First, let’s look at NIST but first some context. Over the past several funding cycles, the agency’s budget has been quite difficult to assess because Congress has used it for a large number of Congressionally directed funding (ie: earmarks). Given most of that funding is for only one year, it makes a year-to-year comparison more difficult. But to provide some context, the agency had $660 million, spread across the agency, in Congressionally directed funding in the final FY26 budget. This money is zero’ed out by the agency in its request, which is a typical practice. In the chart below, we are comparing year-to-year top line budget numbers.

The top line budget request for NIST is $854 million, a decrease of $996 million from FY26, or a cut of 54 percent. The institutes’ Science and Technical Research and Services (STRS) account, where the majority of the agency’s research is housed, would see a decrease of 42 percent; going from $1.25 billion in FY26 to $729 million in FY27.

Within the agency’s justification document, the administration says the proposed STRS budget, “protects investments in critical, emerging, and digital technologies — and are aligned with the Administration’s priorities within artificial intelligence, quantum information science and technology, biotechnology and biomanufacturing, next-generation communications, and cybersecurity.” However, a closer look at the details reveals something different: the Critical and Emerging Technology Measurement and Standards (CET) program is the only portion of STRS slated for a funding increase. And while CET includes subprograms for Artificial Intelligence, Quantum Science and Technology, and Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing, only the AI subprogram would see more funding under the President’s budget plan; the remaining two would face cuts compared to their FY26 levels.

The next agency we look at is NASA. Under the President’s plan, the space agency would receive a 23 percent cut, going from $24.4 billion in FY26 to $18.8 billion in FY27; that’s a reduction of $5.6 billion. NASA Science, which handles the research funding at the agency, would see a much more significant cut of 46 percent. It would go from $7.25 billion in FY26 to $3.89 billion in FY27, a reduction of $3.36 billion.

Looking into the details of the agency’s request, only the Exploration budget line would receive an increase for FY27, reflecting the administration’s prioritization of human space flight. All of the other budget lines in NASA’s request, including Science, receive cuts of varying degrees. In the Trump Administration’s main budget justification document, it says the NASA Science reduction, “terminates over 40 low-priority missions to transform,” the program, “into one that is more focused and fiscally responsible.” The document uses the Mars Sample Return mission as an example of a terminated program, calling it “grossly overbudget.” Additionally, the agency is recommending the elimination of the STEM Engagement budget line and all programming, saying, “NASA’s primary role is space exploration,” and the agency, “will inspire the next generation of explorers through exciting, ambitious space missions.”

Finally, we come to the National Institutes of Health. Under President Trump’s plan, the agency would go from $48.72 billion in FY26 to $41.16 billion in FY27, a decrease of $7.56 billion or 15.5 percent. Meanwhile, ARPA-H, or the Advanced Research Project Agency, Health, would receive a 47 percent reduction to its budget, going from $1.50 billion in FY26 to $945 million under the proposed FY27 budget plan.

In NIH’s executive summary justification, the agency paints a bleak picture of what the agency’s request might do to their research community. The number of competing awards is expected to fall by 47 percent, while the success rate is expected to drop to 7.8 percent (it had been 14.9 percent in FY26).

As for ARPA-H, it is important to note that while the agency sits within the organizational chart of NIH, it operates as an independent agency. So its budget justification is separate from the parent agency. It says its budget, “supports advanced R&D aligned with HHS priorities and the Make America Healthy Again…agenda.” That mission is further organized across five focus areas: Addressing Chronic Disease, America-Made Manufacturing & Rural Access, Proactive Approaches to Healthy Well-Being, Healthcare Security, Efficiency, and Transparency, and American Leadership in Frontier Health Technologies.

As with the other research accounts we’ve profiled, it’s worth remembering that these are not final budgets and both chambers of Congress will have their say in the process before final numbers are set into law. We are already expecting that Congress will not finish FY27 on time, which is September 30th. In fact, the expectation here in Washington is the budget won’t be finalized until after the November Midterm elections at the earliest, and likely not until the 2027 calendar year. And the outcome of that election will heavily influence how any FY27 budgets look.

Next steps in the FY27 budget process are for each chamber of Congress to come up with their individual funding plans. That process is already in full swing in the House and we expect to receive our first indications from the Senate sometime in the summer. We’ll have updates as those bills roll out; keep checking back for more information.

A brief note on terminology for observant readers: we are using the Department of Defense nomenclature rather than the administration preferred Department of War. This reflects the legal reality that the authority to name federal departments resides with Congress.

Before we get into the budget numbers, a little refresher about the DOD research accounts: the DOD’s Science and Technology (DOD S&T) program is made up of three types of funding: 6.1 (basic research), 6.2 (applied research), and 6.3 (advanced technology development). These classifications are made up of individual accounts covering each of the four services, Army, Navy, Air Force, and Space Force, as well as a Defense-Wide classification. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is a part of the Defense-Wide account.

