The White House wants to redirect federal research funding away from universities toward individual researchers and private companies, prioritizing artificial intelligence, robotics and nuclear energy while deprioritizing what it calls "life sciences." Science adviser Michael Kratsios laid out the plan on July 22, 2026, at a House hearing, one day after releasing a report titled "Science: A New Golden Age."

The administration bills the document as "the first comprehensive rethinking of the U.S. science and technology enterprise in over 80 years" — since Vannevar Bush's 1945 report, which established the postwar bargain: government funds basic research, universities conduct it, companies commercialize it. Kratsios's proposal would upend that system, in place since the end of World War II.

For R&D managers at academic medical centers and biomedical labs, the sharpest signal is the report's instruction that federal agencies "should prioritize foundational research in the biological sciences over the life sciences." That phrasing covers molecular biology, genetics, biomedicine and clinical trials testing new therapies. Spokesmen for the White House and the Department of Health and Human Services did not answer questions about what the terms mean. Biomedical researchers and academic medical centers fear the shift means less money for the National Institutes of Health.

What does the report actually say?

Kratsios, who also directs the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, opens with a broad indictment of federal research funding. Research investment has risen in recent decades, he argues, but output has not kept pace. "Scientific productivity has slowed," he writes, citing one concrete claim: "Despite massive increases in biomedical funding since the 1990s, the rate of significant breakthroughs appears to have slowed, and drug approvals have flatlined."

His prescriptions:

• Reduce the time researchers spend applying for grants.
• Direct science agencies to develop better measures of return on investment.
• Focus agencies on White House-set priorities: physical sciences, chemistry and biological sciences.

Those fields, he writes, serve the administration's "national missions" — artificial intelligence, nuclear fusion, robotics, quantum computing and space exploration.

"Our ability to make transformational breakthroughs here in the United States has slowed," Kratsios told lawmakers Wednesday. "Maybe we should be testing other ways to make breakthroughs than what we've been doing for so many years."

The report is notably less specific about what to cut. It does not define "life sciences" or "foundational research," leaving portfolio planners without clear budget parameters.

What did the report leave out?

Several administration actions are absent from the document. It does not address the firing of large numbers of staff at scientific agencies. It calls for investing in young researchers without noting that the administration fired scores of young scientists and terminated hundreds of grants to early-career researchers.

It is also silent on the more than 40 percent funding cut the White House sought at the National Science Foundation, and on a May proposal from the Office of Management and Budget that political appointees screen federal research grants to block initiatives that "promote anti-American values."

Kratsios did not directly defend the political-oversight proposal at the hearing. "I look forward to working closely with O.M.B. to ensure that our enterprise continues to remain world class and trustworthy and accountable," he said.

Representative Deborah Ross of North Carolina told him that letting political appointees block grants they disagree with is "simply incompatible with any kind of commitment to robust scientific research." She added: "The victories that you're touting are merely cheap, shiny distractions."

How credible are the claims?

Jeremy M. Berg, who led the National Institute of General Medical Sciences under Presidents Bush and Obama, called the report "tremendously misinformed," saying Kratsios ignores the serendipity of science by zeroing in on artificial intelligence. "I think they're trying to turn it into a venture capital model," said Berg, now at the University of Pittsburgh. "Why the federal government should be investing in that, I don't know."

Kratsios himself is an unusual messenger. Unlike most presidential science advisers, he is not a scientist. He has a bachelor's degree in politics from Princeton and no other degrees; his career runs through Silicon Valley, including an investment fund run by Peter Thiel, the venture capitalist who backed Trump's first presidential bid.

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who oversees the biomedical research enterprise, endorsed the report's direction. "America will lead the next generation of medical discovery by harnessing the power of artificial intelligence," he said in a statement, tying it to his emphasis on chronic disease in children.

What happened at the hearing?

Democrats pressed Kratsios on how administration actions square with his pledge of "gold standard science." Representative Zoe Lofgren of California, the top Democrat on the House science committee, proposed an alternative report title: "Unleashing the Golden Age of Science in the People's Republic of China." She accused the administration of "systematically destroying the U.S. science enterprise."

One exchange produced a rare crack in the administration's front. Representative George Whitesides, Democrat of California, displayed charts comparing this year's NSF award rate with previous years. When Kratsios deferred to the agency, Whitesides called the answer unacceptable: "You're the president's science adviser. Why is this happening?"

Kratsios conceded the point. "I do see these charts, and nothing would make me happier to make sure that we are getting closer to where we were in previous years," he said. "I'll do everything that I possibly can to help move that line, because I think it's important for us to get the appropriate dollars out to scientists."

The report offers no budget figures, implementation timeline or statutory mechanism for shifting funds away from universities. Its ultimate effect on grant portfolios will depend on how Congress appropriates funds and how agencies interpret undefined terms such as "life sciences" in the coming budget cycle.