Trump administration pivots $5bn science funding to AI, sparking backlash from researchers
White House science adviser Michael Kratsios promotes a Silicon Valley-style approach to federal grants, drawing sharp criticism from the scientific community over the dismantling of traditional basic research.
The Trump administration has unveiled its first "Genesis Mission" grants, directing $5 billion toward hundreds of artificial intelligence-driven science projects. The initiative, described by the White House as comparable in urgency and ambition to the Manhattan Project, marks a significant departure from traditional federal research funding models. Led by the Energy Department, the programme prioritises AI, robotics, and nuclear energy while downplaying life sciences, aligning with a broader "Golden Age" agenda promoted by White House science adviser Michael Kratsios.
Approximately 278 projects were selected from over 5,000 applications, with funding directed towards individual researchers and private technology companies including Google, Microsoft, and OpenAI. These firms are contributing millions of dollars in compute power and AI credits to support the initiative. The Energy Department stated the project aims to unite national laboratories, industry, and academia to pursue breakthroughs in energy dominance, discovery science, and national security.
Kratsios explicitly linked the Genesis Mission to the administration’s "Golden Age" manifesto, which proposes shifting support away from institutions and toward individual scientists. Styled as a modern successor to Vannevar Bush’s 1945 report "Science, the Endless Frontier," the document suggests giving private companies a larger role in directing research and granting political appointees more power to block grants they disagree with. Unlike previous science advisers, Kratsios lacks scientific credentials, having worked in tech policy and finance, including at a fund run by Silicon Valley investor Peter Thiel.
The approach has drawn sharp criticism from the scientific community, who argue the administration is treating science like a Silicon Valley startup. Researchers warn that the focus on measurable returns and speed undermines the slow, uncertain, and unpredictable nature of basic research. Critics note that the venture capital model, which emphasises clear goals and rapid iteration, is ill-suited for the open-ended inquiry that has historically driven major scientific discoveries and established the United States as a research superpower.
Prominent academics have labelled the manifesto a "major threat" to the US research ecosystem. Harvard professor Jeffrey Flier described the proposals as "completely insane," while University of Amsterdam professor Claes de Vreese called it a fundamental departure from a successful US science model. Researchers such as Jason Shepherd and Andreas Karch highlighted contradictions in the plan, noting that reducing support for life sciences while increasing funding for foundational biological research lacks clarity and could result in "mountains of slop" obscuring genuine insights.
The funding announcements arrive amid sweeping cuts and institutional upheaval across the federal funding system. Critics argue the administration is systematically dismantling the norms and institutions that have supported American scientific leadership for decades. With international student flows curtailed and university funding threatened on ideological grounds, many scientists warn the agenda could prove disastrous for American research, benefiting specific tech and venture capital groups at the expense of the broader academic community.
