it comes to AI and recursive self-improvement. He disagreed with shrinking the detailed advisory committees to the Office of Science into an Uber committee that may have only one expert in an area like fusion.  

Toward the end of the hearing, Rep. April McClain-Delaney and others expressed disappointment that Kratsios’s report was released a day before the hearing without giving members a chance to review it and prepare questions. She expressed her concern that researchers and universities cannot carry all the facilities and administrative costs and how grantmaking will be influenced under the proposed update to the Uniform Guidance. In reply, Kratsios pointed out the need to accelerate discovery, which has slowed despite increased government funding, as the reasoning behind the need for changes.