Science Policy Faces a Post-Election Shake-Up in Congress

Amid a final spending bill push, political control over federal research grants hangs in the balance in the last weeks of the 119th Congress. More changes loom for federal science agencies, say analysts, with Democrats looking to increase oversight and investigations when they take control of the next Congress in January.

Both the House of Representatives and the Senate return on Nov. 9. Funding for most federal agencies will run out on Dec. 11, with a government shutdown likely if Congress does not enact further appropriations.

“We still have some business for the remainder of this year,” said George Washington University science policy researcher Kei Koizumi. Chiefly, whether Congress completes its usual appropriations process or pursues some sort of continued stopgap funding before the current stopgap expires.

Another priority that will chew up remaining legislative days is passing a defense authorization bill, left hanging before the election. Some Republicans have called for a third reconciliation bill in the lame-duck Congress to provide more military spending, a legislative hurdle that proved too high prior to the election.

Other science-related lame-duck tasks may include the reauthorization of the National Quantum Initiative, which would extend that research and education effort across science agencies until 2034. Another is a reauthorization of the CHIPS Act , which has semiconductor manufacturing incentives that expire this year.

Ultimately, the House and Senate will likely pass another continuing resolution, said Jack Kiraly, director of government relations for the Planetary Society, speaking at a Wednesday news conference.

The OMB grantmaking rule was paused by the current stopgap spending bill passed in September and that pause expires in December. As a result, the fate of the rule likely hinges on whatever future funding bill Congress passes. The rule would change the White House office’s Uniform Guidance for federal financial assistance into binding regulation, making sweeping changes to grant administration, merit review, award terminations, allowed costs, and other compliance requirements, by and large giving more control to political appointees. The change would rewire control of some $1.2 trillion in federal grants and related spending, not least research funds.

Science organizations have broadly opposed the rule, calling it an overreach that injects politics into grant decisions based previously on merit. Last week, a coalition of over 100 nonprofits, unions, and scientific organizations (several of which are AIP Member Societies) released a letter to Congressional committee chairs and ranking members, warning that federal science agencies “are proceeding in direct contravention of Congress’s explicit instructions” by implementing internal policies mirroring the OMB rule despite the pause on the rule.

Both the chairs and ranking members of the current Appropriations committees have voiced concern over the OMB rule, including Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), who lost her re-election bid last week, but remains chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee in the lame-duck. “So, we recognize that the OMB rule may not be as high a priority, but we do believe that there is enough concern among members of Congress that that will not be ignored,” said Joanne Padrón Carney, chief government relations officer for the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

The election results very likely kill the OMB rule, one way or the other, said Tommy Goodwin, chief executive officer of the Exhibitions & Conferences Alliance. His organization opposes the change over requirements for years-ahead agency approval of conference attendance by grantees, and event security rule changes. Either the lame-duck session pauses or kills the rule, Goodwin said, or else it will be killed by the Congressional Review Act in the next Congress. “That’s why we want action sooner rather than later,” he added. “People planning events have long time horizons, they need six to 12 months of runway to plan in an already uncertain environment.”

“Lawyer up.”

The 120th Congress convenes on Jan. 3, bringing new committee assignments and reversing political control of both chambers. House Science Committee Ranking Member Zoe Loefgren (D-CA) has said she will seek to become chair of that committee in the new Congress and that her priorities as chair would be restoring science agency funding (such as the $1 billion or more withheld this year from National Science Foundation spending by the administration), shoring up the research workforce, and investigating administration officials. Her statement mirrors the wider call for investigations post-election voiced by Rep. Robert Garcia (D-CA), ranking member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, who told administration figures to “lawyer up” ahead of next year.

The attitude of Republican lawmakers toward the Trump administration’s priorities, in light of election losses, is an “elephant in the room” for both the lame-duck Congress and the next one, Koizumi said. Whether they will remain sympathetic to the shift toward White House power over federal science agencies seen in the last two years remains an open question.

In space policy, investigation into facility closures at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, delayed funding at NASA, and the Department of Government Efficiency’s effects on the space agency might all be on the table, Kiraly said, as well as hearings involving SpaceX CEO Elon Musk. But a great deal of bipartisan support remains for space exploration in Congress, he said. Both the House and Senate NASA Authorization bills awaiting a vote have bipartisan support.

Even with a new Congress, many of the same broad issues, such as balancing innovation and regulation on artificial intelligence and quantum science, will face lawmakers, Carney said. New members will have to dive into open questions of national security, energy security, and cybersecurity with scientific and technological foundations.

“I think it’s important to remind people that this election result wasn’t a referendum on science,” said Carney, who noted that science retains broad public support in general. The average citizen votes on what matters to themselves or their family, not science, she said. “But the results will have an effect on science because it is those decision makers that serve on these committees that make the decisions, the policy decisions and appropriation decisions, that do affect science.”