The Subcommittee on Research and Technology will come to order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare recesses of the subcommittee at any time. I recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement. I'd like to welcome everyone to today's Research and Technology Subcommittee hearing entitled "Advancing America's AI Action Plan." Today, we'll hear testimony from the director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Michael Kratsios, on the administration's artificial intelligence strategy.
As I think we all know, AI is poised to become a foundational driver of innovation worldwide. From serving as a personal assistant to generating computer code to advancing the frontiers of human science, the scope and impact of AI continues to expand at a truly extraordinary pace. It is critical that Congress does its job in enacting an appropriate federal framework for this burgeoning new technology. It is also imperative that the framework maintains the position of the United States as the leading force in the development and deployment of worldwide AI. American leadership in AI is essential to sustained economic growth, technological advancement across a wide range of applications, and the protection of our national security, particularly as competitors such as the Chinese Communist Party seek to undermine U.S. leadership in this space. Through my experience as co-chair of the bipartisan House AI Task Force last Congress, I've seen firsthand the importance of maintaining U.S. leadership in this area. AI-enabled cyber attacks are a growing threat that demands our constant vigilance. At the same time, as AI becomes more embedded in everyday life, Americans are entrusting vast amounts of personal data to these systems, heightening the risk that sensitive information could fall into the hands of malicious actors. Against this backdrop, last July, the White House unveiled "Winning the AI Race: America's AI Action Plan." This strategy is built around three pillars: innovation, infrastructure, and international diplomacy and security. It is critical that Congress works with the executive branch to craft a unified and effective national AI strategy.
In December of 2024, the bipartisan House AI Task Force, which was co-led by Congressman Lieu and myself, released a report outlining guiding principles for AI policy. This bipartisan effort resulted in 66 findings and 89 recommendations, many of which align with the AI Action Plan, including expanding access to computing power for researchers, investing in K-12 AI education, and advancing AI evaluations. Among its recommendations, the task force called for codifying the National AI Research Resource, what we call NAIRR, and strengthening the science of AI evaluation and standards. My legislation, the CREATE AI Act, would codify NAIRR, while the forthcoming Great American AI Act will formalize the Center for AI Standards and Innovation, or CASI, at the Department of Commerce to advance AI evaluation and standard-setting.
I am very glad to see that the administration's AI Action Plan includes many of the same tenets as the AI Task Force report, including support for the continuation of NAIRR and for tasking CASI with the critical work of developing standards and evaluating frontier AI models. I commend the center for its strong report last fall assessing the national security implications posed by DeepSeek. The center serves as a critical hub for technical AI expertise within our government, and I look forward to its continued work. OSTP under Director Kratsios's leadership is steering the development of the AI Action Plan and will oversee its implementation as part of the nation's broader science and technology agenda. I hope that we can all agree it is critical that Congress now step up to the plate and work with the executive branch in developing a competitive vision for American leadership in artificial intelligence. I'd like to thank Director Kratsios for being here today, and I appreciate his willingness to appear before the subcommittee. We welcome his testimony on this critically important topic. Thank you very much. I'll now yield back the balance of my time, and I'll recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee, Representative Stevens of Michigan, for five minutes for her opening statement.
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, for holding today's hearing. And of course, thank you to Director Kratsios for joining us today as well. OSTP has always held a very special place in my heart and is an agency or a division of the White House that we are grateful to have a connection to on this committee. And it is also very important that our thoughtful discussion today will be around implementing the administration's AI plan while protecting American workers. We all know that you can't talk about AI innovation and American competitiveness without talking about Michigan manufacturing. And you can't talk about the future of manufacturing without talking about the National Institute of Standards and Technology, or NIST. NIST is the little agency that could, and it is at the forefront of our efforts in artificial intelligence, quantum, robotics, and advanced manufacturing. Thanks to the CHIPS and Science Act of 2022 that many of us in this room helped write and pass, NIST is bringing semiconductor manufacturing back to America to develop the next generation of AI chips right here at home. This semiconductor work is also critical to the administration's AI plan, and we don't want to see the agency being undermined, something that has long been supported by Democrats and Republicans alike.
Just to shine a light here, and this is the work of our committee and this is what we do—we have authorizing ability, and it's important to just shine a light—the budget for the fiscal year '26 slashed NIST funding by $325 million—$325 million—and we're eliminating 500 jobs from the agency's lab program. We know, so many of us, how sacred this work is and how important it is even when you just have just a handful of researchers working on these matters. And the cuts hinder NIST's AI-related efforts. They're going to weaken cybersecurity and privacy standards, something I have legislation on, and limit advanced manufacturing, physical infrastructure, and resilience innovation. And given the shared goal of supporting the growth of advanced manufacturing, our next generation—this is something we see alive and well in Michigan, continuing to grow through our supply chain, the design of not only products but also our factory floors using AI applications.
I'm really alarmed that the administration is trying to eliminate NIST's Manufacturing Extension Partnership. They repeatedly tried to do that last year. And the MEP program is designed to support, well, not just Michigan, but all of the nation's small and mid-sized manufacturers to see them adopt advanced technology and compete on the global stage. And so in 2024 alone, just the MEP center in Michigan created or saved 5,000 jobs. Yet, like every other MEP center, it was on the chopping block. And what makes even less sense is the administration's constant attacks on domestic chip manufacturing and the CHIPS and Science Act, which we should be all singing loud and proudly. The uncertainty that the manufacturers are facing, despite clear congressional desire to bring chip manufacturing back to America, has been really frustrating, and I was surprised to learn that we're kind of seeing the arbitrarily canceled semiconductor-focused Manufacturing USA institute in December that happened, and that's stalling a lot of progress. So, I could go on, but we're losing talent and institutional knowledge. We're shrinking, and frankly, we're destroying our research capacity and undermining global competitiveness, all while we're supposed to be touting how we can lead on AI. And so, I'm going to do everything I can in this subcommittee, Mr. Chair, for accountability, to stand up for science, the science that Michiganders and our manufacturers rely on every day so we can continue to innovate and build. And I just want to thank every NIST public servant, the people in this room, and the people in the department. And with that, thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll yield back.
The gentlewoman yields back. I now recognize the chairman of the full committee, Representative Babin of Texas, for five minutes for his opening statement.
Thank you, Chairman Obernolte. Appreciate Mr. Kratsios being here today, and we're looking forward to his testimony. We appreciate this entire hearing. Supporting the Trump administration's strategy to advance AI innovation, strengthen infrastructure, and reinforce international security is absolutely essential to maintaining U.S. leadership in the global AI marketplace and promoting peace through strength. The threat posed by the Chinese Communist Party, or CCP, continues to expand in the AI domain. Foreign AI efforts, particularly those pushed by the CCP, present serious national security risks, from research espionage and AI-enabled cyber attacks to the collection of Americans' sensitive data. The AI Action Plan is designed to confront these threats by empowering the Center for AI Standards and Innovation and the Department of Homeland Security to bolster cybersecurity protection for critical infrastructure. As chairman of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, it's very clear to me that the Trump administration's vision for American dominance in AI closely aligns with the bipartisan work of this committee.
In January 2021, the National AI Initiative Act of 2020 became law as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2021. Led by the House SST Committee, this law charges key agencies within our jurisdiction to support AI research and development, many of which received additional policy direction through the AI Action Plan. As Chairman Obernolte noted, the findings and recommendations of the bipartisan House AI Task Force are also well aligned with this administration's strategy. One such recommendation calls for expanding access to advanced computing resources for researchers. The committee's jurisdiction over the Department of Energy places us at the center of this initiative as DOE's national laboratories host three of the world's fastest supercomputers: Frontier at Oak Ridge National Lab, Aurora at Argonne National Lab, and El Capitan at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Thus, this objective to expand access to computing power builds directly on these existing national capabilities. Moreover, these national laboratories along with DOE's Office of Science house some of the nation's leading AI expertise. Other agencies within our jurisdiction, including the National Science Foundation, also support cutting-edge AI technical research and talent development.
