Agencies Report on Research Security Progress

The House Science Committee summoned representatives from the National Science Foundation, NASA, the National Institutes of Health, and the Department of Energy to provide an update on Thursday on how much progress their agencies have made in implementing the research security requirements laid out in the CHIPS and Science Act and National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM)-33.

In his opening statement in the hearing, Chairman Brian Babin (R-TX) said the security of American federally funded research was a growing concern for the committee, stating that “openness, one of our very greatest strengths, also makes us very vulnerable to foreign actors seeking to bypass the hard work and the cost of original innovation and infiltrate research programs.”

“We’ve seen individuals attempting to smuggle federally funded research, sensitive data, and even dangerous biological materials in and out of our country,” Babin said, adding that the committee has “already issued several letters to institutions seeking information on research security implementation” and the responses it has received have highlighted “significant confusion about expectations, timelines, and enforcement.” These gaps are “exactly what our adversaries exploit, and that is why congressional oversight is absolutely essential,” Babin said.

Rep. Rich McCormick (R-GA), chairman of the Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee, echoed Babin’s concerns in his opening statement, adding that implementation of the 2021 NSPM-33, which was published at the very end of the first Trump administration and continued under the Biden administration, has been slow.

“In the past year, we have finally seen progress,” McCormick said, highlighting the publication of updated research security guidance by NSF in July that requires institutions to establish formal research security programs, conduct research security assessments, document foreign affiliations, and implement training for federal grant recipients. The new guidance went into effect in October, but McCormick said the committee has “repeatedly heard” from universities and research organizations that federal guidance remains “confusing, inconsistent, or incomplete.”

Ranking Member Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) agreed that research security is an important issue, but questioned why the committee was holding the hearing when, she said, “there is no evidence the Trump administration has implemented anything of substance on research security this year. Quite the contrary, President Trump has taken countless egregious actions that are damaging the very research these policies were designed to protect.”

“I support the bipartisan work that the Science Committee has done to bolster research security, and I applaud the valuable work that each of the witnesses has performed to further those goals,” Lofgren said. “However, I fear that unless Republicans and Democrats alike stand against the destruction of our scientific enterprise, we are ceding our leadership to China in ways that no research security policies can prevent.”

Providing an update on how NSF is helping institutions implement research security requirements, Rebecca Keiser, chief of research security, strategy, and policy at NSF, who is also acting chief of staff, said the agency’s Safeguarding the Entire Community of the U.S. Research Ecosystem (SECURE) Program would help institutions to understand and mitigate against risks. Keiser added that the program’s data collection, analysis, and reporting hub, called NSF SECURE Analytics, is active and providing tools, information, and coordination.

The NSF SECURE Program was lauded by representatives from NIH and DOE during the hearing for its potential to help harmonize research security guidance and ensure institutions have the tools and resources they need to standardize research security practices, though the program is yet to become fully operational.

Several Democrats on the committee questioned agency representatives on the impact of Trump administration cuts to their research security efforts, but witnesses from all agencies present assured the Democrats that research security remains as high a priority under the current administration as it was under the Biden administration.

“If you were to look at it from Biden to Trump, the efforts that we’re doing internally are in a consistent slope to improve,” said Jay Tilden, director of the Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence at DOE. “I will say the one thing that is bothering us is being in a shutdown, and our [continuing resolution] status, of course, prevents us from going where we need to go.”

Rep. Emilia Sykes (D-OH) pressed Keiser on NSF’s staffing levels, noting that the CHIPS and Science Act requires NSF to employ a chief of research security and four full-time staffers, and expressing her belief that the law was not being followed. Sykes also expressed concern that plans to impose a 15% cap on indirect costs could impede research institutions’ ability to adequately fund research security measures.

Keiser told Sykes that currently NSF has a chief of research security and three additional personnel, and is “in the process of increasing those resources.” Prior to President Trump’s second term, there were seven people in the office, Keiser said, and there are now four in total (including Keiser, who is splitting her research security role with her duties as acting chief of staff). Keiser said another representative is transferring to the office next week to ensure the agency is compliant with the law.

“We have been concerned about this reduction across the foundation,” Keiser said. “We have lost quite a few staff members. We’re very aware of the priority of research security, and so, actually, we are in the process of adding an additional representative into the office,” she added.