House Science Republicans Examine Grant Fraud

Republicans on the House Science Committee floated ideas to combat grant fraud during a Wednesday hearing on the False Claims Act, the federal law that imposes civil penalties for misuse of government funds.

While Republicans raised concerns about lost federal funds and questioned witnesses from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and the Department of Justice on potential safeguards, Democrats said Republicans were using the issue of grant fraud to justify funding cuts, noting the recent slowdown of grant awards at NSF, and raising concerns about the FCA being used to punish organizations that engage in diversity initiatives.

The government loses between $233 billion and $521 billion annually to fraud, said Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee Chair Rep. Rich McCormick (R-GA), adding that “federally funded research represents a meaningful share of that exposure.” While most researchers are doing “honest work,” McCormick said, “We do have an obligation to ask whether the system meant to catch the exceptions [is] keeping pace with the scale of federal investment and how high the stakes have become.”

Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR) said Republicans had called for a hearing on the FCA to justify slashing funding “under the auspices of combatting fraud.” Subcommittee Ranking Member Emilia Sykes (D-OH), also questioned Republicans’ motives, saying they were using the hearing to “talk about anything other than what the Trump administration is actually doing for American science.”

Of the $6.8 billion recovered under the FCA in fiscal year 2025, $15 million was the result of universities falsifying research data and images, $2 million from cyber fraud at universities and research institutions, and none from failure to disclose foreign funding, said Brenna Jenny, the deputy assistant attorney general for DOJ’s commercial litigation branch, during the hearing. Under the FCA, offenders are liable to pay up to three times the financial losses sustained by the government, plus civil statutory penalties.

Rep. Mike Haridopolos (R-FL) argued during the hearing that there should be stronger repercussions for institutions that commit research fraud, noting that institutions such as Duke University (which paid a $112 million settlement in 2019 for scientific misconduct) continue to secure large sums of federal funding. Jenny disagreed with Haridopolos that the fines are “merely a slap on the wrist” noting the sums are substantial, and there is “adverse press as well.” Jenny also said she believes agencies do factor repeat offenses in their grantmaking decisions.

One issue raised in the hearing by Republicans was that there is currently no government-wide disclosure framework for grant applicants to disclose their foreign ties, leading to a lack of shared information between federal agencies — an issue that Jenny said DOJ would be willing to work on with Congress.

At NSF, there have been 15 FCA settlements over the past 10 years, recovering nearly $9 million, said Jennifer Springmann, special agent in charge at NSF Office of Inspector General, during the hearing.

One challenge for NSF OIG in recovering funds from public universities under FCA is “sovereign immunity,” Springmann said. Schools claiming this immunity argue that the government cannot bring a case against them because they are an arm of the state. In her written testimony, Springmann suggested that Congress pursue legislation to clarify that accepting federal grant funds would mean a grantee waives that immunity under the FCA.

Robert Steinau, a senior official performing the duties of inspector general at NASA OIG, said his office is “reviewing ways to bolster our oversight capabilities,” including by initiating site visits to grantees. The office is currently focused on building expertise to perform this in-person oversight, Steinau said.

DEI and staffing losses

Democrats at the hearing accused the DOJ of using the FCA to punish organizations that promote diversity initiatives. Under the Trump administration, the DOJ has begun using the FCA to investigate and pursue claims against federal funding recipients who certify they are following civil rights laws, but are found to be involved in DEI activities that the administration considers to be illegal.

When pressed, Jenny did not confirm whether certain examples of DEI programs, such as a program to recruit more women into STEM fields, would be considered illegal. She pointed to DOJ guidance and stated that it is possible to run DEI programs without unlawfully discriminating.

“Your legal words, I’m sure, will not be very reassuring to some of these universities who have programs,” Bonamici said. “And what you’re talking about is really going to depend on how the DOJ determines what the university is using the dollars for, and going after entities for political reasons is not a limiting principle.”

Sykes expressed concern that because the statute of limitations period can be up to 10 years, DOJ might pursue DEI-related cases from before President Donald Trump’s anti-DEI executive orders last year. Jenny said the department’s cases are “based on violations of long-standing federal anti-discrimination requirements” but did not deny that the department might prosecute cases based on actions taken before the executive orders.

Democrats also questioned whether NSF is adequately staffed to investigate grant fraud. Bonamici asked Springmann about reports that NSF OIG “can no longer independently investigate research misconduct allegations because of buyouts and staff purges at NSF.” Springmann said the office “pivoted” following staffing losses on the research integrity teams and found ways to maintain compliance with NSF regulations on research misconduct.

NSF grantmaking slowdown

In the hearing, Democrats flagged reports that NSF has issued fewer grants than usual this year. Republicans called the narrative “misleading” and argued that the total amount of funding NSF has issued this year is “very commensurate” with previous years.

Rep. George Whitesides (D-CA) showed charts from Grant Witness that document the pace of NSF grantmaking for each fiscal year. For instance, as of June 22, NSF had issued around 1,600 grants, compared to over 3,000 at the same point in fiscal year 2025, and an average of more than 5,000 at the same point in years 2021 to 2024. Whitesides asked Springmann if NSF OIG is investigating this. Springmann said these are management decisions and not being investigated.

Whitesides suggested that grantmaking at NSF may have slowed because political appointees at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy are now approving grant awards, in alignment with a White House proposed rule issued last month. Springmann said she did not know if this was true and NSF leadership would be in the best position to answer. NSF declined to comment on Whitesides’s remarks.