Two of the three DOD S&T’s accounts do badly under President Trump’s budget plan. Basic Research (6.1), which is the main Defense Department supporter of fundamental research at US universities, gets hit with a 9.9 percent cut. The funding will go from $2.47 billion in FY26 to $2.14 billion in FY27 under the administration’s plan, a reduction of $230 million. The details within the 6.1 accounts are quite alarming: the Navy University Research Initiative (URI) subaccount is marked for elimination and the Army and Air Force subaccounts are cut at 20 and 9.6 percent, respectively, compared to their FY26 levels. Only the Space Force’s URI is relatively spared with a 1 percent cut. While there is no URI subaccount within Defense-Wide, that portion of the DOD’s overall 6.1 research funding would remain flat under the administration’s proposal.

The Applied Research (6.2) account is hit even harder, receiving a 15.5 percent cut; going from $7.21 billion in FY26 to $6.09 billion under the Trump Administration’s FY27 framework, a loss of $1.12 billion.

In terms of good news, Advanced Technology Development (6.3) would receive a significant increase, going from $12.20 billion in FY26 to $16.94 billion in FY27, an increase of $4.74 billion, or +39 percent.

DARPA also does quite well under the administration’s budget plan. The agency would see an increase of 15 percent, going from $4.37 billion in FY26 to $5.04 billion in FY27, an increase of $670 million.

What’s going on here? There are two ways of looking at these proposed budgets. Unfortunately, neither is encouraging and are quite troubling. The first perspective is the way the Pentagon leadership plans their budgets, which is from budget request to budget request. This comes from the simple reality that no military can plan a workable national defense strategy around the vagaries of a legislative budget cycle. When we look at it this way, FY26 requested budget to FY27 requested budget, the view is not good for basic research:

6.1 – reduced by 4.9 percent
6.2 – increased by 5.5 percent
6.3 – increased by 70 percent
DARPA – increased by 10 percent.

Going by this comparison, it can be inferred that defense basic research is not a priority for the Defense Department leadership and is being de-emphasized. This is further reinforced when we look further back, as 6.1 has seen a year-over-year decline in their requested budgets for the past several years.

The other way to look at these numbers is one we talk about almost every year: budget gamesmanship. Namely that money is pulled by DOD leaders from what is seen as a Congressional priority (i.e. research funding) to put toward something else that does not have the same support. If the scheme works, Congress puts money back into R&D and the moved money “sticks” elsewhere in the DOD budget. It’s not a new strategy, as the last couple of presidential administrations have done it.

The obvious problem with this approach is what if Congress doesn’t put the money back? You get hard budgetary cuts that have happened in recent years. It only goes to show that to start at a bad budget request is a good way to end with a bad yearly budget.

The budget process now heads to both chambers of Congress for consideration. We should see the House’s proposal for the Defense Department soon, with the Senate’s plans released some time during the summer. The science policy community expects Congress to not finish the FY27 budget process on time (i.e. October 1). In fact, it’s expected that any final budget will not appear until after the November Midterm elections and more likely won’t be finalized until sometime in the 2027 calendar year. We’ll have to wait and see what happens before we know more. Please keep checking the CRA Policy Blog for more updates.

The signers of the letter represent the full breadth of the nation’s STEM research community. These organizations advised Congress that they consider the work of the SBE Directorate to be an indispensable and essential part of the nation’s overall research enterprise. Even though these organizations represent scientific and technological fields that primarily receive research funding from other parts of the foundation, they view SBE, and the research it supports, as a critical asset for advancing their own scientific missions.

The letter cautions that eliminating SBE would be self-defeating for the nation, as the “industries of the future” prioritized by the Trump Administration, such as advanced materials and manufacturing, biotechnology, AI, and quantum sciences, rely on understanding the human element to be impactful. The organizations point out that solving the nation’s most challenging modern problems requires the crucial data and insights that SBE-supported research provides.

Download the Letter

As with the request for the National Science Foundation, this year’s proposal is almost a carbon copy of last year’s terrible request for the Office of Science. And despite artificial intelligence (AI) and quantum information sciences (QIS) being administration priorities, even standing up a new office, the President is calling for significant cuts to research generally and a slight cut for computing research specifically.

The FY27 request for DOE SC is $7.14 billion, which is a decrease of $1.26 billion, or 15 percent, compared to the approved FY26 level of $8.40 billion. According to the SC’s budget justification documents, the requested budget goes to funding, “basic research to advance energy technologies, transform our understanding of nature, and strengthen the connection between advances in fundamental science and technology innovation.” Additionally, the office prioritizes Administration and DOE priorities, “emphasizing transformative advancements in artificial intelligence (AI), quantum information science (QIS), fusion energy, high-performance computing, and critical minerals and materials.”