The Department of Commerce and the National Institute of Standards and Technology have a long history of developing nonregulatory standards for emerging technologies and providing independent model evaluations that the private sector can trust. Tackling complex policy issues surrounding emerging technologies like AI is nothing new for the Science, Space, and Technology Committee. From civil nuclear energy, space exploration, cryptography, information technology, biotechnology, and genetics, blockchain and nanotechnology, we have put forward sound policy that ensured U.S. leadership. And while debates over specific AI policies will continue, our committee has an opportunity to advance common-sense legislation that provides access to federal computing resources, supports research and development, trains the next-generation workforce, offers independent model evaluations, and promotes consensus-based standards. Many of our members have put forward legislation that addresses the very policies recommended by the administration and the AI Task Force. I look forward to advancing AI legislation in the coming weeks and hope very much that this hearing will provide an ample opportunity to inform this process. Congress must ensure that America leads in AI, and doing so will bolster our economic competitiveness, protect our national security, and promote our values of liberties and freedom. I appreciate your presence today, Mr. Kratsios, and welcome your testimony. With that, I yield back the balance of my time.
Thank you, Chairman Babin. I now recognize the ranking member of the full committee, Representative Lofgren of California, for five minutes for her opening statement.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Kratsios, for joining us today. AI has the potential to reshape the American economy and innovation ecosystem. I'm really excited about its promise and the potential opportunity it brings to improve productivity and to accelerate innovation. However, AI has also sometimes accelerated harmful and even criminal activities. Just a little over a week ago, xAI's chatbot Grok made headlines by generating thousands of instances of non-consensual sexual imagery, including child pornography, at the request of users on X's main platform. We've also seen major instances of chatbots encouraging users with mental health issues to murder and commit suicide. These are just two of many troubling examples. Nearly half a year has passed since the administration unveiled its AI Action Plan with a focus on innovation, infrastructure, international diplomacy, and security—goals that I certainly appreciate and support. Unfortunately, the plan only minimally addresses the risks of AI. And even where it does, including with respect to deepfakes, the administration has failed to take meaningful action to address these risks. To the contrary, this administration's actions raise major questions about the disconnect between the Action Plan's goals and reality.
And I'd like to address just two specific areas where the administration's actions have raised concern. First, this administration has taken steps to prevent states like California from regulating against harms that have been created or exacerbated by AI systems. In December, President Trump signed an executive order that directs the Department of Justice to sue states over their AI laws and threatens to withhold billions in federal broadband funding from these states. This order asserts that the administration, not Congress, not state legislators, but the administration itself should have the power to decide what kind of state laws are too burdensome and to reallocate where billions of dollars should go as a result. I think this order is unconstitutional, but I'm not here to defend every state AI law that's been proposed or passed. Some of what California has adopted to protect its people is appropriate. And other legislation that was beyond the scope of what a state should do was vetoed by the governor with the support of the California congressional delegation—vetoed because it went too far. But there was a reason Justice Brandeis suggested that states are the laboratories of democracy. What we should not do is preempt the states from taking necessary actions to protect their citizens, while here in Congress, we do nothing to pass legislation ourselves. It's not just Democrats saying this. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has said that President Trump's executive order, quote, "can't preempt state legislative action." And in November, a bipartisan group of 36 state attorneys general wrote to leaders of Congress opposing slapdash federal preemption efforts. And I'd like unanimous consent to put this letter into the record.
Secondly, I'm very concerned by the administration taking cuts of revenue or equity in companies. The AI Action Plan emphasizes free markets, deregulation, getting government out of the way of the private sector. But over the past year, the administration has spent billions of taxpayer dollars to take direct ownership stakes in private companies. The government now owns nearly 10% of Intel, making it the largest shareholder. It holds equity positions in rare earth mining companies and is negotiating similar deals with quantum computing companies. This trend is unusual and concerning. In our nation's history, the U.S. government has taken equity shares in private companies only in times of war or economic crisis. Actually, this is socialism on the part of the Trump administration. That's a charge that's sometimes made against Democrats, even though Democrats favor free markets, but it's what the Trump administration is actually doing: engaging in socialism. Now, how are the administration's actions different from Chinese state capitalism, I ask, Mr. Kratsios? America can and must lead in the field of artificial intelligence, but it's going to take a whole lot more than empty promises and emulating the PRC to make that happen. I look forward to hearing from you about these challenges and others during today's hearing. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Thank you, Ranking Member Lofgren. It's now an honor to introduce our witness. Our witness today is the Honorable Michael Kratsios, who is the director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. He is President Trump's chief science and technology policy adviser. And as the 13th director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Director Kratsios oversees the development and execution of the nation's science and technology policy agenda. He leads the administration's efforts to ensure American leadership in scientific discovery and technological innovation, including in critical and emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and biotechnology.
In the first administration, he served as the fourth chief technology officer of the United States at the White House and as under secretary of defense for research and engineering at the Pentagon. Prior to his service in the White House, Director Kratsios invested in, advised, and built technology companies in Silicon Valley. A South Carolina native, Director Kratsios graduated from Princeton University—but we will not hold that against you—and served as a visiting scholar at Beijing's Tsinghua University. I now recognize Director Kratsios for five minutes to present his testimony.
Thank you, Chairman and Ranking Member Stevens, as well as full Committee Chairman Babin and Ranking Member Lofgren, for inviting me to speak to you today about the president's AI policies. Last July, the Trump administration released "Winning the AI Race: America's AI Action Plan," outlining a strategy to maintain global leadership in AI based on three pillars: innovation, infrastructure, and international partnerships. Over the last six months, the administration has moved from strategy to execution as I and my team at the White House coordinate implementation across the federal government. I'm excited to highlight where we stand now in executing this playbook. But first, let me thank the members of this committee for all that you have done for American AI. As my office coordinates the administration's implementation of the Action Plan, I see many opportunities for collaboration with this committee and with Congress. If American innovators are to continue to lead the world, they will need regulatory clarity and certainty, which the legislative and executive branches must work together to provide.
The Action Plan focuses on three main priorities for the U.S. government: removing barriers to innovation, securing energy dominance, and exporting our technology to partners around the world. In the past six months, we have seen tremendous progress in all these areas. In innovation, with the release of our Request for Information concerning regulatory reform on AI last September, we're working with industry and the American people to relieve innovators of undue regulatory burdens and to formulate policy frameworks that safeguard the public interest while enabling further revolutionary developments. I'm particularly excited about the innovative potential of the Genesis Mission and AI for science. With the signing of that executive order, President Trump has mobilized the largest federal scientific effort since the Apollo program. By fusing massive federal datasets with advanced supercomputing capabilities, Genesis will help America's scientists automate experiment design, accelerate simulations, and generate predictive models for everything from medicine and energy to materials and agriculture. In infrastructure, of course, the administration's efforts to clear away red tape and facilitate AI construction have been enormously successful, but I'm especially excited about the energy capacity American industry is building, both to power the AI revolution and all the other incredible technologies this new age of discovery will unlock. President Trump and the Department of Energy are committed to accelerating and enhancing the growth of American nuclear power, creating space to experiment, facilitating small modular reactor buildout, and continuing the pursuit of fusion energy.
