Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare recesses of the committee at any time. And I would like to now recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement.
Good morning and welcome to today's hearing on unleashing the golden age of science, examining the priorities of fiscal year 2027 research and technology enterprise. And Director Kratsios, welcome back. Glad to have you here. Last time you sat before this committee, we discussed how Congress could build on President Trump's AI action plan, the role of American innovation, and the national security challenges posed by foreign competitors. Six months later, I'm glad to say that both the administration and this committee have taken meaningful action.
Last year, President Trump asked you to usher in a golden age of American innovation. And this is the standard by which this budget should be judged. A golden age is not measured by how much government spends, but whether taxpayer dollars are being focused on the right priorities and producing results that strengthen America's leadership in science and technology. And today's hearing is about just those priorities. After years in which Washington too often measured success by dollars obligated rather than by results achieved, this administration has begun to refocus the federal research enterprise on excellence, accountability, and on outcomes.
I expect today's discussion will include funding levels, indirect cost policies, uniform guidance, and the president's budget request. Those are important discussions, but funding alone is not a measurement of success. The real question is whether taxpayer dollars are being invested wisely and delivering results for the American people. This budget directs taxpayer dollars towards technologies that will decide the next century: artificial intelligence, quantum, advanced manufacturing, nuclear, and biotechnology, while ensuring that the science this government funds meets the highest scientific standards. The president's executive order on restoring gold standard science reinforces that commitment by requiring federally funded research to be reproducible, transparent, and honest about uncertainties.
Agencies will submit their first annual reports under that executive order this September, and this committee will be reading them. Scientific leadership also requires protecting the research that we fund. Congress has strengthened research security on a bipartisan basis, and American taxpayers should never subsidize the transfer of cutting-edge research to our foreign adversaries. America enters this competition from a position of strength. According to Stanford's AI 2026 index, private investment in American AI companies reached nearly $286 billion last year, more than 23 times China's and more than the rest of the world combined.
But we should be clear-eyed about this competition. The Chinese Communist Party has made artificial intelligence a national priority and is spending accordingly. Chinese frontier models now trail America's by only a few points on leading benchmarks, and Beijing continues targeting our universities and our national laboratories to obtain the cutting-edge research that we're doing. And that is exactly why this budget matters.
The administration has laid out a strategy to preserve American leadership in critical technologies. Executive Order 14409 hardens our systems against AI-enabled cyber attacks by partnering with American industry rather than regulating it into the ground. Turn this page. National Security Presidential Memorandum 11 is helping ensure that our war fighters have access to reliable and trustworthy AI capabilities. And while the Genesis mission is leveraging our national laboratories and supercomputing infrastructure to accelerate scientific discovery, this committee has done its part.
Across several markups this Congress, we have reported out the National Quantum Initiative Reauthorization Act, the NOAA Weather Radio Modernization Act, the NASA Reauthorization Act, the Weather Act Reauthorization Act, and other bipartisan measures to strengthen the American science and technology enterprise. Just last month, we also approved 10 bipartisan AI bills, including my AI-Ready Federal Data Guidelines Act, which implements a recommendation in the AI action plan to make scientific data AI-ready. We also approved the AI Security and Innovation Act authorizing the Center for AI Standards and Innovation at NIST to bolster AI evaluation capabilities essential to both our national security and to American leadership.
Director Kratsios, we look very much forward to hearing about how this budget advances the administration's priorities, strengthens OSTP, NSF, and NIST, and implements these gold standard science qualities and protects the federal research enterprise and ensures that the United States remains the world's leader in science and technology. I very much appreciate you being here today and I welcome your testimony. And with that, I yield back the balance of my time. And I would like to now recognize the ranking member's opening statement, the gentlewoman from California.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning, Mr. Kratsios. The topic of this hearing is unleashing the golden age of science. I think that title is stunningly ironic, as this administration has been systematically destroying the US science enterprise while our allies and adversaries alike look on astonished. So let me propose an alternative title: unleashing the golden age of science in the People's Republic of China, because this administration's actions have only served to strengthen the hand of China while decimating the US research enterprise.
As reported earlier this month by the Association of American Universities, major research universities across the nation accepted 15% fewer applicants to PhD programs for fall 2026 compared to fall 2025. This is on top of decreases recorded in fall 2025 admissions. These decreases were not just in fields disfavored by this administration; they were across the board in STEM fields. Now, international students have long been a linchpin of US leadership in science and technology, so none of us should be celebrating their 17% reduction in PhD admissions at US universities. However, even more shocking given administration rhetoric is the fact that PhD admissions for US students also dropped by 13%. So much for America First. We are harming the seed corn for the future of US science and technology.
Meanwhile, China is not only doubling down on their scientific investments, they're also actively recruiting researchers away from the United States. Big new initiatives and promises mean nothing when agencies act capriciously: canceling grants midway, delaying awards for months even after they've been selected through the rigorous merit review process, and blacklisting educational and research institutions. And if anyone has any doubt as to intent, just look at the proposed OMB rule effectively codifying all of these regrettable practices.
Mr. Kratsios, you are the face of the administration's science and technology agenda. You appear to have a direct role in some of these events, but you're accountable for the entirety of it. And I'll focus on just a couple of problematic actions.
First, you may claim to be a free-market conservative, but the administration acts like a bunch of communists. Actually, communism means that the government owns the means of production. The administration is bullying American companies into handing over equity stakes in exchange for federal funding so that the federal government owns the means of production. It's unprecedented. There's zero, zero transparency to the public or even to Congress on how it's intended to dispose of these shares, or what the timeline is, where the profits will go. We're left to our own imagination. Given the widespread corruption of the last 18 months, what I imagine is this administration once again disadvantaging American taxpayers for the benefit of the president's allies.
Next, I want to focus on the National Science Foundation, the crown jewel of our government's support for discovery science across all fields of science and engineering. The president requested a $3 billion cut to NSF for both FY25 and '26. Congress said heck no and funded the agency close to FY24 levels. Yet, the money is not getting out the door. There are now multiple credible reports of the administration so-called taxing up to 30% of funds for each of NSF's research directorates to apparently create some kind of slush fund for administration priorities. I want to be clear: this would be in direct contravention of the funding law that Congress passed in January and would be illegal.
Now, Mr. Kratsios, you have a background in venture capital, and I come from Silicon Valley myself. I have a deep appreciation for the ways in which VC has accelerated innovation. But government is not venture capital. There is no Silicon Valley without fundamental research—the kind government funds, the kind that wins Nobel prizes. It's a dangerous game to play, one that is already hollowing out our fundamental research base and our talent pipeline. From the targeting of major universities to the suppression of inconvenient federal science, to the slandering of diversity in our research enterprise, all of it has helped throw American science into crisis.
So, Director, I hope you're prepared to give serious answers to serious questions about these actions by the administration and under OSTP specifically under your watch. And Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Gentlewoman yields back, if I can find my place. All right. Now, let me introduce our witness. Our witness today is the Honorable Michael Kratsios, Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy. And in addition to his current position, Mr. Kratsios served as the Acting Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering and received the Department of Defense Distinguished Public Service Medal, the highest civilian award conferred by the Department of Defense. Congratulations. And with that, I now recognize Mr. Kratsios for five minutes to present his testimony.
Thank you, Chairman Babin and Ranking Member Lofgren, for inviting me to speak to you today about the nation's science and technology enterprise and this administration's priorities.
In this 250th year of American innovation, we have been given the perfect opportunity to renew the material foundations of America's independence, security, and prosperity. Our economic leadership and technological dominance cannot be taken for granted in a rapidly changing world where the United States no longer stands alone as an industrial and scientific superpower. Unleashing a golden age of American science requires new focus and reforms.
