Energy Secretary Takes Heat in First House Science Hearing

Democrats on the House Science Committee pressed Energy Secretary Chris Wright on a range of science topics in his first appearance before the committee on Wednesday, more than 16 months after he was sworn in.

Wright’s remarks centered around the Department of Energy’s work on the Genesis Mission and other emerging technology initiatives. DOE issued a fusion science and technology roadmap on Tuesday and aims to demonstrate the first “scientifically relevant” quantum computer by 2028, Wright said.

Some Republicans expressed enthusiasm for the Genesis Mission, including Rep. Jay Obernolte (R-CA), who asked Wright how the department would measure the mission’s stated goal to double U.S. research productivity.

Wright said he thinks the goal is “a reasonable estimate of what could be achievable” and suggested looking at the speed of drug discovery or getting “the equivalent of $2 trillion a year of research advancement with spending only $1 trillion.”

Meanwhile, Rep. Bill Foster (D-IL) criticized the mission as imposing a “Genesis tax” on the rest of DOE’s research programs, suggesting that it is effectively taking money away from existing research.

Wright argued that the Genesis Mission does not take money away from the Office of Science’s research programs because the AI tools apply across all scientific fields.

In response to questioning from Rep. Christian Menefee (D-TX), Wright defended the 54% proposed cut to the Biological and Environmental Research program in the president’s budget request as moving money to “where it will make the most impact.” For instance, the Genesis Mission will provide “massively improved ability to track further ahead where hurricanes are going,” Wright said, adding, “We have enormous money and research going into [getting] better at understanding these disasters.”

Rep. Luz Rivas (D-CA) asked Wright about the Reaching a New Energy Sciences Workforce program for minority-serving institutions that was proposed for elimination in the budget request. Wright said STEM education is “a central role of the federal government” and added that “we are also passionate about taking gender and race and all that out of science. It’s a meritocracy.”

Much of the hearing focused on topics other than the budget request. Ranking Member Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) and other Democrats slammed Wright for cuts to clean-energy programs and the Climate Working Group report on greenhouse gases, while Chair Brian Babin (R-TX) praised the department’s November reorganization, saying it established clearer priorities and rebalanced the agency’s science portfolio.

Clean energy

Lofgren questioned Wright on a report issued by the Government Accountability Office last week that found that any funds DOE spent in fiscal year 2025 in excess of what was appropriated would be illegal. DOE’s self-reported enacted funding for fiscal year 2025 did not fully align with the funds appropriated by Congress, shifting money away from wind and solar energy and into water and geothermal.

“I’m wondering if you have made your staff aware that obligating funds beyond what Congress prescribed could lead them, not just you, to incur significant civil as well as criminal penalties,” including fines and potential imprisonment, Lofgren said.

Wright said he is aware of the GAO report but did not comment further, saying the matter has been referred to OMB.

Rep. Gabe Amo (D-RI) asked Wright if DOE will restore the more than 300 clean-energy grants that it canceled last year. A court ruled in April that the terminations unlawfully targeted grantees in Democrat-led states and restored funds for the seven grants of the plaintiffs in the case.

Wright denied that politics had been involved in the termination decisions. “I keep hearing that charge. It’s bullshit,” Wright added. “We’re gonna say it a million times, it’s not true.”

Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR) asked Wright about DOE’s Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations. The office does not appear on DOE’s reorganization chart released in November, and GAO reported that OCED lost 85% of its staff last year, including all independent assessment staff.

Wright said there are “several dozen” staff at OCED who oversee the same types of projects as before the reorganization, but they are “dispersed in the various technical departments that are relevant to the projects they’re overseeing.”

Bonamici also asked whether DOE has a plan for OCED to meet its statutory requirements to manage projects. DOE had agreed to develop such a plan by March in response to the GAO report.

“The Department of Energy may have less employees now than it did 18 months ago, but the professionalism and the work output of it is dramatically, dramatically increased,” Wright said. He added that he would have to check with staff on the plan for OCED.

Climate Working Group

Rep. Valerie Foushee (D-NC) asked Wright about DOE’s coordination with the Environmental Protection Agency on a heavily criticized greenhouse gas report from the Climate Working Group. Wright said he raised the idea for the report early on in the administration, and his goal was to produce the report as quickly as possible.

Wright said the report has been “quite successful” in spurring a “very open, very transparent dialogue around the facts around climate change. He added that he wants to “have public events and do much more on this, but unfortunately environmental groups and so many others don’t want to actually have that dialogue, so we’ve had crazy lawsuits, legal entanglements to a very professional report.”

Foster asked whether DOE intends to submit the report to independent peer review. Wright said that the report had been reviewed within DOE and that he would eventually submit it to a scientific journal. He indicated that a court ruling, which found DOE’s actions were illegal, has posed a roadblock.

Scientific advisory committees

Foster expressed concern over DOE’s elimination of scientific advisory committees. The department consolidated the six discipline-specific committees into a single Office of Science Advisory Committee in September. Foster said he saw the elimination of those committees as part of a “general rejection of expertise” across the Trump administration. “How do you decide, for example, how to split your investment between inertial confinement fusion and magnetic confinement fusion without that expertise?” Foster asked.

Wright said the department receives input on fusion energy from scientists within the department and its national labs, in academia, and in the commercial sector. “I would say we probably have more voices, more active dialogue about fusion,” he added.

“You have no process that I perceive,” Foster responded. “It just seems like you announce a bunch of projects without the independent set of eyes.”