Trump Administration Proposes Shift in Federal R&D Funding Toward AI and Individual Scientists

On July 22, the White House released the report “Science: A New Golden Age,” outlining a plan to redirect a portion of the roughly $200 billion annual federal research-and-development budget away from universities and “legacy institutions” toward individual researchers and projects centered on artificial intelligence, robotics, quantum computing, nuclear fusion and space exploration. The proposal calls for “more agile” research organizations and emphasizes AI-driven discovery across fifteen federal agencies. A parallel $5 billion initiative will fund AI-enabled work on chronic diseases, drug discovery and advanced materials.

South China Morning Post

The United States has funded basic research through a post-World-II framework first articulated by Vannevar Bush, in which the federal government provides grants, universities conduct the work, and private firms commercialize results. Administration officials argue that “scientific productivity has slowed” and that “drug approvals have flatlined,” prompting a reassessment of that model. The report also frames the shift as a response to China’s “all-of-society” approach to research, which officials say has brought Beijing to parity with U.S. R&D spending over the past two decades.

South China Morning Post

• $200 billion – total annual U.S. federal R&D budget.

South China Morning Post

• Billions – earmarked for reallocation from universities to individual scientists (exact amount not specified).

New York Times

• $5 billion – dedicated to the AI-for-science effort announced on July 22.

Reuters

• 15 federal agencies – including Health and Human Services, Energy, Transportation, Defense and Interior, will participate.

Reuters

• $40 million – AI computing credits pledged by Microsoft over three years to support the effort.

Reuters

• >40 % – proposed cuts to National Science Foundation funding, according to critics.

New York Times

Health Secretary **Robert F.

New York Times

Democratic members of the House Science Committee challenged the plan. Representative George Whitesides highlighted charts showing a slowdown in National Science Foundation award rates and demanded an explanation from Kratsios, who deferred to the agency. Critics also noted recent large-scale staff dismissals at federal science agencies and the lack of clarity around the report’s distinction between “life sciences” and “foundational research.”

New York Times

• “Our ability to make transformational breakthroughs here in the United States has slowed,” — Mr. Kratsios

New York Times

• “I do see these charts, and nothing would make me happier to make sure that we are getting closer to where we were in previous years,” — Mr. Kratsios

New York Times

• “To reverse stagnation and restore breakthrough momentum, the federal government must free American scientists to do their best work,” — Michael Kratsios

The Hill

• “Federal funding in academia remains anchored to mid-century assumptions,” — Michael Kratsios

The Hill

• “The White House is helping bring together all of the different agencies that work on different domains to make them part of this larger effort on AI for science,” — Michael Kratsios

Reuters

Additionally, while the administration cites a need to reduce grant-writing burdens, it has not detailed how the proposed shift will affect existing university-based research programs or the career trajectories of early-career scientists.

The Hill

Kratsios indicated ongoing coordination with the Office of Management and Budget to refine the funding framework. Implementation timelines, specific allocation formulas and mechanisms for political oversight of grants remain to be disclosed.

The Hill