Within the Office of Science account, the Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) program, home to most of SCs computing research efforts, would fare relatively well. The program would be funded at $1.10 billion, which is a slight cut of $20 million, or 1.8 percent, compared to FY26. As for the other SC programs, all received cuts of varying degrees, with Basic Energy Sciences (-20 percent) and Biological & Environmental Research (-54 percent) receiving the largest cuts.

Within the program’s budget justification section, it talks about, “ASCR’s leadership role in the design, delivery, and continuous improvement of the Genesis Mission platform, including the American Science Cloud,” as well as its role in, “expanding SC’s ability to leverage next-generation advanced computing, frontier AI models, and data to further research frontiers.” Further, the program’s request talks about ASCR’s basic research funding for applied mathematics and computer science, “to combine exascale computing and AI for innovation and next-generation computing paradigms,” in order to, “ensure U.S. leadership at the forefront of computing.” The language in the request also talks about ASCR’s role in R&D for QIS technologies, including quantum computing and networking, and next-gen distributed quantum computing systems, as well as next-generation user facilities in order to, “deliver integrated, high-uptime, extreme-scale HPC, data, and networking infrastructure for DOE science in the AI era.”

As for ARPA-E, the agency’s budget would be cut almost by half. Under the President’s budget proposal, ARPA-E would receive $200 million, a decrease of $150 million over last year, or a 43 percent cut. That is the same amount the Trump Administration proposed last year for FY26. The budget justification has few specifics, speaking only in generalities, saying the program will, “continue to fund and direct the discovery of outlier energy technologies that ensure the production of reliable, American-made energy.” It goes a little further, saying the agency’s request supports, “the Administration’s goal of restoring U.S. energy dominance through firm, baseload power,” and, “increase the energy available to power modern life and unleash American energy innovation to maintain America’s global competitiveness.”

Finally, DOE is proposing to stand up a new Office of Artificial Intelligence & Quantum (AIQ) to handle Genesis Mission activities. The office would be funded at $1.2 billion to, “implement the Administration’s objectives to advance bold, transformational leaps in U.S. science and technology (S&T) in computing for artificial intelligence and quantum research to ensure America remains the global S&T leader for generations to come.”

Office of Artificial Intelligence & Quantum

One of the outstanding questions that the science policy community had with this budget proposal was how much funding support the Administration would provide to the Genesis Mission. AIQ is the answer.

According to DOE, the new office will be the, “centralized coordinator and leader of all AI research, quantum activities, and Genesis Mission activities throughout,” DOE. However, from a computing research perspective, it’s unclear how beneficial AIQ might be. Within DOE’s budget documents, the department says that the office will, “support multiple AI supercomputers at Argonne and Oak Ridge National Laboratories and is also responsible for the Genesis Mission delivery, aligning investments, developing workforce, optimizing shared infrastructure and tracking performance.” Additionally, under “Program Highlights,” AIQ is tasked with supporting the facility operations and upgrades of new supercomputers at the national laboratories, and will, “explore incentive-based competitions to support the demonstration of scientifically relevant quantum computing.” All of which seems more aligned with infrastructure development, rather than the immediate support of research. Finally, the office’s proposed budget amount is suspiciously close to the amount that SC was cut by. While AIQ may prove beneficial to AI and QIS research in the long run, its immediate impact does not appear to benefit these fields.

Conclusion

As with last year’s budget request, while not as disastrous as the cuts to NSF and other federal research agencies, these funding proposals are still bad and undermine critical investments in U.S. research and innovation. CRA continues to oppose the President’s budget plan and encourages all members of the CS and IT research community to call the offices of their Congressional delegation to urge them to reject the Trump Administration’s budgetary framework for FY27. Our Advocacy Action Alert from last year still has relevant talking points that can be adapted for this year’s request.

What are the next steps? The process heads to Congress in order for both chambers to work out their own funding plans. We should start seeing the House’s proposals soon, with the Senate’s plans likely coming into focus some time during the summer. It is already expected that Congress will not finish the budget process on time (by October 1). In fact, any final FY27 budget is unlikely until after the November Midterm elections and more likely won’t be done until next calendar year. We’ll have to wait and see what happens before we know more. Please keep checking the CRA Policy Blog for more updates.

The Computing Research Association views with deep concern this decision by the president. This abrupt action is profoundly disruptive and threatens to undermine the stability and effectiveness of both the National Science Foundation and the nation’s scientific research enterprise. The NSB plays a critical, non-partisan role in guiding NSF and shaping national science and engineering policy. Its members are highly respected experts, chosen for their commitment to advancing the frontiers of knowledge and maintaining America’s global competitiveness. To summarily dismiss these dedicated leaders sends a troubling signal regarding the independence and continuity necessary for long-term scientific planning.