In international partnerships and AI diplomacy, we continue to push back against global AI governance at the UN, G7, APEC, and other forums, and to defend great American companies from foreign nations' stifling regulatory regimes. I'm particularly excited about the American AI Export Program. As the Commerce and State Departments roll that out, there will soon be a request for proposals shared with industry and a formal launch of the program in the coming months. Our goal is for U.S. companies to provide modular AI stack packages that empower countries to develop sovereign AI capabilities with American technology. The AI Action Plan is a giant leap forward, furthering first steps President Trump took for American AI dominance in his first term. With the call for this plan in his first week back in office, the president recommitted himself and the country to American AI leadership. The need for renewed effort was clear. While in 2020, the American innovation enterprise held a comfortable lead in AI over closest competitors, by 2024, the gap had begun to close significantly. But with his golden age vision of scientific rigor and technological progress, President Trump has restored a spirit of confidence to our innovation enterprise. We are approaching AI not with fear, but with responsible boldness.
Looking ahead, there is still so much to be done working together. As our innovators continue to find novel applications of AI technology to everyday life, we can ensure they benefit all Americans through small business training, workforce development, and AI education. I'm proud to say that more than 250 companies have signed the First Lady's Pledge to America's Youth, committing hundreds of millions of dollars to investing in AI education. And I just returned from the Consumer Electronics Show, where there is obvious excitement about American AI, but also about what's ahead in quantum information science. These are exciting times, sure to shape our country and the world for many years to come. Thank you all for your leadership.
Well, thank you very much for your testimony. We will now move on to questions and answers from the panel, and we'll start with questions from myself. So I'll recognize myself for five minutes. Director Kratsios, I want to start with the points that Ranking Member Lofgren raised, which I thought were excellent and really pertinent, as usual, and in particular the point about preemption. So to be clear, I don't think anyone believes that the states shouldn't have a lane in regulating AI, but I think what everyone believes is that there should be a federal lane and that there should be a state lane, and that the federal government needs to go first in defining what is under Article I of the Constitution interstate commerce, and where those preemptive guardrails are that where regulation is reserved only for regulation at the federal level, and then outside those guardrails where the states are free to go be the laboratories of democracy that they are. So, the president recognized this in his executive order last month. He's calling for Congress to work with the executive branch in defining what those guardrails are. I think there was an explicit acknowledgement in that executive order that congressional action is needed. It's not something that could be done unilaterally. So, can you talk a little bit about what the administration's vision for that is and where you think those guardrails ought to be?
Absolutely. The president first spoke about the need for a sensible national policy framework actually in July when we released the AI Action Plan. And in that speech here in Washington, he made it clear that having a set of 50 different laws all across the country is actually not the best thing for American innovation. And as someone who's worked in Silicon Valley and worked with lots of startups and been at startups, I understand the challenge. And I think what is sometimes missed in this conversation is if you have this tremendous patchwork of laws all across the country, the folks who actually are able to work within that system most successfully are the deep-pocketed, large Big Tech companies. The small innovators, the entrepreneurs, the people who want to start new businesses—forcing them to try to find a way to comply with 50 different sets of AI rules is actually anti-innovation, and it's something that I don't think anyone on this committee actually supports. The president then took another step forward in December of last year, where we laid out an executive order charging me and David Sacks to work to create legislation to help find a path forward for a sensible national policy framework. And that's something that I very much look forward to working with everyone on this committee for. I think what was clear in the executive order specifically was that any proposed legislation should not preempt otherwise lawful state actions relating to child safety protections, AI compute and data infrastructure, and also state government procurement and use of AI. Those are ones that were called out in the executive order, but we look forward over the next weeks and months to be working with Congress on a viable solution.
Well, thank you very much. And this is something that we have been grappling with now for several years. We had a whole chapter on preemption in the AI Task Force report. I think it was very helpful that the administration is also thinking about this issue and thinking about where those state lanes should be and how they intersect with the federal lanes. So let's keep working on that. I also wanted to, in addition to commending you for the good work of CASI, talk about the need for us in Congress to formally codify it. The work it does in doing AI model evaluation is essential in creating what's a regulatory toolbox for our sectoral regulators so everyone doesn't have to reinvent the wheel. But we've had this in successive administrations now: under the Biden administration, we had the AI Safety Institute; under the Trump administration, we have CASI. There are many of the same functions that are performed by those organizations. But I think everyone would agree it's unhealthy for us to have every successive administration spin up a brand new agency that essentially is doing something with a long-term mission that needs continuity. So can you talk about whether or not you think we in Congress need to go ahead and codify this as part of implementing our national strategy on AI?
I think CASI, as was discussed previously, is a very important part of the larger AI agenda. I think one of the important and big steps that the administration took at the middle of last year was to reframe what was previously a safety institute into one that is focused on standards and innovation. And I think from my perspective, the most important thing that can be done around CASI at NIST is to focus on what NIST is really good at. What Mrs. Stevens was talking about—it's absolutely important that the legacy work around standards relating to AI are undertaken by CASI, and that's what they're challenged to do. And that's the focus that they should have, because the great standards that are put out by CASI and by NIST are the ones that ultimately will empower the proliferation of this technology across many industries.
Well, thank you very much for your testimony. I'm looking forward to hearing the questions from our other subcommittee members. I now recognize Ranking Member Stevens for her questions.
Thank you. And so, Mr. Kratsios, I missed it in your bio that the chairman read. Could you just remind me what you were up to in the period of the Great Recession, particularly the years '09 and '10? What were you doing professionally?
Yes. I was actually an investment banker for a year.
Okay. So, you know that period of time pretty well. Yeah. I was in the Department of the Treasury working on the auto rescue, and it was this humble initiative that was responsible for making sure the auto industry didn't go belly-up. And we then created the White House Office of Manufacturing Policy coming out of that, and one of the steady and delightful partners that we had during that period of time was the Manufacturing Extension Partnership. As you know from your investment banking career, access to capital across our supply chain was just being squeezed, and it was a terrifying time, particularly in Michigan. We were the nadir of that Great Recession. And so throughout my career, I have seen firsthand, outside of just what the proof in the pudding is for NIST MEP—for every dollar spent, $18 of output into the economy—we have seen directly how NIST MEP has helped the small to mid-sized manufacturer, who is really the elixir of our communities and our economic drivers, the small businesses. And we know that the cumbersome reality of technology development—as the chairman was just talking about CASI and you so nicely answered about its importance and did recognize NIST and the critical role that NIST has played—that we have to have technology adoption throughout our supply chain and a recognition that NIST MEP plays a role in that.
And so I just wanted to hone in that, as we had put forth over a decade ago and Congress directed the National Science and Technology Council housed within OSTP to develop a national advanced manufacturing strategy, and OSTP and NIST are in the process of updating that strategy, are you in a position to commit to ensuring that MEP and other NIST programs, including Manufacturing USA, which is this robust network of R&D labs, that that will be central to its implementation?
So that's a program run out of Commerce, and it's a conversation I would love to continue to have with Secretary Lutnick and his team there. I think there's obviously important work across all these NIST programs and would love to learn more about this one specifically with the team at NIST.
