The most senior science official in the White House announced on Wednesday that overall federal funding for scientific research is expected to decrease by 2027. However, the government has committed to investing $5 billion in the advancement of artificial intelligence within the scientific field.
Michael Kratsios, the White House’s science and technology adviser, addressed the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, explaining that the funds will be sourced from the National Science Foundation (NSF), NASA, and other federal entities.
The initiative aims to create “the premier AI for science ecosystem in the world,” according to Kratsios. The allocated funds will support “research awards, funding opportunities, specialized scientific datasets, and research facilities,” as stated by the White House 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.
These remarks help clarify the Genesis Mission, a White House initiative to enhance U.S. leadership in AI, announced last November without a specified budget.
The administration seeks to strengthen AI research within government science bodies like NASA and the Department of Energy, Kratsios stated. He also mentioned interest in developing a “scientifically relevant quantum computer.”
During the hearing, Kratsios responded to lawmakers’ inquiries about significant reductions to NSF grants during the Trump administration. When questioned about the delay of nearly $1 billion in NSF grants and the “very large discrepancies” between planned and actual spending for 2026, Kratsios admitted to not knowing the specifics. He emphasized the need for the NSF to be “more deliberative” about which research projects receive funding.
A contentious issue was a proposed change to the science grant allocation process, which has faced widespread criticism from researchers. If implemented, the revision to Office of Management and Budget regulations would allow political appointees, rather than peer reviewers, to decide which research proposals receive federal funding. Thousands of scientists, including several Nobel laureates, have condemned the rule change as detrimental to U.S. science.
Kratsios defended the proposed change, stating it is necessary due to a “real decline in the types of grants that want to achieve groundbreaking or out-of-the-box type of ideas,” and assured that NSF awards would remain 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.