Eighty-one years ago, President Franklin Roosevelt's science adviser Vannevar Bush published a report entitled *Science: The Endless Frontier*, which organized America's national scientific enterprise for peacetime following the Second World War. Bush's vision established the federal government's role in supporting basic science and was foundational to the broad-based prosperity of the 20th century. But times and technologies have changed. Our moment calls for renewal of Bush's original intentions: to use the best tools, organizational theories, and systems thinking at our disposal to ensure that taxpayer-supported science produces the largest returns possible for the benefit of all Americans.
In a new report to President Trump published just yesterday entitled *Science: The New Golden Age*, I articulate the obstacles American researchers face today and the ways our scientific enterprise has fundamentally transformed since 1945. The report and a corresponding memorandum provide policy guidance for federal agencies to cement American scientific leadership for generations to come. I look forward to sharing these bipartisan and nonpartisan recommendations with the committee today and finding opportunities to codify them in Congress.
First, the US research system should prioritize individual scientists over legacy institutions. Too much of our research enterprise has come to serve itself rather than the scientists within it. By supporting a broader range of performers, including a new generation of mission-driven research organizations, we expand our scientific horizons.
Second, the federal government should reform and refocus how research dollars are allocated, distributed, and assessed. Instead of a one-size-fits-all approach, the government can deploy more flexible types of grants, including fast-track grants, long-horizon grants, and new mechanisms that allow reviewers to champion radically unconventional proposals.
Third, the federal government should set clear scientific goals and build the industrial muscle to translate scientific discovery into technological strength. Government must mobilize the full force of our enterprise around national challenges, clear the ground for American builders, and reunite the work of discovery and manufacturing across the country.
Fourth, the federal government must lead the way in preparing America's research enterprise to fully harness the artificial intelligence revolution. A year ago tomorrow, President Trump published America's AI Action Plan, laying out a blueprint for America's dominance in technology that increasingly defines our era. A main motivation in promoting American AI development is a belief that these tools can rapidly accelerate the progress of our scientific enterprise and so open new frontiers for American knowledge, industry, and quality of life.
The Genesis mission is the crown jewel of American AI for science and already well underway. Just this morning, in a convening of science teams across the executive branch, my office affirmed that the Genesis mission will be the central hub for the entire federal government to revolutionize the conduct of American science with AI. Joining DOE's ongoing efforts are initiatives from NSF, DOD, HHS, NASA, USDA, NIST, DHS, and DOT, mobilizing more than $5 billion in total commitments to producing the premier AI for science ecosystem in the world.
More than a whole-of-government project, we hope the Genesis mission will grow into a whole-of-nation effort driving the partnership of government, academia, and industry. The Genesis mission's grand challenges seek to directly address some of the hardest problems in research priority areas. Moreover, the pursuit of these grand challenges will inspire and test new AI methods and architectures, and so advance the capabilities of American AI itself.
Throughout our history, Americans have shown remarkable courage in our willingness to reinvent our institutions when the challenges we faced demanded it. Now, it is our time to build a scientific enterprise that will carry America forward and create a new golden age of science for the 21st century and beyond. I thank the chairman and ranking member for hosting today's hearing, and I look forward to answering your questions. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you very much. Now I'll move into the questions, and the chair recognizes himself for five minutes.
Director Kratsios, as I mentioned in my opening statement, last year the president charged you with ushering in a golden age of American innovation. And this budget outlines your plan for how NSF, NIST, and OSTP will help achieve that goal. In plain terms, what does this budget deliver for the American people that the last administration's budget did not?
Thank you so much for that question. I'm very excited to look forward to implementing the budget and also the new golden age report that was published just yesterday. We have a real unique and special opportunity today to be able to rethink and reimagine the way that our science ecosystem functions and be able to overcome some of the many challenges that we've had over the years. It is true, I believe, that there has been actual scientific and technological stagnation over the past few decades, and that's because our scientific ecosystem has calcified. We've essentially been trying to do the same thing and fund science initiatives in the same way for so many years.
And right now, because of AI and so many other opportunities, we have a chance and an opportunity to rethink the way that the government does science, to be able to first and most importantly back young American scientists. Everything that we do as a science ecosystem driven by the government should focus on scientists themselves. And we have lots of different programs and initiatives that are going to be doing that, but we somehow have lost our way, and those are the most important people in the ecosystem we should support.
Absolutely. Thank you. The committee continues to have serious concerns about the integrity and objectivity of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, or NASEM, and its work on attribution science. Despite repeated oversight requests, NASEM has failed to fully comply with the committee's request for information, prompting a follow-up oversight letter. And as we work toward a golden age of science, maintaining public trust in the nation's scientific institutions is as important as ever. Given the transparency concerns, do you believe Congress should reconsider NASEM's exemption from the Federal Advisory Committee Act so that its advisory committees are subject to the same transparency, balance, and conflict of interest standards as other federal advisory bodies, and will you commit to working with the committee in this process?
I very much look forward to working with the committee generally on this topic. I think it's important that any of our institutions that conduct science or work on science policy are transparent and honest with the American people, and I look forward to working with you on this particular issue.
Absolutely. The administration recently proposed accountability measures for federally funded grants, and the National Science Foundation's merit review process relies on external reviewers, many of whom are from academia. This chart shows the faculty ideology from 1969 to 2022.
If you would observe this, under the previous administration, we saw a significant increase in the politicization of science, big time. Federal grants were used to advance DEI initiatives that were direct violations of the Civil Rights Act, promote the so-called "environmental justice" agenda, and direct taxpayer dollars towards politically aligned organizations. How would the proposed revisions to the uniform guidance help restore accountability to the American people and elected officials instead of deferring to a political ideology or an unelected bureaucracy, as you can see from this chart that has occurred from 1969 to the present?
I think the most important thing that I think about of the era before President Trump was re-elected was I truly believe it was a black eye for the larger scientific ecosystem. The fact that so many taxpayer dollars were diverted to projects that clearly did not meet the mark for where we as an ecosystem should be funding, I think made a lot of people question whether or not the government was doing the right thing and whether it was funding projects that actually pushed science forward. So I commend President Trump for taking a strong stand on this when we first came into office to make sure that this type of funding stopped and we returned to gold standard science, ones where we can actually fund the most important scientific endeavors of the nation today. And we have continued to try to promulgate rules which will allow that to continue into the future.
Absolutely. You can see that from '69 to the present, we should have a middle of the road—probably an average of these personnel—and it's way, way down middle of the road.
So let me ask you one final question. For decades, the Congress has routinely authorized science programs at funding levels that far exceed what will ever be appropriated. And although these bills often pursue worthwhile goals, they also create unfunded expectations that can dilute agency focus, complicate long-term planning, and strain limited resources. From the America COMPETES Act to the CHIPS and Science Act, we've seen this pattern repeated over and over. How does this gap between authorized and appropriated funding affect the long-term health of our science enterprise, and what can Congress do to better align our policy ambitions with fiscal reality?
Yeah, I will say, obviously these type budgetary decisions or appropriation decisions are made by Congress, but I will say in the executive branch, having more definitive clarity around what will be funded and at what time periods I think will allow for much better planning. As this committee knows very well, there are many initiatives that are multi-year in the making, and the more clarity we can have for those, the better.
Absolutely. My time's expired, so I yield back, and I now recognize Ranking Member Lofgren for five minutes to ask her questions.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think we need to get a few things on the record here today. The National Science Foundation has been without a Senate-confirmed director for over a year, but I think we do have evidence that political appointees may be finding a way to interfere despite that fact. Now, I have something I want to put up on the screen, if the staff can make that happen.