Yeah, a couple years ago they celebrated their anniversary, and it's Manufacturing USA, which works very closely with NIST and in some instances is funded through NIST, and of course the MEP program. And this is something that has carried through throughout a multitude of administrations and was really designed to help us compete as a nation vis-à-vis other countries that have this collocation of R&D, tech transfer, and workforce development. So, I do appreciate you reaching out to the Commerce Secretary about it. We'd love to show you the one that we have in Detroit called LIFT. The workforce development that happens there is incredible, but also the collocation of large, small, and mid-sized manufacturers that are all developing their research and development. And then when you come and visit LIFT, you can come and see our MEP center. And I want them to show you directly how they are leading these manufacturers. They are really one of the first enterprises that had down Industry 4.0 and had a directive on that. And when we're looking at cutting costs, which we all know is so important for the taxpayer, and when we're going to look at all this great stuff in AI and how it gets applied and how it gets used—and nice that you have this framework cooking here—we're not going to leave people behind, and we want to do it alongside our small and mid-sized manufacturers. So, thank you so much. And with that, I'll yield back, Mr. Chair.
Gentleman yields back. I now recognize the chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Babin, for five minutes for his questions.
Thank you very much, and again, welcome, Mr. Kratsios. We appreciate you being here. The AI Action Plan recommends that NIST revise its AI Risk Management Framework to remove bias and discrimination. First off, how do these recommended changes help ensure that government guidance remains neutral and consistent with American values of freedom and liberty?
Thank you so much for that question. I think one of the recommendations out of the Action Plan was to do just that. As we've spoken a lot about NIST, it's an agency that is very near and dear to my heart and to the entire OSTP team. We want NIST to be focused on advanced scientific metrology. Inserting political rhetoric into their work is something that devalues and corrupts the broader efforts that NIST is trying to do across so many important scientific domains. So our hope through this effort is to depoliticize NIST as much as possible and to put it in a place where it's promulgating standards which can benefit all scientific innovators across the country.
Great. Thank you. The Genesis Mission proposes to modernize our power grid through the use of AI-driven technologies. First, how will this contribute to America's energy dominance?
Well, broadly speaking, energy dominance and energy leadership has been a top priority for the president. Broadly, this theme of energy abundance—for us, we believe that there's great technologies that are ultimately going to drive broader energy abundance. It can be everything from fusion technology that they hope to have in the decades to come, and even the use of AI to optimize grids and so many other ways to do it. So for us, and especially for this president, our National Energy Dominance Council, energy abundance is key, and Genesis will be a big part of that.
Exactly. And then second, what specific short-term outcomes can we expect from the Genesis Mission over the next two to three years?
On the short-term front, I think what we hope to do over the next year is to broaden the participation of Genesis across the government and across the international community. As you may have seen, the first big announcement around Genesis was the addition of partners across the private sector here in the United States. The tasking of the executive order to me and to OSTP as director has been to try to bring in and incorporate other agencies. And why that's so important to Genesis is the underlying thesis of Genesis is that the government has extraordinarily valuable scientific data that when pulled together and collaborated with AI can drive tremendous scientific discovery and acceleration. So our next step is how do we bring important healthcare data, or data from the National Science Foundation, or from even NIST or other scientific agencies? And then the next short-term goal is to figure out who are our international partners in the scientific community that have things that they can offer the Genesis Mission, which accelerates its ultimate goal.
And then looking further ahead, what is the long-term vision for the Genesis Mission beyond its first decade? And how do you anticipate its impact evolving over time?
I think the overarching goal that we have said consistently is that the Genesis Mission's goal is to double the output of U.S. R&D in a decade. And we want to be able to do that by focusing on some very large grand challenges, everything from across energy to biotech to drug discovery, nuclear fusion, critical minerals, and that's kind of our North Star.
Absolutely. And then to maintain a competitive advantage over our bad actors like the Chinese Communist Party, President Trump has emphasized the need to "build, baby, build" across the U.S. economy and our critical infrastructure. And from your perspective, Director Kratsios, what elements of the AI Action Plan most effectively strengthen the U.S. economy and position the United States as the global leader in AI?
Well, I'm very biased because I love the whole report, so I think each of the three pillars plays a big part in what you're arguing for. I think on the building front, obviously, pillar two around infrastructure and data center buildout is extraordinarily critical. We want to develop a regulatory environment that allows the standing up of this AI infrastructure to happen, and also in a way that doesn't necessarily adversely affect American ratepayers. The second piece is around the regulatory structure. We want to create a regulatory environment where our greatest innovators can develop and promulgate their AI technologies here in the U.S. in a safe way, and we think we're charging towards that. And the last piece, which has been a big priority for me even from my time in Trump 45: we have to continue to invest in critical AI research and development funding as a federal government. And there's been a lot of talk about federal budgets and the president's proposal last year, but the key thing that I always try to remind people is even in our attempt to try to rightsize the budget, the one area where we have kept a consistent amount of proposed budget funding has been in AI. We believe that this is a critical research priority for the administration, and it's something that we continue to fund.
Absolutely. Thank you so very much. And my time has expired. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Gentleman yields back. I now recognize the ranking member of the full committee, Representative Lofgren of California, for five minutes for her questions.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to return to a point that I raised in my opening statement. The non-consensual manipulation of people's photos and the rampant, uncontrolled dissemination of sexualized images of children is evil, disgusting stuff. And instead of acting quickly to stop it, Elon Musk seemed to revel in it until public pressure became too intense. And then what did he do? He has now said only paid subscribers can have access to Grok's image generation feature. So pedophiles could previously conjure up these images for free, but he's now monetized the feature and will be collecting $3 monthly from depraved individuals who choose to subscribe. He's created a revenue stream for child pornography. It sure looks like laws against the creation and dissemination of child sexual abuse material are being broken. However, President Trump is sending American taxpayer dollars to xAI through a deal made in September. Essentially, we're paying Elon Musk to give perverts access to a child pornography machine.
Now, you're the president's chief science and technology policy adviser and the administration's point person on AI. So, we want you to give us answers on this. I'm going to be sending a letter shortly to initiate our investigation into this issue, but anyone with a stake in this should be working to determine what went wrong and to ensure it never happens again. I welcome all of my colleagues, both Democrats and Republicans, to join with me in sending this oversight letter, which I shared with Chairman Babin yesterday. Stamping out child sexual exploitation should not be a partisan issue. Now, I have several questions for you, Director. Were you involved in the decision to enter into the partnership with xAI, allowing federal agencies to utilize Grok for government work? Is the General Services Administration partnership with xAI still active and being used to integrate Grok into federal agency workstreams? Even with the disgusting news of the past few weeks, when the news broke regarding the child sexual abuse images being created by Grok, did you take any steps to ensure that federal agencies were no longer able to use Grok, at least until we are sure that the issue had been addressed? Have you personally briefed President Trump on the recent events involving Grok? You're the highest-ranking science adviser in the White House. You should be heavily involved in federal action on this matter. Have you engaged with the Department of Justice on this issue, with the FCC, the FTC, the GSA?
So I'm not involved in procurement decisions at the GSA. I think broadly speaking, the Trump administration is committed to protecting the dignity and the privacy and the safety of children in the digital age. The misuse of AI tools requires accountability for harmful or inappropriate use, not necessarily blanket restrictions on the use and development of that technology. On the issue of Grok, which I'm not personally involved with in any way, if federal employees are misusing a government AI platform in a harmful or inappropriate way, that should be addressed and those people should be removed from their positions. I don't have any specific insight into the federal procurement process, but I would refer you to an April 2025 OMB memo titled "Accelerating Federal Use of AI through Innovation, Governance, and Public Trust." That memo provides guidance on how agencies can promote the responsible adoption, use, and continued development of AI while ensuring appropriate safeguards are in place to protect privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties, and to mitigate any unlawful discrimination. Now, as many people on this committee know, the Trump administration has clearly demonstrated our willingness to implement guardrails against inappropriate use of AI, as evidenced by the signing of the Take It Down Act by the president that was signed last May.