In response to the release of the president’s budget proposal, CRA released a statement expressing disappointment and alarm for the proposal, and calling on the Administration and Congress to reconsider this path.

As a general note, it appears that NSF’s budget request was prepared before Congress finished its work on the agency’s FY26 budget. With that in mind, in the agency’s budget documents, you will see they compared the President’s request to FY25 numbers (ie: the last year they had approved funding). Since CRA now has most of the numbers for FY26, we will compare the President’s request against that.

There are exceptions, most notably the Research & Related Activities (R&RA) directorates. Congress does not typically fund at that level, leaving it to NSF to decide how funding is distributed. Since the agency has not released finalized directorate budgets for FY26, we can only do a FY25 to FY27 request comparison for those parts of the agency.

At a high level, under the Trump Administration’s FY27 plan, NSF would see a 55 percent cut compared to their FY26 budget approved by Congress. At the topline, NSF would go from $8.75 billion in FY26 to $3.96 billion in FY27, a decrease of $4.79 billion. R&RA, the subaccount that contains the funding for research grants, would see a similar sized cut, going from $7.18 billion in FY26 to $3.41 billion in FY27, a decrease of $3.41 billion, or -52 percent.

The STEM Education Directorate (EDU), which contains the agency’s education programs, would also see a similar cut of 54 percent. It would go from $938 million in FY26 to $428 million under the President’s FY27 proposal, a reduction of $510 million. Additionally, the Administration is again proposing that EDU be folded into the R&RA account. This was proposed last year and Congress rejected it.

The Administration is also proposing the elimination of the Social, Behavioral, and Economic (SBE) Sciences Directorate budget line and much of its operations. SBE is the primary funder for social science research at NSF. For the computing research community, the research funded by SBE is critical to several areas of CS and IT, including cybersecurity and human-computer interaction, among many others. More analysis and potential impacts are below.

Finally, it is not surprising that the agency’s proposed budget would also see large decreases in the number of grants the agency funds and the researchers it supports. NSF estimates that its requested budget would fund an estimated 2,100 research grants in FY27 (5,800 were funded in FY25), allowing for a 7 percent funding rate (it was 19 percent in FY25). The agency estimates that its activities will support a total of 94,100 people in FY27, a drop of almost two-thirds from FY25 numbers (305,400). That number includes senior researchers, other professionals, postdocs, graduate students, and undergrads.

CISE Directorate:

The Computer and Information Science and Engineering Directorate’s (CISE) would receive a significant reduction to its budget in FY27 under the President’s proposed budget. CISE, located within R&RA and home for most of the computing research support at NSF, would see its budget drop from $933 million in FY25 to $346 million for FY27, a decrease of $586 million or 63 percent. (NSF has not yet released the spend plan for CISE’s FY26 budget.)

The CISE Directorate will, “support research on critical technologies to fuel economic growth, unleash American prosperity, and bolster national security.” Additionally, the directorate will support, “research across subfields in the AI and computing ecosystem, including novel algorithms, hardware and systems, programming and software engineering paradigms, cybersecurity, advanced wired and wireless networking, robotics, and quantum and bioinspired computing approaches,” and their investments will also include, “advanced cyberinfrastructure within computing and across science and engineering, and novel educational approaches…to effectively train students and workers for the jobs of the future.”

It should not be a surprise that artificial intelligence is the first bullet within CISE’s highlights. Specifically, the directorate will, “(a)dvance AI through support for foundational and use-inspired research, education, and infrastructure,” which align with the priority areas identified in relevant Administration RFIs and the Executive Order on Advancing Artificial Intelligence Education for American Youth. The document also says that, “key investments,” within the AI space, “will include the National AI Research Institutes and the National AI Research Resource,” also known as NAIRR.

There is not a specific budgetary number for NAIRR that NSF is advocating for in their budget documents. NSF does say that this request supports, “transitioning…NAIRR beyond the pilot stage to drive US AI innovation and discovery.”

While no AI funding is listed in the CISE section, the “NSF Wide Investments” section notes a reduction for AI overall at the agency. NSF’s budget documents show AI funding dropping from $965.18 million in FY25 to $655.23 million in FY27, representing a cut of approximately one-third.

Looking at other CS/IT areas in CISE’s budget, the directorate will, “support research and education that advance the foundations of quantum information science.” It will do that using, “novel approaches for building the quantum computing stack, “hybrid approaches that combine quantum and classical computing,” and “high performance post-quantum cryptographic algorithms and implementations that are secure against attacks from both classical and quantum computers.”