On the screen is a slide that the Science Committee Democratic staff got just last week on the agency's Program Information Management System. Now, it may be a little bit hard to read because this was a screenshot taken by someone who was at the meeting, but it's helpfully colored in bright red, and it's a step that reads "coordination with DOGE and White House taking place outside the workflow." So we've been hearing rumors for months, and this seems to confirm it, that the White House is directly interfering with the operations of the National Science Foundation.
I'm wondering, does the White House have involvement similar to this in which NSF proposals receive funding?
The White House is not involved in which proposals get funding at the National Science Foundation. I will say, and I think this committee knows very well, the role of OSTP and the way it's created in statute is to have an opportunity to work with all of our science agencies to ensure that the president's priorities for science and technology are manifested in the budgets themselves and the way that these operate.
There have been reports in *Science* magazine and in *Nature* that I'd ask unanimous consent to put into the record, that indicate that NSF has held up nearly a billion dollars in money that Congress appropriated to the agency. And we've had indications of very large discrepancies between the fiscal year 2026 spend plan for NSF and the actual allocations that have been made to directorates. The public reporting and actually the rumors indicate that this is a portion of the $1.5 billion total that will essentially be expropriated from NSF and allocated to, I think, kind of a secretive initiative led by OSTP.
The current system of granting is not perfect. I'm not going to say that changes aren't required, but you can make extreme changes that will do damage to our science enterprise. So I'd like to know what is going on. Where is the nearly $1 billion that we know is being clawed back from NSF directorates, and what is the reported $1.5 billion project to, quote, *Nature*'s reporting, is a brainchild of the White House OSTP? And if you could be specific, is any of the $5 billion that you announced today for Project Genesis coming from the money appropriated to NSF?
I'm not familiar with those details; I would refer you to NSF. But I will say something that we have argued from the White House for a long time and has been manifested or written up in the golden age report that was released yesterday, was that as a nation, we should be more deliberative and specific about trying to tackle grand challenges. We as a country have shied away for many years from actually being opinionated about what are the most important scientific and technological endeavors that our American people deserve a government to be funding.
And in that report and in the budget guidance R&D memo that we produced as well yesterday, I think we list out some of those. And the Genesis mission is one of them, and so is creating a scientifically relevant quantum computer that was part of an executive order the president signed. And I think we as a nation should strive to have these large-scale scientific endeavors that only the government can help marshal the full resources of the nation together to accomplish.
I don't think the committee disagrees on some of the major initiatives that are important to the country. We just adopted the quantum initiative. We have bipartisan support for research into fusion. But the concern we have is the process by which the scientific enterprise is taken. Obviously, science does not happen without scientists, but scientists cannot operate in a vacuum if they don't have access to labs, if universities are no longer admitting doctoral students because they can't figure out a way to pay for their research.
There's been tremendous damage that has already been done to the science enterprise of the country. We know personally of Nobel-level scientists who are leaving the United States and going to China because their research can be funded. So I have grave concerns, and I know that other members of the committee will have an opportunity to follow up. With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlewoman yields back. I'd like to recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Webster, for five minutes.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Kratsios, the administration has emphasized American space leadership as part of a golden age of American innovation. Included in that is Artemis leadership, commercial space, and secure cooperation with allies and partners. How is OSTP alongside with NASA aligning the commercial space sector and international space science technology partnerships so the United States leads in space, while protecting sensitive technologies and strengthening norms that favor American leadership?
Thank you so much, Congressman. The president signed an executive order around space superiority in December of last year, and that actually set the national vision for our country in space. And I think it set out some bold goals that this committee is very, very familiar with: to have American boots on the ground on the moon in '28, to have the first components of a moon base by 2030, and to launch in this administration essentially a nuclear reactor into space for nuclear propulsion. So these are bold, ambitious goals that we at the White House are helping coordinate, some of which require multiple agencies to work together, particularly some of the nuclear initiatives. And we have an amazing administrator at NASA who's doing a great job in helping achieve the president's vision.
Executive Order 14369, basically ensuring American space superiority, calls for new and upgraded facilities to support increased launch and re-entry cadence. If the administration could use a privately funded federal infrastructure finance corporation at no cost to federal, state, or local taxpayers to supplement existing tools for spaceport infrastructure, would this new financing approach help OSTP carry out the executive order which calls for new and upgraded facilities?
I'd have to think or learn a little bit more about that particular model. But I think the overarching view is that we need to find the best possible solutions to be able to upgrade our launch infrastructure. I think, again, as this committee knows really well, the cadence of launches that is happening now is increasing dramatically, and our ability to have the facilities to allow our space economy to achieve its ultimate potential is going to require new facilities.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to include in the record a copy of my bipartisan Federal Infrastructure Finance Corporation legislation and a one-pager describing it.
So, radioisotope power systems will be vital to power US lunar infrastructure. What steps will the administration take to prioritize US companies building this technology, leveraging existing nuclear fuel across the DOE complex, and provide the procurement support needed to make US industry competitive globally?
I defer to my colleagues at DOE and NASA on that, but I promise you I can look into that and we can find ways to progress it forward. I think the key thing is that the president, at least from the White House level, has set the goal that we're going to have SMRs up by '28. In order to make that a reality, I think a lot of other pieces have to come together, and that very well may be one of them.
Well, my time is out. I would like to yield any time you'd like to—about a minute—to explain any other thing you'd like to explain.
Thank you so much. I talked about this a little bit in my opening statement, but I cannot reiterate enough how excited I am about the future of the science and technology enterprise in the United States. We have one of the greatest opportunities in human history to accelerate the pace of scientific discovery. Today, artificial intelligence is probably the biggest unlock in human history in our ability to drive scientific discovery.
What we're able to do through the Genesis mission and through extending AI-for-science-powered initiatives across all of our federal agencies, I think we'll be able to look back on that in years ahead and think that this was a moment where we actually really, really accelerated the pace of discovery in a way that no one thought possible.
Absolutely. Gentleman yields back. Thank you very much. And now I'd like to recognize the gentlelady from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici.
Thank you. Director Kratsios, thank you for being here. The administration's 2027 research priorities memo promises a golden age of science built on strengthening the US science ecosystem and gold standard science grounded in merit-based peer review. Yet in just the past three months, the president fired the entire National Science Board, OMB proposed a rule to defer research funding to the whims of political appointees instead of experts, and now the administration is moving funds Congress appropriated to NSF and other science agencies without congressional authorization to Genesis, which was created without congressional authorization—and I think you mentioned about $5 billion; that is significant.
America's science enterprise has led the world for decades because of our commitment to open research, to investing in discovery when the outcomes are unknown, to rigorous merit-based innovation, and to our US research universities. Today, that enterprise is blinded by firing experts, deafened by legal threats, and choked by political hostage taking.
So, Director Kratsios, this past Sunday, the president, who is not a scientist, ordered federal suspension and debarment officials to investigate the National Academies because of a peer-reviewed report he apparently didn't like. Executive Order 14303 requires federally funded science to undergo unbiased peer review. This National Academies attribution science report did go through years of peer review. So did OSTP review that report or advise the president before he issued that order? That's just a yes-or-no question.
Has OSTP identified a specific factual error in the report's peer-reviewed findings? Yes or no?
I haven't been involved in the National Academies report.
The National Science Board, which is required by law to advise the president and Congress on science policy, has been vacant for nearly three months because the president dismissed all 22 members. Did the board hold its statutorily required annual meeting in May of this year?
The National Science Board has statutory authority to establish the policies of the National Science Foundation and delegate award authority. Now adding to this, and I think this committee knows very well, the challenge is recent Supreme Court cases have upheld that only principal officers of the executive branch can make certain—
I'm going to reclaim my time, because my question was did—
I defer you to the National Science Foundation.
Has the president nominated a single replacement member since April? Yes or no?
