White House science report clashes with administration’s funding cuts
A new policy paper from the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy proposes sweeping reforms to US research, yet its rhetoric stands in stark contrast to the Trump administration’s ongoing grant terminations and budget reductions.
The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy released a report titled “Science: A New Golden Age” on Tuesday, arguing that the Trump administration is uniquely positioned to resolve structural inefficiencies in US government-funded science. Authored by OSTP Director Michael Kratsios, the document positions itself as a spiritual successor to the 1945 “Science, the Endless Frontier” policy paper, suggesting that while the foundational concepts of government-funded research remain vital, the implementation requires significant revision.
The report identifies several structural issues within the current scientific enterprise, including the administrative burden of grant writing and the perceived gatekeeping of consensus-based peer review panels. It proposes reducing the importance of traditional peer review in favour of single-individual assessments and advocates for a non-linear model of commercialisation where technology development and scientific inquiry interact in a continuous cycle. Additionally, the document highlights artificial intelligence as a catalyst for a new “agent-based scientific economy,” envisioning autonomous laboratories and bounty-based funding models.
Despite these reformist proposals, the report is widely viewed as inconsistent with the administration’s actual policy actions. While the document criticises current grant processes, the Trump administration has simultaneously proposed substantial funding cuts to science agencies and initiated the termination of grants awarded on scientific merit. This lack of self-awareness extends to the report’s citation of the Human Genome Project as a model of successful government-driven science, ignoring that the project was a major international collaboration—a stance that contradicts the administration’s efforts to minimise such partnerships.
The document also incorporates political grievances and Silicon Valley perspectives, reflecting Kratsios’ background as a venture capitalist and associate of Peter Thiel. It criticises diversity, equity, and inclusion programmes while simultaneously arguing for broader access to scientific training, and complains that foreign students are displacing Americans in PhD programmes, a claim that overlooks how recent funding cuts have led to reduced admissions across the board. Furthermore, the report suggests integrating skilled craftspeople, such as machinists, with PhD researchers through national fellowships, though it fails to explain how this would function in practice.
Analysts note that the report lacks a coherent strategy, mixing valid concerns about innovation with half-thought-through justifications for policies already in motion. By presenting venture capital as a more rigorous funding source and dismissing the value of basic science that lacks immediate commercial application, the document offers little guidance for the long-term national interest in research. The report’s audience remains unclear, particularly as it fails to address the uncertainty created by the very funding cuts it ostensibly seeks to reform.