If I may, Mr. Kratsios. Yes, the GSA is doing this, but we are essentially paying Musk, and we're going to have a problem here. Inevitably, there's going to be a misuse. But even if we fire federal employees who create pornography using Grok, that we would be paying Mr. Musk until he creates a barrier to this misuse is very troubling to me. I'm for technology. I'm from Silicon Valley. I grew up there and still live there. But if we do not resolve misuse, we are going to have a serious impediment to the development of AI. In addition to the impact on employment, I'm just noting that the ranking member of the subcommittee mentioned manufacturing employment is down 68,000. We lost 161,000 blue-collar jobs last year. So with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back, and I will make available this letter to you, which I've already shared with Chairman Babin.
Thank you, Representative Lofgren. We'll hear next from the representative from North Carolina, Mr. Rouzer. You are recognized for five minutes.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Kratsios, thank you so much for being here. First question is, what would you consider the main hurdle to innovation? Would that be the lack of federal preemption? I would assume that'd probably be in the top three. Just wanted to see what your answer is.
That is certainly up there. I think for us, providing regulatory clarity to America's innovators is extraordinarily important. I think the other piece of the puzzle which I always talk about is we want to create a regulatory environment that provides a level of clarity and a level of understanding for all of our innovators. And the most important part of that is promulgating and working towards a use-case, sector-specific approach to AI regulation. Creating a one-size-fits-all regulation around AI is not the way that we can best deal with all these new AI technologies. Folks that are developing AI-powered medical diagnostics should continue to be regulated by the FDA, for example. Anyone who's developing a drone should continue to be regulated by the FAA. And I think some of the impediments—especially there's been great examples globally about the things that we should definitely not do. Things like the EU AI Act is a terrific example of a mistake that can be made where you try to create a one-size-fits-all regulatory regime and ultimately you end up with less innovation.
A core pillar of the AI Action Plan is infrastructure, including our nation's ability to develop a skilled workforce to use cutting-edge AI systems. North Carolina, as you know, has a growing ecosystem of higher education preparing the next generation of AI professionals. UNC Wilmington and Fayetteville State University in my district offer AI-focused education with hands-on experience, and community colleges such as Cape Fear Community College in my district is advancing AI literacy and technical skills. Employer access obviously to these next-generation workers with these needed skills is critical for economic development and competitiveness. Can you comment how is the federal government working with these colleges and universities across the country, including in North Carolina, to strengthen AI-focused workforce development programs?
important. And for us, we believe that AI education is something that begins in K through 12 and extends well past when you even graduate from college. And at each of those levels, we have different programs and initiatives to drive that AI reskilling and upskilling to happen. In K through 12, the administration, through executive order, launched the AI Education Task Force, which I chair with the First Lady. And there's been a tremendous amount of effort around how we can teach America's youth to understand and essentially demystify this technology. It's not just about teaching students how to use the technology, but understanding what the technology is. What is AI good for? What is it not good for? When should you be using it? When should you not be using it? When does it go awry? And I think that's the type of programs that we're trying to do for K through 12. And we've partnered with so many companies, nonprofits, and civil societies that have donated hundreds of millions of dollars of free resources to K through 12 students to benefit from it. If you move up the chain, the great community college work and stuff that you're talking about is very important to be able to train students who want to enter into these 21st century economy jobs that require AI skills. And a lot of work is being done with the Department of Labor. They've awarded nearly a hundred million dollars in AI skills training programs. And these are the things that are equipping our next generation of Americans to take full advantage of this technology.
In my last minute and 20 seconds here, you know, AI has the potential to revolutionize industries, all industries really, but particularly of interest to me is agriculture and transportation, and everything from precision farming and crop yield optimization to traffic management and autonomous vehicles. And across the country, these sectors are showing growing interest in leveraging AI, obviously, to improve efficiency and drive innovation. Can you talk about federal agency coordination in that space?
Absolutely. Yeah, I think what's so unique about this technology, and why I particularly like the role that I have in my office, is that, as you say it very correctly, this is a technology that is touching so many different industries. The teams at the Department of Agriculture that are working on things related to the way that it impacts ag, to the folks at FAA that are working on drones and DOT that are working on autonomous vehicles—we try to be the hub to kind of bring all that together. And through the National Science and Technology Council, we bring agencies together to talk about those issues. And what we tend to see, and where we try to deconflict, is where there's agency overlap. If you're trying to use drones in your farm, for example, there's FAA equities, there's DHS equities, there's USDA equities. And we're the agency that can kind of help bring all those people together to the table. But we see a huge, huge potential impact for the country.
Well, thank you for your great work. I yield back.
Gentleman yields back. We will hear next from the gentleman from Virginia, Representative Subramanyam. You are recognized for five minutes.
Thank you, Mr. Kratsios, for being here. Good to see you again. I'm a former OSTP staffer. I think we transitioned our office to you when you first started in the Trump administration. So, thank you for stepping up to serve again, and I know OSTP certainly is a very important place for this committee, and I appreciate all the work you've done for OSTP. One of the things that both of us have worked on is attracting really good tech talent to government, whether it was the US Digital Service or the Presidential Innovation Fellowship, and now I think—I don't know if you're involved in the US Tech Force, but that's kind of the newest branding of essentially trying to get the people who can build an app to get your pizza in five minutes to get you your Social Security benefits in five minutes, or help with some of these big issues in technology, both create standards as well as maybe help develop the basic research that private industry can use. But we're really concerned. You know, some of my constituents, for instance, worked at NIST, and they fired over 400 employees. NSF has lost over a third of its staff. And so, how do we figure out this project? Because we all agree here that technology and innovation is critical, and government plays a role in that. How do you reconcile trying to recruit for this US Tech Force with the firings of technologists who I think are right now very nervous about working in government now?
I tend to kind of view those as separate issues. I think on the first one relating to bringing technical talent into government, I couldn't agree with you more. I mean, we worked together on some of those issues, and I did throughout the first Trump term. I think what's unique about the Tech Force initiative and what OPM is driving with that is the buy-in from the private sector, I think, is unique to that program, something we haven't seen in previous programs. And I think that's special. There was essentially calls out to the tech community saying like, "Look, it is a national imperative to have the very best technologists in government working on the problems that will impact American citizens." And because of the great leadership of the president, we were able to get so many companies to step up and say, "Yes, I'm willing to allow some of my employees to go do a tour of duty in government, and be sure of it, when they come back on the other side, they won't be struggling to find a job, wherever it may be." So, I think this unique partnership and this coming together of the nation to understand that you can actually use technology to solve these huge problems for the American people is one of the highest callings. So, we're very excited. The latest number I heard was over 35,000 Americans have put forward interest in participating in Tech Force. That's insane. That is incredible. That is something we should all be celebrating, this entire committee. The fact that we have so many great Americans that want to step in, move their families and their lives to DC to solve these problems for Americans is just incredible. And I really want to applaud OPM and the great team there for it. I think the second piece around personnel at agencies—I think, you know, as any business thinks about the way that they can best optimize what they're trying to deliver, what's in their statutory mandate, and what the president wants to execute, there's no reason not to relook holistically at how organizations function. And I think that's what a lot was done in the first term. And I think a lot can be said about sort of the misdirection of some of these agencies as we came into office. So, I think the American people deserve leadership at these agencies that are willing to make the hard decisions in order to rightsize these agencies for the objectives and their statutory mandate.
I guess you're saying that the NIST firings and RIFs were essentially in support of the president's sort of goals when it comes to science and technology. But I don't understand. Could you explain more why we should be firing 400 people at NIST?