Not that I'm aware of, no.
In May, OMB proposed a seismic overhaul of the federal grant system. It requires award reviews by political appointees, it allows agencies to subjectively terminate grants, and it bars funding that supposedly promotes topics the president doesn't like in favor of those that advance his policy priorities. Did OSTP consult with OMB in developing this proposed rule?
As this rulemaking is progressing, our office is working closely with OMB and OIRA to ensure that all of the federal research enterprise remains world-class and is trustworthy and accountable.
And did any agencies under OSTP's purview begin implementing provisions of the rule before the comment period closed?
I can't speak to other agency actions. I don't know.
You're not aware of any that have. You know, you're talking about unleashing American science, but you're standing idly by as researchers stop publishing their results out of fear, political agendas dictate winners and losers, and science agencies are bleeding staff, many of whom, as Ranking Member Lofgren noted, are being recruited by other countries who are aggressively courting our scientists. That's not scientific leadership.
I also wanted to ask you about this apparently new process set up to bypass review panels to earn a so-called fast-track golden ticket. It's Willy Wonka-like to me, and this is a serious issue. So who's going to get these fast-track golden tickets? Supporters of Donald Trump? People who pay for them? What's the process?
We're very excited about different methods of awarding grants. What we have seen over the past few decades is a real decline in the types of grants that want to achieve groundbreaking or out-of-the-box type of ideas, because these merit review panels tend to gravitate towards least common denominator awards. And what's amazing about the golden ticket process or initiative is that it does two things: one, it encourages scientists to be able to actually propose more interesting, more groundbreaking, more envelope-pushing ideas because they have an opportunity actually for them to be awarded; and second, I think most importantly, it actually encourages better and more qualified people to want to be part of these merit review panels.
My time's about to expire. So will you commit that those reviews will be done based on merit, not based on supporters? There's a lot of corruption in this administration. Not based on who is giving money to the president and who are the friends and supporters of the president, there will be merit-based grants to get a golden ticket. Will you commit to that?
That is how NSF does grantmaking. It's a merit-based process.
Thank you. Now I'd like to recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Obernolte.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director Kratsios, thank you for being here today. It's good to see you again. As the chairman mentioned in his opening statement several weeks ago, this committee marked up 10 different bills on the topic of AI regulation, and I'm very proud that this committee is leading on that issue. Amongst those bills was a bill of mine to codify the Center for AI Security and Innovation, or CASI, and task CASI with many roles, including improving and evaluating the security and reliability of advanced AI systems. And as we've seen with yesterday's disclosure of the loss of control at OpenAI and the subsequent hacking of Hugging Face, that just underscores the urgency of CASI's mission.
One of the items of disagreement within the committee was the level of resource to give to CASI. And part of the controversy was that there are elements of CASI's job that fall in the jurisdiction of other policy committees here in the House. And so as we work through the process with all of the different policy committees in crafting a federal regulatory framework for AI, it's really not clear until we get done with that what the overall responsibilities of CASI will be. So let me ask you: based on the responsibilities that we've given CASI so far, is CASI adequately resourced to execute on its mission?
I think CASI could certainly benefit from more resources. It is, to begin with, forgetting even this particular topic of AI, it's very hard to recruit people to work in government, layering on the fact that for the particular type of experts that you need to do the testing and evaluation of these models, these folks could work in the private sector and make orders of magnitude more in compensation. So I think what's important for us is to be able to create an organization that can recruit high-talented people to come for tours of duty and to be able to do the important work of the testing and evaluation of these models, and that does require resources.
Right. Well, that remains an item of discussion here. I think the legislation that we passed, which was my bill, resourced CASI at $25 million a year. I believe that the amount of resource truly needed when the dust settles here will be closer to $100 million a year, but we look forward to partnering with you to figure out what the right amount of resource is to enable CASI to execute on its important mission.
One of the other things that we did two weeks ago when we marked up legislation is to codify NAIRR, the National AI Research Resource, which is going to be a critical piece of making sure that we democratize access to advanced AI research and allow it to be done outside of the setting only in private companies behind closed doors, and to allow it to remain to be done in settings like academia and by entrepreneurs. What steps is OSTP taking to ensure that access to resources for AI research and development are democratized and broadly available?
Yes, we've encouraged NSF to continue to pursue and build out the pilot that they did for the NAIRR. One of the core tenets of *Science: The New Golden Age* is, again, reorganizing the scientific enterprise to support the individual scientist. And what we have seen as this AI revolution has taken over is that the resources that you need in order to do cutting-edge AI research are not trivial to acquire, and having pooled resources which the government can help with the private sector to create opportunities for scientists to tap into is really, really important and increasingly even more important. So we—
continue to encourage that and try to find programs both at NSF and at DOE to make that happen.
Right. So, you and I have had several discussions about the Genesis mission. I find that tremendously exciting. And I think I agree with you that it's going to catalyze a new era of discovery by partnering advanced research with artificial intelligence to push forward the boundary of human knowledge. The Genesis mission executive order identified a few priorities for the Genesis mission. Among them were AI and quantum computing, but also among them were fusion energy, which I think you and I share a passion for as chairman of the Fusion Energy Caucus. That's something that we have been very focused on. However, the administration's fiscal year '27 budget included a request for a billion dollars for AI and quantum, but no corresponding investment to accelerate commercial fusion deployment. So can you elaborate on what the administration's current federal strategy is on fusion?
Yeah. So you may have seen recently the Department of Energy released their fusion science and technology roadmap. And in the fiscal year '28 research and development priorities memo that me and Director Vought released yesterday, we talk about the importance of national science and technology missions, and we list out four of them, and one of them is fusion. Our hope is that through the budget process we can establish a way that we can demonstrate commercial fusion power in the US by the mid-2030s, in line with the roadmap that DOE put out.
Okay. Well, I mean it's going to require partnership between Congress and the administration to get that funded, and commercialization is an important part of that strategy. So I see my time's expired. I could ask a dozen questions, but I thank you for your presence.
Recognize the gentlewoman from North Carolina, Ms. Ross.
Thank you so much, Chairman Babin and Ranking Member Lofgren, for convening this very important hearing. I represent part of the Research Triangle, so there's nothing more important to my district than the scientific enterprise. I want to discuss the so-called gold standard science this administration is prioritizing. Everything's gold in this administration; there's just something odd about that. On May 23rd, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14303 entitled "Restoring Gold Standard Science." Not silver, not bronze, not red, blue. The executive order directed your office to issue guidance for federal agencies on the implementation of, and I quote, "gold standard science." It also directed agencies to submit their implementation plans to your office. And now a year later, OMB has proposed a broad policy that would completely upend federal grant funding, which will further devastate the scientific community and be subject to the whims of political leadership. And we have seen this in North Carolina in devastating ways to both the scientific enterprise and to our economy.
So as I said, I am proud to represent the Research Triangle. It's a major center for science and technology, home to some of the world's top research universities and institutions. And the Trump administration has severely disrupted our research and technology sector by restructuring critical agencies, firing experienced scientists, and cutting research funding, all in the haphazard pursuit of gold standard science, and all to the benefit of our competitors, specifically China, and specifically in the area of biotechnology.
Sadly, what we've been hearing this morning has been confirming what we know: gold standard is frequently gold-plated. And the victories that you're touting are merely cheap, shiny distractions concealing the nation's crumbling scientific infrastructure and the loss of the intellectual capability that we have to China, to Europe, to anybody who can fund their research. And scientific integrity is being violated every day across government. So I have a few questions for you in my two minutes left.
