The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy published a request for information on Nov. 26, 2025, inviting academia, industry groups and other stakeholders to propose changes to federal research policy — and the comment window closes at 11:59 p.m. ET on Dec. 26, 2025. For R&D managers whose portfolios depend on federal funding mechanisms, procurement rules and partnership authorities, the RFI represents a direct, if brief, channel into the Executive branch's formulation of science and technology policy.

OSTP states in the RFI that responses will "inform the formulation of Executive branch efforts to advance and maintain U.S [science and technology] leadership." The document frames the exercise around three drivers: "new scientific opportunities, intensifying global competition, and evidence that traditional approaches to research could be greatly improved," which together necessitate a "comprehensive assessment of how the Federal government prioritizes and structures scientific research."

The RFI situates its argument in the country's record of scientific dominance across industries from healthcare to the space program, and points to intensifying competition in emerging fields — specifically naming artificial intelligence and quantum information science.

The questions that matter for lab operations

OSTP asks respondents to address a list of policy questions, several of which map directly onto decisions research administrators make weekly.

One question targets the funding stack itself: what policy changes to federal funding mechanisms, procurement processes or partnership authorities would enable stronger public-private collaboration and let the U.S. "tap into its vast private sector to better drive use-inspired basic and early-stage applied research?" For university tech-transfer offices and corporate R&D units negotiating cooperative agreements, any resulting revisions to partnership authorities could change how industry-funded projects are structured.

A second question addresses talent pipelines: how can federal programs better identify and develop scientific talent across the country, "particularly leveraging digital tools and distributed research models to engage researchers outside of traditional academic centers?" The phrasing signals possible interest in funding models that reach beyond the established R1 institutions.

A third asks what policies would encourage the formation and scaling of regional innovation ecosystems connecting local businesses, universities, educational institutions and the local workforce — with explicit attention to areas where the federal government already holds research assets, such as national laboratories and federally funded research and development centers.

Two further questions touch compliance and infrastructure. On research security, OSTP asks how the federal government can protect sensitive technologies and dual-use research "while minimizing compliance burdens on researchers" — an acknowledgment that export-control and disclosure regimes carry administrative costs that PIs and department administrators currently absorb. On AI, the RFI asks how the government should leverage and prepare for systems that may transform research itself, citing automated hypothesis generation, experimental design, literature synthesis and autonomous experimentation, and what infrastructure investments, organizational models and workforce development strategies would be needed "while maintaining scientific rigor and research integrity."

A final question probes collaboration structures: how to foster closer work among scientists, engineers and skilled technical workers and better integrate training pathways, on the premise that breakthrough research often requires deep collaboration between theoretical and applied expertise.

The deregulation question

Arguably the most consequential item, as the Holland & Knight analysis (by Dianne Bourque, Dan M. Silverboard and Michael J. Werner) notes, invites respondents to identify specific federal statutes, regulations or policies that "create unnecessary barriers to scientific research or the deployment of research outcomes." OSTP asks respondents to describe each barrier, its impact on scientific progress, and potential remedies "that would preserve legitimate policy objectives while enabling innovation."

That framing gives research organizations a concrete vehicle for documenting friction points — grant reporting requirements, approval timelines, technology-licensing delays — with the stated expectation that the input feeds Executive branch action.

Caveats for respondents

An RFI is informational, not regulatory. It commits OSTP to nothing, and past RFIs have produced mixed yields in terms of follow-through. The one-month comment window, opening the day before Thanksgiving, is short by federal standards. Still, the document's explicit aim — informing Executive branch efforts on U.S. S&T leadership — places it upstream of whatever policy instruments follow, whether executive orders, budget priorities or agency-level guidance.

Whether the exercise produces structural reform or a document that sits unanswered, the answers filed by Dec. 26 will form the record on which the Administration builds its next set of research policy moves.