Similar to AI, there is no specific amount allocated for QIS within the CISE section. Instead, there is an amount listed in the NSF-Wide Investments section. The budget documents indicate a planned reduction in the agency’s funding for QIS, mirroring the trend for AI. NSF spent $365.46 million on QIS in FY25, with a planned expenditure of $231.15 million in FY27.

Other major investments in the CISE request are support for, “other areas critical to U.S. technological leadership, such as advanced wireless communications technologies, advanced materials and manufacturing including semiconductors and microelectronics, biotechnology, and cybersecurity.” No other details on these matters are given in CISE’s section. However, there is a reference to others research areas that CISE investments support, such as, “advanced cyberinfrastructure within computing and across science and engineering,” and, “novel educational approaches that stay ahead of fast-moving and disruptive technologies, like AI and quantum, to effectively train students and workers for the jobs of the future.”

TIP Directorate:

The Directorate for Technology, Innovation, and Partnerships, or TIP Directorate, will not escape cuts under President Trump’s proposal. Though, like CISE, the exact dimensions of the cut are unclear, as we do not have a FY26 budget for the directorate. TIP requested a budget of $350 million for FY27, a 43 percent decrease from its FY25 budget, which was $618 million.

TIP says they are, “fostering a new era of American innovation,” by accelerating R&D through, “strategic investments in key technologies,” like AI, QIS, and biotechnology. The directorate is, “using new approaches that enable new entrants to engage in the innovation enterprise.” Ultimately, TIP says its mission is to serve, “as the bridge between foundational investments by other parts of NSF and applied research by a range of stakeholders, derisking breakthrough technologies to the point of uptake by private industry and other federal agencies.”

With that in mind, TIP views its FY27 strategy through three broad strategies:

Strategy 1: Build a durable U.S. competitive advantage in critical and emerging technologies

This strategy aims to ensure that the United States maintains its leadership in sectors of significant economic and national security importance.

Strategy 2: Establish a new frontier of American innovation

NSF Engines awardees are dedicated to enhancing domestic capacity not only to generate ideas but also to rapidly bring them to the market. Ultimately, NSF is fostering a new wave of products and solutions conceived, manufactured, and consumed in America by American workers.

Strategy 3: Attract and train a world-class science and technology talent base and workforce ready for global competition

NSF is committed to creating accessible pathways into future jobs by investing in institutions and infrastructure responsible for training workers in current competitive technologies and emerging technologies that will define the global job market.

TIP’s budget section contains a list of selected investments and references their corresponding strategies. Unfortunately, even here NSF’s budget proposal includes cuts. For example, within the “Emerging Technologies Investments” under the first strategy, the directorate plans to reduce spending on artificial intelligence from $113.27 million in FY25 to $72.23 million in FY27. A similar reduction is proposed for QIS, with the planned spending dropping from $39.80 million in FY25 to $27.05 million in FY27.

SBE Directorate:

As previously mentioned, NSF is planning on eliminating, at least in part, the Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences Directorate. This action is not surprising, given the long-standing skepticism towards social science research, and SBE itself, from certain ideological groups in Washington.

However what is surprising is that news reports point to the agency pursuing this without receiving direction from Congress, or seeking input from the NSF community and stakeholders. This move is also being pursued despite the fact that in the FY26 funding legislation Congress specifically prohibited the Administration from reprogramming funding by elimination of a “program, project, or activity.”

There is one part of the directorate that is being preserved. Specifically, the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES) will, “operate independently of the directorates and continue to be supported through the R&RA appropriation.” As stated in NSF’s budget document, NCSES is one of, “the Office of Management and Budget’s 16 recognized statistical agencies and units in the Federal statistical system and has the statutory mandate to collect,” and report out, “policy-relevant information regarding the science and engineering enterprise in a global context.” However, even here NSF is proposing reduced funding, with NCSES’s FY27 proposed budget at $44 million, an over 40 percent reduction from FY25 levels ($74 million).

CRA is deeply concerned by the proposal to eliminate SBE and will monitor the situation throughout the budget cycle. SBE-supported research is essential to a number of computing and IT research subfields, including cybersecurity, human-computer interaction, and robotics. Furthermore, SBE-funded research will be indispensable for understanding the broader impacts of artificial intelligence on society.

Conclusions:

There are two important things for the computing research community to keep in mind with any presidential budget request. First, that this is only the first step in the process. Second, with the federal budget process, past success does not mean future success.

Congress will have their say in the process. In fact, the House Appropriations Committee has already announced an aggressive schedule of hearings and markups for all of the FY27 funding bills. And as shown with FY26 final funding levels, Congress does not share the Administration’s views on how to handle the nation’s research enterprise.