The gold standard science guidelines say, quote, "Unbiased peer review is critical for generating trustworthy new knowledge that minimizes bias." Yet a month after OSTP released its guidance, the so-called climate working group at the Department of Energy published a 151-page report that was written by five handpicked climate deniers. This report underwent no independent peer review and was immediately debunked by the scientific community, but DOE has refused to retract the report and continues to stand by it. Have you evaluated the publication process that the climate working group followed, and will you instruct DOE to retract the report as a violation of the gold standard science peer review requirements?
I have not, and I trust Secretary Wright in his judgment in putting together that panel and producing a report that was quite important.
Well, Secretary Wright was here, and let me tell you, didn't do a good job. The OSTP's gold standard science guidance is also supposed to uphold scientific integrity throughout the federal government. At the same time, OMB is working to finalize a policy that will explicitly empower political appointees to overrule merit-based scientific decisions. It's a travesty, and it's simply incompatible with any kind of commitment to robust scientific research. Director, how on earth can you claim to support gold standard science while the White House enacts a policy that will make a mockery of it? I believe that you actually are a serious scientist. You have great credentials. You have integrity. But this isn't being implemented in the way that you are saying it should be.
Thank you so much. I look forward to working closely with OMB to ensure that our enterprise continues to remain world-class and trustworthy and accountable.
Gentlewoman yields. I'd like to recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Franklin.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Kratsios, for being here with us today. I want to touch on gold standard science as well. Interesting segue. As we all know, the executive order would call for gold standard science that prioritizes transparency, rigorous scientific work, reproducibility of the science that's done, impartial federal science, clear communication of uncertainty, that we don't cherry-pick certain results and disregard others, that there are appropriate disclosure conflicts of interest. We could spend an entire hearing on examples over the previous couple of administrations where that has not been taking place, and we can argue that on both sides of the aisle. I would hope that in what's typically a very bipartisan committee, we would all agree the needs for the things that are spelled out in the executive order. But could you comment a little for us? How is OSTP ensuring that scientific advisory processes and agency research products earn more public confidence and provide reliable evidence for policymakers?
Thank you for that question. I think we were very excited and very proud when the president signed the Gold Standard Science executive order. I think it was an important moment to kind of turn the page on some of the errors and the challenges that were faced in the previous administration. What the American people deserve and what the scientific community deserves is to have trust in the science that is produced and funded by the federal government. The core tenets in that executive order are ones that any scientist anywhere in the world cannot disagree with. That is just the way that you should be pursuing science: things should be reproducible, things should be transparent, they should be impartial, you should communicate uncertainty clearly. And these are things that everyone agrees with. So to us, I think we're excited to get that out, and I think it's something our agencies have taken to heart, and they've each produced a set of implementation memos on how they're going forward to make sure that that is actually executed when they do science. So I'm very excited about the path ahead, and I think this is what the scientific community demands and should demand of the US government.
Well, I appreciate that. And when we return from our August recess, I'll be introducing legislation to codify that. I would hope that that would receive bipartisan support because both sides of the aisle should be serious about pursuing integrity in our science.
Well, if you need anyone to cheerlead it, I'm happy to make the rounds.
Roger that. Switching gears to AI. This week marks a year since the White House released America's AI Action Plan with more than 90 policy actions across innovation, infrastructure, and international leadership. One year into this, what do you see are the clearest signs that the plan is producing results?
I think the clear signs are we continue to lead the world in next-generation AI frontier models. It's something that I think we're proud of as a country. I think we had this Mythos moment, if you could imagine, that we're all very familiar with a few months ago, and I think there's lots of ways to think about it, but one view on it or easy way to think about it is that that was an American model made by an American company in America, and that shows that we continue to be sort of on the bleeding edge. Another big effort that I think we're very proud of is how we're continuing to accelerate the infrastructure buildout necessary for us to succeed in this AI world. The president was very forward-leaning in bringing together all of the AI companies and hyperscalers and getting them to agree to what is known as the Ratepayer Protection Pledge. And the president asked them, and they signed on to this pledge where they are committing to build, bring, or buy all their own power for next-generation and new data centers. Why that's so important is we have to have the confidence of the American people when we build out all this infrastructure. And I think this pledge makes it clear to everyone that when a new data center is built, rates are not going to go up. And these are the types of actions the president takes, which really instill the confidence necessary to keep leading ahead.
Okay. So those being positive actions so far, where do you see implementation needing to move faster? What areas do we still need to work on the hardest?
Well, I will say the infrastructure buildout is one we could always go faster on. The demand for compute is pretty insatiable. And we as a country, the more chips that we get online, the more data centers that we build, I think the more power that we'll have to keep driving all the next-generation discoveries that we want to make using AI. And that is as much, or more even so, a state and local issue than a federal issue. So I think we can work with all of our states to make sure that we can find reasonable ways where everyday citizens are very comfortable with this technology in their backyard, and I think it's possible.
I do have concern that it feels in the court of public opinion out there, we're losing the messaging battle on AI, and really you see it in the form of moratoriums that communities are trying to implement. And as I try to explain to people, you know, we're not going to put AI back in the bottle. It's a matter of whether we produce the AI and have control over those standards or China does. And we don't have much time, but I'd really be interested maybe later even on your thoughts on what we in Congress can be doing. And I know my colleague, Congressman Obernolte, has been a leader in this area, but we've got to do a better job. Really not much time to elaborate.
I think the one thing is we continue to emphasize areas where the American people care and are interested, and that is particularly in AI for health. If we can show that artificial intelligence can dramatically change and improve the conditions of healthcare in America, that's something that everyone cares about, and it matters for every American family.
Great. Thank you. And Chairman, I yield back.
Gentleman yields. Now, I'd like to recognize the gentlelady from North Carolina, Ms. Foushee.
Thank you to the chair and the ranking member for holding this bipartisan hearing today. And thank you, Director Kratsios, for your testimony and for appearing before us this morning.
In March of this year, the Trump administration, as you just noted, announced the creation of the Ratepayer Protection Pledge to protect Americans from the electricity price increases associated with the country's data center buildout. The announcement came with great fanfare and lofty promises, even a fancy signing ceremony at the White House with you sitting right next to President Trump. This was supposed to be your answer to the worry and the fear felt by so many Americans that data centers would cause energy prices to skyrocket even more in years to come.
Well, that was March, and now it's July, and Americans are wondering whether the Ratepayer Protection Pledge has made a real difference or whether it was just another empty promise from this administration. We already know the answer in North Carolina: nothing has changed. Duke Energy tried to raise electricity rates on residential customers by 18%, and only after a public backlash did it lower the rate hike, but rates are still set to increase by more than 3% at a time when people can't afford to pay more. That's why three of four of the counties in my district have implemented moratoria on data centers development. That's why the town of Apex in my district rejected a proposed data center and imposed its own moratorium, a local grassroots decision that I proudly support.
Director Kratsios, you may not want to admit that the Ratepayer Protection Pledge has been a complete failure, but my constituents know the truth. The pledge promised to, and I quote, "lower electricity costs for consumers in the long term." So my question is, are electricity costs for American consumers lower now than they were in March?
I think the Ratepayer Protection Pledge is one announcement by the president that is probably the most consequential of this term when it comes to AI. The idea that the hyperscalers and the AI companies themselves made a commitment to the American people that in any community they go into, they commit to essentially build, bring, or buy all their own power, ultimately ensuring that rates do not go up because of what they're building. And the president was very clear with them: the American people should not be paying more for electricity because of these data centers. He was very firm, and he was very clear, and he got them to agree to do this. This was a big accomplishment, and I don't think any other president could strongarm some of the largest technology companies in the world to make such a commitment. And I think as these companies try to go out into the world and convince Americans that they need to build these data centers, I think because of the pledge, Americans can be much more confident that—
Mr. Chair, I want to reclaim my time on that. That's not my question. The pledge promised that companies would, quote, "agree to protect American consumers from price hikes due to data center energy infrastructure requirements." So has this voluntary pledge stopped energy price hikes on local communities in this country?