I'm not familiar with the particular firings at NIST, so I don't want to speak for the Secretary of Commerce or anyone there. But I do think, broadly, when it comes to the way that you think about your personnel and the team that you have, for anyone who's worked at a company or anywhere else, you want to field a team that can best execute on what you're trying to accomplish. And I think there was a very appropriate look at how these organizations are structured and the way that we can best deliver results for everyday Americans.
We'll agree to disagree on that last part. But yeah, the second part is you've also been working on this, and I've been working on AI safety and AI—sort of the risks and how to mitigate these risks for a long time. And some people may think that there's no work being done on this, but they're very wrong. There's actually a lot of work happening on this and has been for a long time, and I know you've been sort of supportive of that. Just very quickly, since we have a little bit of time left, how do you see the federal government's role in supporting the work that's happening when it comes to mitigating the risks of AI and finding the right balance between, you know, not let's say full bans on products or things—you know, promoting innovation while still also addressing the real concerns that people have?
Yeah, I think my short answer to that is I think there's a very important role for NIST and AISI to play in promulgating advanced metrology on model evaluation. And that is something that can be used across all industries when they want to deploy these models. You want to have trust in them so that when everyday Americans are using, whether it be medical models or anything else, they are comfortable with the fact that it has been tested and evaluated. And NIST has a very special place in being able to set standards around testing and evaluation.
Gentleman yields back. We'll hear next from the gentlewoman from South Carolina, Ms. Biggs. You are recognized for five minutes.
Thank you, Chairman Obernolte. And thank you—I'm grateful to have a fellow South Carolinian here today, Director Kratsios, for coming and testifying. Artificial intelligence is an emerging technology with the potential to drive efficiency in business, to spur a renaissance in the energy sector, and to revolutionize scientific research and improve the everyday lives of all Americans, like mine that live in the Third District of South Carolina. At the heart of the AI buildout are a set of President Trump's executive orders, including the AI Action Plan and the Genesis Mission. It is critical that we get the AI buildout right to ensure American technological and scientific dominance for our future generations. We are not competing alone. Adversarial nations like China are racing the United States to complete a full deployment of AI, and whoever wins this will dominate the global market. One aspect of this race is open-weight AI. Open-weight AI are AI whose training parameters are public knowledge. This allows end users to customize the AI for their specific needs with their own data and affords them greater privacy since they can be run by the end user. Right now, China is starting to take the lead in the space with over a dozen open-weight models on the market, while the US has mostly focused on closed models, models whose training is not public knowledge. This actually gives China a large geostrategic advantage in many countries and with companies that prefer to locally host and customize AI models. So my question is, how does the proliferation of Chinese open-weight AI models on the global market pose a risk to the dominance of the American tech stack? And how can we combat the Chinese in open-weight models?
This is actually a very good question and something we think a lot about. I think the first way to think about it is the reason why our adversaries and our competitors are pushing ahead with emphasis on open source is because they are behind. And the clear answer and result and strategy you want to take if you're behind is you try to open source it to try to gain as much usage as you can for your suboptimal model. That being said, there are tremendous benefits associated with having open-source models available. Many individual companies and governments around the world will want to use it for all the reasons that you so correctly stated in your question. For us, we want to build a vibrant open-source large language model ecosystem here in the United States; that was emphasized in the action plan. There has been funding that has been put out by the National Science Foundation to help focus on driving open-source research. We continue to encourage our great American AI labs to push forward with open initiatives and open-source projects. By some metrics, the ChatOSS model, which is an open-source model here in the US, is one of the most downloaded models in the world today. There's also a number of startups that are doing tremendous work in this space and will be releasing their open-source frontier models, hopefully this year. Reflection is one that comes to mind. So we, as a government, want to encourage a competitive ecosystem that can allow these open-source models to succeed. And as we build out our AI export program, it will not surprise me if a lot of the target countries that we're trying to target with our AI stack are interested in open source. We want to have a viable American option.
Thank you so much. Quickly, I'll try to get my second question in. The United States must also balance global exports with security. We cannot allow our adversaries to use our tech in order to displace us as the global leader. So the AI Action Plan tasked the Department of Commerce with exploring location verification technologies to prevent our best chips from being used by adversaries. What are some examples of this, and how can agencies and Congress support this mission?
I think generally we want to create an export control environment that protects the crown jewel technologies that drive AI development from getting in the hands of our competitors. It's something that Secretary Lutnick and the president and the administration have been very clear about so that the top-end chips, for example, continue to be export controlled, and it's something that we're going to continue to track very closely.
Thank you. And my time has expired, so I yield back.
The gentleman yields back. We'll hear next from the gentlewoman from Delaware, Ms. McBride. You are recognized for five minutes.
Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Stevens. Thank you so much, Director Kratsios, for joining us today. You mentioned earlier data centers and the administration's concern with mitigating community impact. And I've certainly heard from countless Delawareans that are worried about data centers being constructed in their communities, straining our energy and water supply, and increasing the cost of utilities for all of us. That's why I fought for funding and legislation aimed at developing liquid cooling technologies produced in my state of Delaware that will ensure data centers are smaller and more environmentally friendly. This is a common-sense investment in a smarter, more sustainable future that could shrink physical data center footprints by as much as 60% and cut energy consumption by as much as 90%. And so I'd love to hear from you about what the administration is doing specifically to mitigate the effects of data centers on their surrounding communities. And is the administration utilizing its funding capacity to incentivize liquid cooling technologies as part of that mitigation strategy?
Many of you may have seen the Truth that the president put out a couple of days ago where he made clear the administration's position on data centers and electricity prices for ratepayers. What he wrote there was he essentially wanted to make sure that American technology companies who are building data centers are footing the bill for their technology buildout. And he commended an announcement by Microsoft that happened just this week where they have essentially taken that message to heart and have committed that anytime they build a data center, they will pay 100% of the generation costs. We'll continue to work with technology companies to make sure that this is a reality, because at the end of the day, we want to make sure that ratepayers are protected. The other thing that the administration has done, which was a big change from the previous administration, was a change in the way that we can approve behind-the-meter energy production. Under the Biden administration, behind-the-meter production of electricity was banned. And because of that, if you're a data center provider, you had to by law tap into the larger grid for that energy. FERC under President Trump changed that, and now you can do behind-the-meter buildout. That's something that obviously is beneficial to general ratepayers. I think probably more in my portfolio is the question around what kind of technologies can we build to make data centers more efficient. I don't know the specifics about the liquid cooling, but at first glance, that sounds amazing. Let's figure out who's working on that and get some funding towards it. My hope would be, as a free-market person, that a lot of these data center providers and chip developers would be extraordinarily incentivized to try to be more productive. So hopefully catching onto that tailwind and finding places where more federally funded R&D could be beneficial could help turbocharge that.
Great. I look forward to hopefully working with you specifically on the benefits and potential of that liquid cooling technology. I'd also be remiss if I didn't mention the administration's AI Action Plan released last year. You've talked about it. Among other things, it suggests that we need clear national standards for people to truly trust and use AI. And I heard Chair Babin earlier say that he supports consensus-based standards as well, and I'm happy to say I agree with that. That's why I was proud to introduce the READ AI Models Act with Chair Obernolte. This bill would direct NIST to standardize evaluation documents for AI models. I like to think of it as nutrition labels for AI models, through a consensus-based process consistently documenting information needed to assess safety, performance, and risk of AI models in a modular and voluntary manner. This would bring transparency to AI in a way that's simple, consistent, and accessible. The administration's AI Action Plan sees national AI standards as a tool to build trust. Do you think that standardized modular evaluation documents for AI models like the one I described would be helpful?
