Overall federal funding for scientific research is set to decline in 2027, the most senior White House science figure said on Wednesday. The government, however, pledged to spend $5 billion on promoting artificial intelligence in science.
Michael Kratsios, the White House’s science and technology adviser, told the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology that the money will be drawn from the National Science Foundation (NSF) and NASA, as well as other federal agencies.
The goal is to produce “the premier AI for science ecosystem in the world,” he said. The funding will be earmarked for “research awards, funding opportunities, specialized scientific datasets and research facilities,” the White House said in a statement.
On supporting science journalism
If you’re enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
The remarks go some way to help define the Genesis Mission, a White House effort aimed at promoting U.S. dominance in AI that was announced last November but had no defined budget at the time.
The administration hopes to bolster AI in research conducted by government science agencies and departments, such as NASA and the Department of Energy, Kratsios said. The administration is also interested in funding a “scientifically relevant quantum computer,” he added.
At the hearing, Kratsios fielded lawmakers’ questions about major cuts to NSF grants under the Trump administration. When asked about nearly $1 billion in NSF grants that have been held up, as well as the “very large discrepancies” between planned spending and actual allocations for 2026, Kratsios said he wasn’t aware of the details. The NSF must be “more deliberative” on what research receives funding, he said.
A point of contention was a proposed change to how science grants are awarded that has drawn widespread criticism from researchers. If enacted, the revision to Office of Management and Budget regulations would give political appointees, not peer reviewers, the power to choose which research proposals receive federal funding. Thousands of scientists, including several Nobel laureates, have criticized the rule change as damaging to U.S. science.
Kratsios said that the change is necessary because of a “real decline in the types of grants that want to achieve groundbreaking or out-of-the-box type of ideas” and that NSF awards will continue to be merit-based.
It’s Time to Stand Up for Science
If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.
I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.
If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.
In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can’t-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world’s best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.
There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.