Energy price hikes caused from the addition of new data center capacity to the grid, yes, it has stopped it because of that.
Okay. The pledge made a whole series of promises, not binding agreements, about what data center companies would do to hold down electricity costs for Americans. It was "build, bring, or buy," as you said earlier, new electricity generation, pay for all new power delivery infrastructure upgrades required for their data centers, also voluntarily negotiate new separate rate structures with utilities. Are all new data centers in America complying with the promises of this voluntary pledge? I'm going to ask the question again.
I don't know. I don't keep track of that.
Well, let me just say this: energy prices are still soaring, data centers are still a major driver of it, and this administration has done nothing to stop it. And with that, I yield back.
Gentlewoman yields back. I'd like to recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Fong.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Director Kratsios, it's great to see you again. Thank you for your leadership as you continue to advance America's AI and emerging technology leadership. This is a very consequential time. My first question: I've read the report that came out last night with all the recommendations. How will this accelerate our AI advancements to combat China? That is the consequential question that we have to answer right now at this very moment.
Yeah, I think the biggest one is essentially making the consequential decision that no matter what scientific domain you are pursuing research in, whether you are in material science or in chemistry or in biotechnology, artificial intelligence is an accelerant which everyone should be using as they pursue their next scientific endeavor. What the Genesis mission is able to do is actually to start incorporating AI into all those different scientific areas, whether you're working at NASA or at Department of War or Department of Energy. You will find a way to be able to work through a whole-of-government approach to integrate that AI into your research. And that's what I'm most excited about.
In the report, you emphasize a number of workforce development proposals: innovation hubs, apprenticeship programs, technical education, community colleges—which is extremely important—manufacturing technician programs. What role do you envision community colleges and a lot of these other programs playing in producing a skilled workforce needed for AI, cybersecurity, advanced manufacturing?
Totally, absolutely. I mean, we really have to rebuild the link between discovery and domestic manufacturing. We have to be able to integrate sort of hands-on training, apprenticeships, and practitioner pathways broadly into STEM. And I think by doing so, we can sort of build these dense regional innovation clusters so that as these breakthroughs happen, we create this broad-based prosperity across the US. And in order for that to happen, we have to leverage the types of institutions you were talking about: community colleges and the like.
I certainly couldn't agree with you more. That is the reason why we worked with you on the NSF AI Education Act. Appreciate your guidance on that. The report also points to the Mojave Air and Space Port as an example of how regulatory flexibility and local leadership launched America's commercial space industry. What specific elements of the Mojave model were most critical to its success that you see, and how can Congress replicate those principles in other emerging technology sectors?
I think whether it's Mojave or elsewhere, the key is the realization—or one of the core sort of realizations that led to the new report—is that we're in a new era in the US today where the interactions of the private sector, the federal government, academia, and industry all together are what drive next-generation scientific discovery. And the better pathways you can make and links that you can make between the four parts of the science ecosystem, the easier it is for you to move from one ecosystem to another to share ideas to accelerate your scientific research progress. That's what we focus on. And I think the example that you gave is one where you create an environment where the typical players that you would see in that domain actually had access to it.
Having a dedicated location where companies can rapidly test, iterate, fail safely—do you see Congress developing policies, or how would you encourage similar environments for AI, autonomous systems, advanced aviation, robotics?
Yes, we need all the above. I think one of the first pieces of paper that I ever worked on that the president signed was the creation of the drone pilot program at the Department of Transportation in 2017. And I think what has always been a core thesis of our administration is that we have to have the opportunity to test new emerging technologies in different environments. See where they work, where they don't, where the American people are comfortable with them, where they're not. And based on this testing, then you can make the right decisions about how to promulgate them into the commercial environment. So to me, having the best test range as possible and creating environments where Americans can go test their technologies, we have to do as much of that as possible.
And my last question in the time that I have: you outline in the report these new institutions, X-Labs, ARPA-style organizations, mission-driven institutes, curiosity-driven research centers. Can you expand on your vision of how you see all of these integrating together?
Yeah. The truth is now that all of America's great scientists are not in one place; they're spread out all over the place. And what I think one of the great things we worked with NSF on was this X-Labs initiative. It showed that you can bring together a multidisciplinary set of scientists to work on a specific scientific endeavor in a set finite period of time to pursue something that you're not necessarily going to see at a university or you won't see in the private sector. So what we need the government funding open to are different places where research can be done, and that's the reality of today. It all doesn't happen just at a university or just in an industry; it can happen other places, and we need to be able to fund those.
My time has expired. Thank you for your leadership. Look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman. Yield back.
Thank you. Thank you very much. I'd like to recognize the gentleman from Rhode Island, Representative Amo.
Thank you, Chair Babin, for holding today's hearing. Director Kratsios, despite the promises made in your report, you aren't launching us into the golden age of innovation. You're sending us back to the Stone Age. Earlier you said we should focus on scientists, but under your watch over 10,000 STEM PhDs left the federal workforce last year, and thousands of grants were cancelled because a DOGE bro found they contained phrases like "disadvantaged communities," "equity," or, brace yourself, "sexual orientation."
Your administration has taken a hacksaw to the scientific enterprise that's ensured America has developed almost every new technology for a century. You've allowed the Environmental Protection Agency to close its research arm, the Office of Research and Development, which identifies which chemicals shouldn't be in our air and water because they're toxic. You let the National Weather Service become a shell of its former self, critically understaffed during hurricane season because DOGE drove away 15% of its workforce last year. You've risked reversing generations of science leadership, ceding the 21st century to China. 21 countries, including China, have created recruitment programs to lure away our top scientific talent because you made it pretty easy.
Director Kratsios, you promise to usher in the golden age of American innovation. I don't think any of those results sound golden, do they? To you, do they seem innovative? All I see is tarnish and deterioration. I think you're trying to pass off a cheap knockoff as solid gold. So, I'd like to break down how we got here. The so-called Department of Government Efficiency corroded our nation's scientific leadership. DOGE was supposed to close its doors at the start of this month, but much like a damaging parasite, DOGE has lived on, continuing to wreak havoc throughout the government. We saw evidence of this earlier this hearing when Ranking Member Lofgren showed that a July 16th briefing noted DOGE's involvement in NSF operations. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record this Washington Post article on DOGE. It's titled, "DOGE Was Supposed to Be Dead. Its Remnants Are Everywhere."
Director Kratsios, in what capacity has DOGE influenced NSF operations? Are they NSF employees? OSTP employees? Tell me where DOGE is right now.
I'll speak for OSTP: there are no DOGE employees at OSTP.
Well, look, I get that you're trying to pass off the responsibility because they don't exist anymore, but you can't hide from its influence. It's there. It remains. This is not a mystery to anyone; it's actually plain as ink on paper. Now, does DOGE have on its organizational chart individuals who were onboarded as members? Does OSTP still have remaining DOGE staff on its org chart?
OSTP never had DOGE staff.
Okay. Look, I want to believe you, but it's pretty hard to believe what this administration has said about DOGE. So the challenge here is you've said one thing and done another repeatedly. Now, do members in any part of the government currently liaise with OSTP in any way?
I don't think DOGE exists anymore. It's pretty clear that—
There's a record that suggests otherwise.
I'm not sure how to help you.
There is a record that suggests that DOGE remains a big part of operations across our government.
I can speak to OSTP: we don't have any DOGE.