However, just because Congress rejected the President’s proposal last year, that does not mean they will do so again. In fact, we are expecting this year’s budget process to be especially long, given that the nation’s political attention is increasingly focused on the November Midterm elections. The expectation is that Congress will not pass final funding legislation until December, at the earliest, and more likely some time in the 2027 calendar year. The Fiscal Year 2027 budget starts on October 1, 2026.

With that in mind, the computing research community must keep Congress aware of the dire implications of the President’s proposed funding plan and that it should be rejected. We continue to encourage the entire CS and IT research communities to reach out to their Congressional delegations and explain how the Administration’s plans will impact their work and communities. You can find useful advice and talking points in our Advocacy Action Alert from last year; most of the talking points are still relevant with this budget proposal. As with last year, we hope that Congress will continue to take steps to protect the nation’s research enterprise from these proposals.

CRA will continue to engage with our Congressional friends and allies, and make the case with more skeptical members of the legislature that the nation’s research enterprise is worth protecting and advancing. We are closely monitoring the budget situation and will report any new developments to the community.

CRA Statement on the President’s Fiscal Year 2027 Budget Request

The Computing Research Association (CRA) expresses its profound disappointment and alarm regarding the President’s Fiscal Year 2027 budget request. For the second consecutive year, the Administration has proposed a budget that would inflict deep, damaging cuts on federal science agencies, threatening the vitality of the American research enterprise and our long-term global competitiveness.

While we recognize and share the Administration’s commitment to advancing “industries of the future,” such as Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Quantum Information Science (QIS), and applaud new efforts to prioritize those topics at the National Science Foundation (NSF) and Department of Energy (DOE), we are deeply concerned by the proposed budget cuts elsewhere for science in the President’s request, especially the deep cuts to NSF’s Computer and Information Science and Engineering (CISE) Directorate and the elimination of the Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences (SBE) Directorate. To prioritize AI and Quantum while defunding CISE and dismantling the SBE Directorate is a misguided strategy that fundamentally misunderstands the nature of scientific and technological progress.

The CISE Directorate is the key supporter of fundamental computing research at the agency that bears the largest share of support for fundamental computer science research in the United States. Cutting funding for CISE while attempting to prioritize research in AI and QIS is like watering a single branch of a tree and neglecting the roots.

Like CISE, the SBE Directorate is not a luxury; it is a critical component of the nation’s scientific enterprise. Zeroing out SBE funding undermines the Administration’s own priorities, as pressing computing challenges require more than “pure” technical research. SBE-supported research is essential for understanding how humans interact with technology, and will be key for understanding such things as societal data use in AI algorithms, cognitive load, human trust in automation, economic impacts of labor displacement, and addressing the human behavioral roots of most cybersecurity breaches.

Undermining NSF and the interdisciplinary nature of modern science carries a steep cost. It cedes our leadership in the very technologies the Administration claims to prioritize and diminishes our ability to address complex national challenges.

CRA urges the Administration and Congress to reconsider this path. We must move toward a budget that reflects the reality of modern innovation: a holistic approach that integrates the study of human behavior and social systems with the development of the next generation of computing. Sustained, across-the-board investment in NSF, DOE, and the other federal science agencies is essential to ensuring America’s continued prosperity and security.

Original Post: Last week, the Trump Administration released their Presidential Budget Request (PBR) for Fiscal Year 2027 (FY27). Similar to last year’s budget request, this year’s proposal calls for extreme funding cuts of most of the federal research agencies, particularly the National Science Foundation, while maintaining federal research investments in the areas of artificial intelligence and quantum computing at current levels.

The Administration’s spending proposal is clearer this year, as most budget documents were released at the same time by the assorted federal departments and agencies. This is in contrast to the multi-stage release of last year’s request. The most significant exception to this is the Defense Department, who previously announced that they will not release the details of their budget request until later in April. As we review the specifics, the CRA Policy Blog will continue its practice of providing detailed analysis of the research agencies’ budget requests.

At a high level, the Administration’s main priority for FY27 is to significantly boost defense spending. With that in mind, the President is requesting $1.5 trillion for defense spending, while cutting nondefense spending by 10 percent. Most research funding that supports the computing and IT research community, such as at NSF or the Department of Energy, is designated as non-defense spending.

From a practical perspective, the science policy community was not expecting a friendly budget request from the Administration. And, for the most part, we received what we expected. In terms of specifics, below are the relevant takeaways for the agencies that CRA tracks:

National Science Foundation

For NSF, it almost appears as if the Trump Administration did a copy and paste of last year’s harmful budget request. While that statement is not totally accurate, some budget lines are the same number that was proposed a year ago.

At the top line for the agency, the President is requesting $3.96 billion, which is a decrease of $4.79 billion, or a 55 percent cut, against FY26 final levels. Within Research and Related Activities, the budget line that contains the majority of the research funding, the request is $3.41 billion, a decrease of $3.77 billion, a drop of 52 percent, from the previous year.