I think things like that are obviously things to look at and think about and work on. To me, when I broadly think about AI standards, the first thing that comes to mind is there is an unfortunate overemphasis on the evaluation of a small handful of frontier models. The reality is that the most implementation that's going to happen across industry is going to happen through fine-tuned models for specific use cases, and it's going to be trained on specific data that the large frontier models never had access to. So in my opinion, the greatest work that NIST could do is to create the science behind how you measure models such that anytime that you have a specific model for finance, for health, for agriculture, whoever is attempting to implement it has a framework and a standard around how they can evaluate that model, because at the end of the day, the massive proliferation is going to be through these smaller fine-tuned models for specific use cases.
Well, definitely agree that those are worthy goals, and I hope you'll work with me and the chair on our legislation, and we welcome feedback and collaboration. So, thank you very much. I yield back.
Gentlewoman yields back. We'll go next to my colleague from California, Mr. Fong. You are recognized for five minutes.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I'd like to thank you, Director Kratsios, for your work on advancing AI policy and AI education specifically. Your being chair of the AI Education Task Force is important and foundational, especially as the White House has prioritized AI literacy across our society. And I want to thank you for working with me on my bill, H.R. 5351, the NSF AI Education Act, which would address gaps in research, education, and workforce development in AI by allowing the NSF to award collegiate AI scholarships, create public-private partnerships when it comes to AI fellowships, and establish up to eight regional centers of AI excellence at community colleges and career technical education schools. I wanted to follow up on my colleague from North Carolina: How is your office working with NSF and other agencies to ensure rural students in their communities have increasing access to STEM education and AI literacy opportunities so they can take full advantage of AI applications with confidence and responsibility?
So, the NSF Advanced Technological Education, or ATE program, is one that we work on with NSF, and that focuses on two-year institutions of higher education with the goal of supporting the education of technicians for high-technology fields that drive a lot of the nation's economy. The other program which you may be familiar with is the Experiential Learning for Emerging and Novel Technologies, or ExLENT program. And that supports experiential learning opportunities for individuals from all professional and educational backgrounds, and it results in increased access to and interest in career pathways in a variety of technology fields. And actually, I think Cal State Fresno is a recipient and participant in that.
Great. Well, I certainly invite you to my district, to Fresno State, Cal State Bakersfield. We have a number of community colleges and trade schools that are actively working to develop a skilled workforce when it comes to emerging technologies. Just to build on that, on the programs you've outlined, how can my education institutions integrate AI education training into these programs? Is there a way they can interface with you and your office, and what can Congress do to support these partnerships?
From a congressional standpoint, we should continue to support these both through authorization and appropriation. I think these are important programs for driving the reskilling and skilling of Americans broadly. To the extent of specific organizations that want to be involved, feel free to have them connect with our office, and we can make sure they're linked up with the appropriate folks at NSF.
Perfect. And then in terms of the AI Action Plan, I know it charges the DOE and NSF to invest in the development of AI test beds for piloting AI systems in secure real-world settings so that researchers can prototype new AI systems and translate them to the market. What are some ways that utilizing these AI test beds would benefit American competitiveness and Americans overall?
Yeah, test beds are such a critical place. I think with anyone who's worked on sort of technological innovation or broad scientific discovery, you need places where you can do the experimental work and get the feedback loop of seeing what happens when you try something and then going back to the lab bench, tinkering with it, and going back out. And NSF has funded a few test beds related to AI and is looking to do more. And I think what's critically important is we have these test beds both for folks that do the metrology work at places like NIST and people who do more of the basic science at NSF. So, we're big supporters of these test beds and we think that they're true accelerants to innovation.
Perfect. Well, I want to thank you for your work again, and I look forward to partnering with you, especially when it comes to your work on the AI Education Task Force. And with that, I yield back.
Gentleman yields back. We'll hear next from my colleague from California, Representative Rivas. You are recognized for five minutes.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today's hearing, and Director Kratsios for being here today to discuss AI. AI and AI-generated content is becoming more prevalent in every aspect of our lives. It's something that we as a Congress must become more proficient in, better understand, and help ensure the technology is being used responsibly, safely, and effectively. I hope that we can find bipartisan solutions towards AI proficiency as we begin this session in Congress. Last August, I held a roundtable with AI leaders in my district where I heard about how schools and small businesses are successfully using AI to streamline processes, but also heard about the pitfalls of AI, and right now especially around literacy and safety. This is an issue that is a focus of mine. Last fall, I introduced my AI for All Act to improve AI literacy and education across the country. My bill will help ensure that the federal government has a national strategy to improve AI literacy, how AI has and will evolve, using AI safely and effectively, and ensuring that we can continue to be a global leader in AI. While I know that you have spoken in the past about the White House Task Force on AI Education, can you describe your vision for the federal government's role in increasing AI literacy, and what role do you see Congress playing in that?
Absolutely. The Trump administration is committed to ensuring that all American workers are prepared to leverage AI, and we've done a few things. I think first is promoting K through 12 literacy and proficiency among America's youth, and that's been a big priority of the task force. We're also working to scale apprenticeship programs and other novel approaches to post-secondary education to align with industry-driven skill requirements that we're seeing increasingly become important. We're also working to develop regional AI learning efforts to promote state and local government and small business adoption of AI, as you mentioned. And lastly, we've been designing new models of workforce innovation to match the speed and scale of the AI-driven transformation, including rapid retraining and reskilling of replaced workers. I think one of our Cabinet secretaries that has spoken about this issue a lot is actually our Small Business Administrator, Kelly Loeffler. And what she often talks about is, as she talks to small businesses in America, as you mentioned, they see it's a true impact to the way that they operate. More Americans work for small businesses than any other type of business in the US, so the impact can be quite dramatic, especially when you're working in environments where the total employees are a handful, the leverage you can get through this technology can be quite dramatic.
What role do you see Congress playing in implementing these programs and your vision for AI?
Absolutely. I think to me, support that Congress can put behind the efforts that the AI Education Task Force is pushing would be very well received. The First Lady has been very vocal and very public about the importance of helping demystify this technology for America's youth. We've established the Presidential AI Challenge, where students from around the country are competing in this challenge and ultimately going to come to the White House later this spring to present their projects to the president and to the team at the White House. We want to essentially have a lot of these programs last into the future, and would love to work with Congress to find ways to identify the most impactful, the most beneficial AI education programs that make the biggest impact, and make sure that we can turn them into law.
Okay. Well, thank you for sharing your thoughts on this. I want to pivot and close on the idea of an AI moratorium that you and the Trump administration are putting forward. I've been leading my House colleagues against this idea going back to the reconciliation process last summer, where the same concept was stripped out of H.R. 1. The newest version of this concept would withhold essential broadband funding from states at the whim of the Trump administration. We have already seen how the administration tries to use federal funds as a weapon in the president's ever-present crusade against perceived enemies. Let's just call this moratorium what it is: another handout to billionaire tech bros and nothing to actually help working-class families. AI technology is growing quickly, and we cannot punish states from adapting to its ever-changing demands while the federal government attempts to catch up. As an engineer and former state legislator, I strongly support technological innovation and reject the premise that you and the Trump administration have stated via executive order or in the AI Action Plan to withhold federal funding from states. We should be learning from states leading in AI policy and innovation, like my home state of California, and not punishing them or withholding funding. Thank you, and I yield back.