Okay. Well, I'm glad that you're on the record there, and I'll continue to follow up with you on that because ultimately this proves to be a losing approach. Hollowing out our nation's scientific leadership leaves us weaker, leaves us less prepared to make discoveries in the future. And the commitment that I hope you're able to make today is that the principles that they left behind of destruction, of elimination of our capacity wholesale, isn't something that you'll carry on. Is that something that you'd commit to?
I commit to doing everything I can to deliver on the president's agenda of ushering in a golden age of American innovation.
And beyond the President of the United States, do you commit to not leaving our scientific apparatus in shambles because of decisions made by DOGE that linger in our government?
I don't think, sir, I would be doing my job if I wanted to leave the scientific enterprise in shambles. So I will commit to not do that.
I'm glad we can agree on that. That's a good thing. Now, look, I want to cap off our discussion pretty quickly. The NSF recently announced its intention to dismantle the Ocean Observatories Initiative. This was designed to provide data on our oceans for scientists, fishermen, emergency managers, and weather forecasters for decades to come. But NSF was going to rip it all up from the ocean floor. Fortunately, after backlash, they reversed course, and I hope that you continue to support a legitimate process as NSF continues the future of OOI. Thank you. I yield back.
I'd like to recognize the gentlewoman from South Carolina, Ms. Biggs.
Thank you, Chairman Babin, and thank you, Director Kratsios, for appearing here today before our committee and for OSTP's work over the past year. President Trump has set an ambitious goal: the United States must lead the technologies that will define the 21st century. Maintaining that position is essential to our economic strength and our national security, especially as we compete with the Chinese Communist Party. Meeting that challenge will depend on abundant, reliable, and affordable energy. South Carolina is well positioned to help lead America's nuclear renaissance. We have a skilled workforce with decades of experience like those at the Oconee Nuclear Station in my district. Savannah River National Laboratory conducts critical work in nuclear materials, waste processing, and the fusion fuel cycle, which we've already mentioned earlier today. South Carolina is taking steps toward new nuclear generation, while leaders such as the Palmetto Nuclear Coalition are working to keep our state at the forefront of the nuclear industry. Director Kratsios, how is OSTP helping to accelerate the deployment of advanced nuclear technologies, and what can Congress do to help?
President Trump, I think, made one of the most transformational decisions for civil nuclear power since President Eisenhower announced Atoms for Peace in 1953 with his executive order last year. Prior to President Trump's actions, we weren't testing new reactors, we were shutting down perfectly good reactors, and we were totally dependent on other countries for fuel. If you guys remember, the average NRC review time for licensing took more than 20,000 hours. And I think we've done a tremendous job in lowering that and in finding an opportunity to dramatically accelerate advanced nuclear. I think one of the things that I'm most excited about is the president set this ambitious goal for the Department of Energy reactor pilot program to have at least three reactors that would achieve criticality by the 4th of July of this year. And I'm excited and very thrilled to say that we surpassed that goal. We actually had four test reactors reach criticality in the last few months. And this is something that I personally went out to visit at Idaho National Lab a few months ago, and I think it just shows that if you set bold, ambitious goals for Americans and you set the regulatory structure in the right way that there is confidence and understanding from our innovators on what they're responsible for, we can achieve truly great things.
And I'm very grateful for those efforts. So the Genesis mission is another important part of maintaining America's technological edge by bringing together our national laboratories, leading researchers, and advanced AI capabilities. The mission has the potential to accelerate scientific discovery across a wide range of fields and ensure that the technologies of the future are developed here in the United States, not in China. So, Director, how is OSTP helping advance the Genesis mission? And what could this initiative mean for America's long-term technological leadership and our competition with China?
Yeah, I think this will be probably one of the most consequential scientific programs in American history, and I don't say that lightly. What we do from OSTP is coordinate the efforts across multiple agencies. When the president launched the initiative, DOE was the first agency to get started with it. They're building the actual platform itself. And as I mentioned in my opening remarks, we're very thrilled that today at the Genesis Summit, where I was before I came here to this hearing, we're able to announce $5 billion in new federal commitments with more than 15 different agencies involved, each with their own grand challenges relating to AI and discovery. And to me, I think that's something amazing to see. You had health-related ones from HHS and NIH, you had very interesting ones related to construction that were done out of Department of Transportation, and so many others. And I think our function at OSTP is to help coordinate those efforts across the USG and make sure that the right programs are being tied into the right programs at DOE.
That's exciting. I have a background in healthcare and also connection with the military, so I look at that as a bright future and hopeful that we'll see those changes take place very soon. I have more questions about the research security around the Genesis mission, but my time is expiring, so hopefully I can submit that to you to get your feedback.
Absolutely. And we'll send you a list of all the initiatives, or great new ones from the VA and also from DOD, I think, touch on some of your interests.
I look forward to it. Thank you. And I yield back. Thank you.
Representative yields back. I'd like to recognize the Representative Subramanyam from Virginia. Five minutes.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Kratsios, for being here and for coming back. I want to thank you for releasing a report. I think I had to zoom through it this morning; it's pretty lengthy, but I appreciate you putting in that work into it. I know a lot of people have asked about different aspects of science and technology, and you have a pretty broad portfolio. I wanted to talk about AI specifically, though. On May 21st, the president was going to put out an executive order on artificial intelligence, and a lot of it was going to be around regulating frontier models, and there was going to be some, it looked like mandatory standards when it came to AI models, but then that executive order was withdrawn. And then something else came out a while later that talked about voluntary standards. Could you talk about what went into that decision to withdraw that executive order and why subsequently a less stringent policy was released?
I can't speak to those details, but I am familiar with the executive order that was released, and I think it was something that very clearly articulated the importance of having voluntary commitments from the frontier labs to share their models in advance of release with the US government and leverage the talents and the skills at CAISI and at NSA to do evaluations relating to cyber capabilities and make sure that when the models are put out to the public, the appropriate guardrails and protections are in place.
So, were you a part of the decision-making to withdraw that initial executive order?
In my role at the White House, I'm part of the broader decision-making process on AI policy.
And do you think these safety requirements should be mandatory, or do you think they should stay voluntary?
The president's executive order called for voluntary commitments, and I think at this time that's the appropriate policy action.
And so what's to prevent someone from coming up with an AI model that could be dangerous and they decide not to comply, and they decide to just unleash it and it creates a lot of havoc?
I think as you and this committee knows very well, the number of players that have the resources to train a frontier model with the capabilities that would pose a risk are quite limited and quite few. And we were able to get voluntary commitments from all of those that have that capability.
And the final executive order that went out cut the government's review time from 90 days to 30 days. Was there a reason for that?
The final one did say 30 days, and we believe that that is sufficient time to be able to work voluntarily with the companies. Again, none of these companies are required to share their models with the USG, but I think what we have seen is that the industry is interested in having the expertise of CAISI and NSA weigh in and help them do an even better job in building their guardrails.
Great. And I'm going to switch subjects on chips. We have heard about how auto manufacturers are increasingly relying on advanced chips, but obviously so does a lot of other things, a lot of other components. And one concern I think people are starting to have is the sourcing of chips because right now we want people to source them from the United States and US chipmakers. We passed the CHIPS Act, but there's a lot of companies who are now clamoring to try to source them from suppliers from China, like CXMT, YMTC. And I would love to know the administration's position on whether you think we should allow American companies to source from these entities.
Well, our Trump administration policies are bringing back advanced chip manufacturing here to the United States. I think you may have seen that this month we were able to secure another $100 billion commitment from TSMC for further semiconductor manufacturing investments in the US, bringing their total to $265 billion. Micron themselves just broke ground on a $100 billion New York semiconductor manufacturing facility.
I know that. I'm just trying to ask, do you think it's okay for American companies to buy from CXMT or YMTC? I want to know the administration's position on that.
I think the most important thing is we build domestic capacity to be able to, in the long term, have the chips developed here in the United States that can meet the needs of our American companies.