Within RRA, none of the individual directorates escape significant cuts. CISE gets the same budget request that was proposed last year: $346M. This represents a decrease of $643 million against FY25 or a 65 percent cut (Note: the Trump Administration didn’t provide FY26 numbers in the request for the assorted RRA directorates). As for TIP, it also received the same requested budget proposed as last year, $350 million, which is a decrease of $268 million against FY25, or a 43 percent cut. Additionally, the Administration is proposing again to fold the STEM Education (EDU) Directorate into RRA, something that Congress rejected during the FY26 budget process. As for the EDU budget line, the President requested $428 million, a decrease of $510M, or a drop of 54 percent, against FY26.

The Trump Administration is also proposing the elimination of the Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences (SBE) Directorate, which is the primary funder for social science research at NSF. This is not surprising, given the long-standing skepticism towards social science research, and SBE itself, from certain ideological groups in Congress.

More troubling are reports that NSF is moving ahead with plans to close the directorate without Congressional approval. This comes despite the Senate Appropriations Committee expressing support for SBE and its research in their FY26 appropriations report. On a practical level for the computing research community, the research funded by SBE is critical to several areas of CS and IT, including cybersecurity and human-computer interaction. CRA will closely monitor this situation throughout the budget process.

In terms of justification, a good example of the Administration’s thinking for NSF can be found in the Discretionary Budget Request overview document:

The Budget cuts funding for: climate; clean energy; woke social, behavioral, and economic sciences; and programs in low priority areas of science. NSF has fueled research with dubious public value, like speculative impacts from extreme climate scenarios and niche social studies, such as a grant to the University of Nebraska to create “affinity groups” for bird watchers and a $15.2 million grant to the University of Delaware to develop and evaluate policy interventions to “achieve sustainable equity, economic prosperity, and coastal resilience in the context of climate change.” Similarly, Columbia University received $13.8 million to “advance livable, safe, and inclusive communities.” Funding for Artificial Intelligence and quantum information sciences research is maintained at current levels.

Similar justification was included in the Cuts to Woke Programs document.

Dept of Energy, Office of Science and ARPA-E

Despite being designated the lead federal research agency for artificial intelligence and quantum research efforts, the Department of Energy’s key computing research programs don’t escape cuts. At the top line, DOE’s Office of Science (SC) budget request is $7.14 billion, which is a decrease of $1.26 billion from FY26 levels, or a 15 percent cut.

Digging into the details, the Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) program, home to most of SCs computing research efforts, would fare relatively well. It would receive $1.10 billion under the President’s plan; that is a decrease of $20 million, or a cut of 1.8 percent, compared to FY26.

One of the outstanding questions that the science policy community had with this budget proposal was how much funding support the Administration would provide to the Genesis Mission. In answer to that, DOE is proposing to stand up an Office of Artificial Intelligence & Quantum (AIQ) and requesting a $1.2B budget to, “implement the Administration’s objectives to advance bold, transformational leaps in U.S. science and technology (S&T) in computing for artificial intelligence and quantum research to ensure America remains the global S&T leader for generations to come.”

However, from a computing research perspective, it’s unclear how beneficial this might be. Within DOE’s budget documents, the department says that the office will, “support multiple AI supercomputers at Argonne and Oak Ridge National Laboratories and is also responsible for the Genesis Mission delivery, aligning investments, developing workforce, optimizing shared infrastructure and tracking performance.” Additionally, under “Program Highlights,” AIQ is tasked with supporting the facility operations and upgrades of new supercomputers at the national laboratories, and will, “explore incentive-based competitions to support the demonstration of scientifically relevant quantum computing.” All of which seems more aligned with infrastructure development, rather than the immediate support of research.

Finally, ARPA-E gets hit again with a significant reduction. The budget line for the program is $200 million, a decrease of $150 million against FY26 final, or a 43 percent cut.

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Unfortunately, the Department of Commerce has only released top line numbers for NIST, so we have very little in terms of details and justification. The research agency as a whole would receive $854 million for FY27. That is a decrease of $996 million against FY26 numbers, or a 54 percent cut.

Going one budget level down, for the Science and Technical Research and Services (STRS), which contains the agency’s research portfolio, the Administration requested $729 million, a decrease of $521 million against final FY26 levels or a 42 percent cut.

While CRA doesn’t track it, NIST’s Construction account is also hit hard and is cut by almost two thirds. NIST has a well known maintenance backlog at its facilities and it is feared that this could impact the agency’s research operations, either by hindering the research itself or cutting into research funding in order to pay down the backlog.