Gentleman yields back. We'll go next to the gentleman from Utah, Mr. Kennedy. You're recognized for five minutes.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for convening this. And Director Kratsios, thank you very much for your testimony. It's been impressive to watch. I commend President Trump for putting forward a plan to secure America's technological leadership, drive productivity, and create high-quality jobs. The United States must move decisively to ensure innovation happens here under American values, market competition, and a commitment to national security. Beating China in economic competition requires speed, scale, and confidence in our private sector. That means that we need to reduce unnecessary regulatory barriers, protect intellectual property, and invest in talent and infrastructure, and ensure that US companies can innovate faster than state-directed competitors abroad. I'm proud to be the sponsor of the GENESIS Act to codify President Trump's Genesis executive order. And I'd like you to talk a little bit more about the Office of Science and Technology Policy as to how you want to work with the Department of Energy and other agencies to execute the Genesis mission.
So within the Genesis mission, OSTP is responsible for general leadership of the mission, including interagency coordination, industry and academic partnerships, and international engagement. For us, as I mentioned a little bit earlier, I think the key priority for us over the next six months will be to figure out how best to bring in other agencies into the Genesis mission. This was designed to be a whole-of-government approach to applying AI to science and is not just singularly a DOE endeavor. The second piece, and one that essentially I interact with almost on a weekly basis when I speak to my counterpart tech ministers from around the world—all of them saw the Genesis mission and they want to be part of it. And it's a reminder to me and to my team and to all of us here of how special the United States is from a science and technology standpoint. Everyone dreams and aspires to be us, to work with us. And I think we're at an incredible moment in history where we honestly can find partners and figure out what they have that can help augment our system. So, I think there's a lot to be done there where we can partner with like-minded allies to show the world that we can stand up together when it comes to a lot of the scientific innovation. I think just in the last piece on Genesis, I think you've seen this, but we've announced over 20 industry partners have already agreed to be part of Genesis. And I think to me why that's so special, it's a reflection of the evolving science and tech ecosystem we have in the United States. I've used this number before, but broadly speaking, the federal government and the US economy spends about a trillion dollars a year on R&D. Today, roughly 70% of that R&D is paid for and conducted by the private sector. And that's why this partnership between the private sector and Genesis is so important. We cannot do this alone. We as a country have succeeded because we are a larger ecosystem that incorporates private sector, federal government, academia all together, and those are the partners we want to bring to Genesis.
Thank you for that, and that leads to my next question. I'm from Utah, and we have a regulatory sandbox on artificial intelligence. We also have an agency of artificial intelligence in the state of Utah. And I would like your comments on how, as my colleague from California talks about how the possible moratorium on the federal level is something that would impede versus promote our opportunities, when many states—and I'll point to Utah specifically as a state that has positive policies to promote artificial intelligence and its use for our society—how is it that we can work in a collaborative fashion, not just with industry, but also with states to promulgate positive policy that's going to help us not just use artificial intelligence in the best way, but also to beat our economic and artificial intelligence competitors throughout the world?
Absolutely. I mean, when we think of creating ultimately a sensible national policy framework, states that are creating regulatory sandboxes or encouraging AI innovation are the types of things we would love more states to be doing, not less of. We want more of that. And I think we want to create a framework that encourages that and creates an environment where our innovators can safely test and deploy their technologies.
Good. And I encourage that. I'm working with my Democrat colleague, Representative Riley, to introduce the Boosting the Rural STEM Pipeline Act to invest in skilled STEM educators who want to work in rural communities. How is OSTP working with the National Science Foundation and states to equip the educators so that they can actually help our future generation of artificial intelligence experts to continue the process forward?
That is such a good question, and I think the president focused on that exact issue when he stood up the AI Education Task Force. If one reads that executive order, it's clear that when we talk about K through 12 AI education, it is not singularly about the students; it has to be about the educators and the parents as well. The teachers themselves need to have the tools that they can use to help not only learn about this technology, but also teach their students about it. So a big emphasis of the task force has been about how you bring educators into the fold, how you bring more teachers to feel confident and empowered to teach this technology to their students.
My time is expired, but the last point I'd like to make is how will the OSTP work with artificial intelligence with—I'm a family doctor—and with healthcare. I do believe that there are great opportunities for artificial intelligence to enhance our capacity to deliver high-quality care at lower costs. And if I can work with you and your agency, then I would be happy to do that. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
Gentleman yields back. We will hear next from the gentlewoman from Oregon, Ms. Bonamici. You're recognized for five minutes.
Thank you to the chair and ranking member, and thank you, Director, for being here today. Maybe not coincidentally, I'm in between two hearings: one in the full Education and Workforce Committee on AI today, where we were just discussing what you mentioned—the need in the K-12 system for educators with the appropriate professional development, and we know that's not happening now, but also parental involvement and lots of concerns about privacy and security. So the administration's AI Action Plan frames leadership pretty much as a race focused on infrastructure speed and deployment. But leadership in AI also depends on people. It depends on people as much as it does on platforms: students who learn with these tools, educators who teach alongside them, and workers who must adapt as AI reshapes jobs. I think the disconnect between the administration's plan and recent actions, including significant cuts to research, workforce pipelines, data infrastructure, raise serious questions about readiness. We can't lead in AI by building faster and training slower. So if our education and workforce systems can't keep pace with the needs of evolving work in AI, if educators lack that support, if workers lack pathways, we risk forfeiting long-term leadership, and Americans will be left behind. So, Director, your plan recommends that the Departments of Labor and Education—which is a bit baffling because the administration is trying to shut down the Department of Education—but it recommends that the Departments of Labor and Education and NSF prioritize AI skill development as a core objective of education and workforce funding streams. So what concrete steps will OSTP take across those agencies to develop guidance that schools and training providers can actually use, and how will the focus on dismantling the Department of Education disrupt those steps?
I think you bring up a very important and salient point around workforce and AI education more broadly. And I think the timeline is actually interesting to think about. Three months before the president and the White House released the AI Action Plan, the president signed the executive order to create the Education Task Force. And to me, asking me to launch that task force—I take that very personally. To us, we believe that working on and thinking about the education workforce issue was so important that we wanted to get that out even before our full plan was due. And I think that shows the emphasis that our administration has on this. The First Lady has co-chaired some of those task force meetings, and it just shows how much of a priority it is for us across the administration. I think you asked a little about actions that we're taking. I think within the task force itself, we've launched a couple things. We've discussed the AI Presidential Challenge, where we're trying to bring as many K through 12 students into the fold to be working hands-on with a lot of these AI technologies. The other piece that we have done is this recognition that we alone as an administration don't have all the tools necessary, and there is a large set of private sector, civil society, and nonprofits who are very interested in empowering teachers and students and parents to use this technology. And through the leadership and the direction of the First Lady, we had over 200 commitments from all these different companies and organizations to provide resources free of charge to teachers and to students and to educators to be able to leverage this technology and to better be able to teach the skills necessary for AI. Now, separate from the task force efforts themselves, the Department of Labor has awarded over $100 million nationwide for AI skills training. That's been a big effort that the secretary has had there, and a lot more. So those are examples of the types of work that we're doing across—
And I appreciate that. I do want to note that I'm a bit skeptical about totally industry-provided professional development for educators, and the funding that comes for professional development is also being cut, and so is educational research, which is so critical. You also have an AI workforce research hub under the Department of Labor to produce analyses, scenario planning, and insights. So, what outcomes will that hub measure, and when will Congress see some deliverables from that?
I'll have to check with my colleagues at the Department of Labor; I'm not familiar with that particular program.
Okay. And finally, you have in the action plan calls for these early pipelines through general education, career and technical education, and registered apprenticeships. I agree that these are important, but what supportive resources will there be for educators and institutions so this doesn't become an unfunded mandate?