I didn't get a yes or no on that. Could you give us at least where the administration is right now on sourcing that? Because they've been listed as a significant threat to US national security, and so I would assume the answer would be no right now, right? But do you think that might change in the future?
I think the most important thing is we have to build capacity here. We obviously don't want to be doing business with anyone that's on the Entity List, and that's something that is clear and in law.
Gentleman yields. I'd like to recognize the representative from Georgia, Dr. McCormick.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning. Glad to have you here today. I was curious, you know, when we talk about research and actually keeping people from investing in waste, fraud, abuse, espionage, having foreign actors come to the United States, learn, and then apply what they learn here against us when they go back to their own countries: how do we find that balance between investing in a workforce and development that's truly homegrown and protected versus collaborating with countries that actually can benefit us? What do you do to balance that?
It's one of the toughest challenges in the science ecosystem. I think for many, many years, the United States has been the home for scientists from all around the world to come and research. And what we have seen over the last decade or so is that not all scientists come here with the intent just to help pursue great new scientific endeavors; they come here to try to commit espionage, to figure out what we're working on and share it back with adversarial powers. So to us, I think what we need to do is be able to strike a balance and create actually kind of a risk-based approach to monitoring the efforts across our science ecosystem. It begins at the federal level with our national labs that we control and also DOD labs. But I think there's a lot of lessons learned that have to go out to our academic institutions to get them a little more aware that this problem exists. Universities were not set up to do large-scale background checks.
checks on everybody who is in their university. Yet so much of the stuff that we're concerned about happens there. So what's important is that we can share the resources of the federal government with them to minimize the risk profile.
So I'm super concerned just considering that we have about a million students in our advanced educational system. Over a quarter million of those are from China, a direct competitor of ours. And they've been trying to push, and the president's actually talked about getting it up to 600,000 students per year just from China alone, which very much concerns me. So I'll be looking more into that and what we're doing to protect ourselves from that.
America's biotechnology leadership depends on having a workforce with the skills to turn scientific discoveries into products and manufacturing here at home. That's why I've introduced the Biotechnology Workforce Alignment Act to better align workforce training with industry needs. How have you worked to strengthen the biotechnology workforce, and where can Congress be most helpful in developing that specific talent?
Yeah, biotech has been an important priority for the administration. If you think about kind of what the waterfall effects are for this big AI push, is these models can start being applied to a lot of the biological sciences, and I think it's something that we're encouraging NIH and other relevant agencies to focus their funding on. I think through those funding opportunities, we have a great chance to do the workforce programs that you're talking about and make sure that our grant and fellowships programs are aligned with sort of biotech as a priority.
Great. Two universities huge in technology and development, of course, University of Georgia and Georgia Tech, my alma mater, both of them doing amazing things right now. University of Georgia was recognized for the fourth straight year as the nation's leader in bringing university research to market through industry partnerships, which is exactly the kind of innovation ecosystem we need if we're going to lead in AI, advanced manufacturing, and other critical technology. How are you working to strengthen partnerships between research universities and industries so we build regional talent pipelines for the next generation of scientists, engineers, and entrepreneurs?
Yeah, you're so right. Private industry now funds about $700 billion in R&D annually, and that's far more than the government and academia combined. So we as a government need to think very carefully around the exact problem that you mentioned: How can you build stronger bridges between industry and academia? And what's interesting about it is every time I talk to any university presidents, that is one of the top things on their list. They recognize that the amount of money being spent on research and development outside of academia and in industry is something that they need to be part of. And I think those are the types of relationships that ultimately build those ecosystems that you talk about.
I love that private-federal relationship that we kind of protect right now, and it's really the future of America when we talk about developing future technologies. Likewise, the Advanced Manufacturing Pilot Facility at Georgia Tech has helped companies commercialize new technologies, adopt AI-enabled manufacturing, and train the workforce needed to support them. I'm really short on time, so I'll respect that, Mr. Speaker—or Mr. Chair, sorry, getting ahead of myself, aren't I? I'll just basically submit this question, but basically I'm looking for ways to reindustrialize America and how we can partner, and I'll leave that to our question we submit. Thank you.
Gentleman yields back. I'd like to recognize Representative McBride of Delaware. Five minutes.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member Lofgren for holding this hearing. Director Kratsios, it's good to have you back before the committee. It is critical that small and medium-sized manufacturers are able to adopt technologies into their processes. This keeps American manufacturing competitive and at the cutting edge. Yesterday, you released a report in which you highlighted bipartisan manufacturing programs, and you specifically mentioned the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program as essential to this process. Meanwhile, the president's budget has proposed slashing the Manufacturing Extension Partnership program for two years in a row. So I'm curious: is the administration reversing its position on MEPs?
It's something that we talk about certainly in the Golden Age report as philosophically something that very much aligns with the tenets of the report. I look forward to going into the '28 budget cycle and working with OMB and with NIST to try to find ways that those types of programs do find some funding, because I think it's critically important for the future of manufacturing.
Well, I'm glad to hear your commitment and interest in that. And certainly, I hope we can continue to all work in a bipartisan fashion in support of programs like the Manufacturing Extension Partnership that have brought economic activity and jobs to Delaware and to states across the country.
Last time you sat in that chair, we discussed the impact that rapidly expanding data centers have on our communities, including increased energy and water demand. This fear is not theoretical, and Delaware families are paying $18.79 per kilowatt hour today, up from $17.97 last year, squeezing budgets and forcing Americans to make hard decisions. That day, you said President Trump supports the idea that technology companies should pay the costs that come with data centers they bring online. You also said you hope data center operators and semiconductor manufacturers would be incentivized by the free market to become more efficient. Since then, you have said that, quote, "American AI leadership should never come at the cost of Americans' ability to pay their electricity bills." I agree. And President Trump also touted the Ratepayer Protection Pledge, a voluntary agreement for companies to build, bring, or buy energy for their data centers. Now, I know you answered some questions earlier on this particular topic, but you mentioned in one of your answers to one of my colleagues' questions that you don't keep track of compliance when it comes to the Ratepayer Protection Pledge. Who does?
I'll have to get back to you on that. I think the National Energy Dominance Council of the White House is a primary hub for our energy efforts at the White House.
And I'd like a little bit more clarity on how the administration is going to or is already holding companies accountable if they violate the pledge. Obviously, it's voluntary, but we want to see adoption of it. What will the administration do? Is the president going to dictate and strong-arm companies into compliance like China does?
I think what we're seeing is that most of these companies are extremely incentivized to not only follow the letter of the pledge, but do even more. I think for them to be able to get the support of the local communities in order to actually build them, really substantial commitments have to be made. I mean, we've seen in communities across the country where data center operators have agreed essentially to cover property tax for five or six years in order for the data center to be built. We've seen dramatic commitments on education spending and teacher salary increases. So to me, I almost see what the Ratepayer Protection Pledge is as table stakes, because I think a lot of these communities require even more, and that's what they're looking for from these data center providers.
But what happens if they aren't abiding by what the community wants, or what frankly local jurisdictions or state governments require, what the pledge seeks to facilitate and push for? What happens if they don't?
As a tech policy coordination officer at the White House, I'm not an enforcement body, but I kind of do go back to what I said before: I think those business models are not sustainable if the communities themselves don't want them there. And I think what we're seeing is that in order for these data centers to be built, pretty significant and material concessions have to be made to the citizens of that area, and I think many times it's to the great benefit of them. As I mentioned, there's communities out there where literally people don't pay property taxes.
Just one quick follow-up question. One thing we talked about last time was the opportunities with technologies to diminish the energy and water needs, liquid cooling technologies. Do you have an update on the administration's approach to investing in those types of technologies?