NASA

NASA’s topline budget request is $18.8 billion, a decrease of $5.6 billion against final FY26 levels, or a 23 percent cut. However, that cut is not uniformly distributed across the agency. NASA Science received a significant cut of 46 percent, or minus $3.36 billion, with a final proposed budget of $3.89 billion for FY26. In contrast, the Human Space Exploration accounts received a significant increase of $647 million over FY25 enacted levels. The Administration’s justification is that this is, “in line with the Administration’s objectives of returning to the Moon before China and putting a man on Mars,” and so, “the Budget would reduce lower priority research and terminate unaffordable missions.”

National Institutes of Health

The Trump Administration is continuing to target NIH for heavy decreases, saying that they are, “committed to restoring accountability, public trust, and transparency,” at the agency. This is in response to perceived shortcomings by NIH during the COVID Pandemic. With that in mind, the agency’s top line budget request is $41.16 billion for FY27. That is a decrease of $7.56 billion against final FY26 funding levels, or a 15.5 percent cut. Additionally, ARPA-H’s proposed budget is $945 million, a decrease of $555 million, or a 47 percent cut, against last year’s levels.

Conclusion and CRA’s Response

Keep in mind that this is the first step in the budget process and that these numbers are not final. Congress will have their say in the process and we expect them to generally reject this proposal as they did in the Fiscal Year 2026 process.

But even with that in mind, this budget request poses a serious threat to research and innovation. Particularly at NSF, these proposed cuts, and the elimination of SBE, will likely do irreparable damage to the nation’s research ecosystem.

A budget request like this is not a great place to start for the research community, but we have been in this situation before. CRA will spend the rest of the calendar year advocating strongly for better final numbers for all these agencies, and working with our friends and allies in Congress to not accept these proposed budgets. And, as with last year, we’ll need your help doing that.

Congress needs to understand how important this research is, and there is no better way for them to learn about the work going on in their districts and states than from their constituents. They need to hear from you. Phone your Senators and Representatives and explain how your work is supported by the federal investment, what potential benefits it will provide your state and the country, and how these potential cuts imperil it. Most of the talking points contained in our Advocacy Action Alert from last year are still relevant. The only thing that has changed are the specific numbers and that Congress rejected the Trump Administration approach last year.

The framework is organized around seven key objectives:

1. Protecting Children and Empowering Parents
2. Safeguarding and Strengthening American Communities
3. Respecting Intellectual Property Rights and Supporting Creators
4. Preventing Censorship and Protecting Free Speech
5. Enabling Innovation and Ensuring American AI Dominance
6. Educating Americans and Developing an AI-Ready Workforce
7. Establishing a Federal Policy Framework, Preempting Cumbersome State AI Laws

The computing research community will likely find the fifth objective, which addresses innovation, to be the most relevant. It focuses on, “removing barriers to innovation, accelerating deployment of AI applications across sectors, and ensuring broad access to the testing environments needed to build world-class AI systems.” Specifically, the Administration suggests that Congress: establish regulatory sandboxes for AI applications; provide resources to make federal datasets accessible to industry and academia in AI-ready formats; and not create any new federal rulemaking body to regulate AI, and should instead support development and deployment of sector-specific AI applications through existing regulatory bodies.

The sixth objective, while relevant to the computing research community too, primarily focuses on workforce training objectives. This emphasis is potentially problematic because it doesn’t place a focus on education, despite the heading’s implication, and doesn’t address the numerous persistent education research questions around AI.

The proposed framework raises several areas of concern, notably its silence on AI research and funding. In fact, the document contains no mention of the words “research” or “funding” at all. Furthermore, the objective covering education and workforce development merely suggests utilizing “existing programs” rather than proposing new initiatives or programs. In many ways, this framework appears to support the current status quo instead of proposing meaningful legislative changes for national AI policy.

The immediate impact of this framework is unclear. While it represents the most significant federal proposal on artificial intelligence to date — arguably a low benchmark — the politics surrounding the issue are complex and contentious. For example, the proposal to preempt state AI regulations is expected to face intense, bipartisan, and ideological opposition. However, since this is merely a proposal, and not a binding framework, Congress is free to chart whatever course it deems best for national policy. Ultimately, a full understanding of this proposal’s impact will require more time for the situation to develop. CRA will continue to track this issue.

NSF has been without a director since Sethuraman Panchanathan resigned in April amid widespread grant cuts, a proposed $5+ billion cut to the agency’s budget in the presidential budget request, and the threat of staff cuts. Brian Stone, the agency’s chief of staff, currently serves as acting director.

Since the NSF Director position requires Senate confirmation, and the President has not formally submitted O’Neill’s nomination to the chamber, the timing of him taking up the agency’s leadership remains uncertain. If confirmed, he would be the first NSF director without an advanced degree in a science or engineering field.