Budget cuts loom for US R&D

President Trump’s proposal to increase military spending by $54 billion in fiscal year 2018 will be offset entirely by cuts to the nondefense portion of the budget, which includes the roughly $70 billion spent on civilian R&D.

With the exception of reductions in foreign aid, the Trump administration hasn’t specified where the $54 billion in cuts would be made. Briefing reporters at the White House on 27 February, Office of Management and Budget director Mick Mulvaney said the proposal represents “the president keeping his promises and doing exactly what he said he was going to do.” Trump’s budget “reduces money that we give to other nations, it reduces duplicative programs, and it eliminates programs that simply don’t work,” Mulvaney added.

A broad outline, or “skinny budget” request, will be sent to Congress on 16 March; a detailed, line-by-line budget will follow in early May, Mulvaney said.

The preliminary budget numbers have been sent to federal agencies for comment. Each agency has been given a top-line number and guidance on where to cut programs to fit within it. Known as the passback, this process allows leadership of the agencies to provide feedback, which the administration considers before finalizing the budget proposal. But several of the major R&D agencies, including NASA, are still bereft of presidentially appointed leadership, and it’s unclear who, if anyone, would challenge the administration’s guidance.

Contemplating the Department of Energy budget is one of the first tasks for Rick Perry, who was confirmed as secretary of energy on 2 March. A recent report on budget priorities for the incoming administration from the influential, conservative Heritage Foundation recommended eliminating DOE’s energy efficiency, renewable energy, fossil fuel, electricity transmission, and biological and environmental research programs. Heritage analysts also recommended sharply curtailing nuclear physics, scientific computing, and other initiatives. Perry distanced himself from that report during his confirmation hearing.

In a statement, Union of Concerned Scientists president Ken Kimmell called on Perry to maintain support for DOE renewable energy R&D. “We can confidently say that turning away from clean energy would be a job-killing strategy that causes lasting harm to the country,” Kimmell said. “Such a move would undermine our national labs, which develop new technologies and employ thousands of people, and cause the United States to lose its standing as a world leader in science and technological innovation.”

Though few numbers for specific agencies have leaked out, the Washington Post has reported that Trump’s budget includes major cuts for both the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Congressional appropriators have the final say on spending levels, and it’s unlikely that major reductions to programs under their jurisdictions will survive intact. In general, year-to-year appropriations vary by relatively small percentages. Trump’s proposed defense spending increase, to $603 billion, will require a change to current budget law, which caps defense spending at $549 billion in FY 2018. The cap on nondefense discretionary spending for next year is $515 billion. Trump’s budget proposal has that figure at $462 billion, more than 10% under the cap.

Mulvaney said the cuts would not affect mandatory programs, including Social Security, Medicare, and interest on the national debt. That spending accounts for about two-thirds of the budget but isn’t subject to annual appropriations.

Senator John McCain (R-AZ) and Representative Mac Thornberry (R-TX), chairmen of their respective Armed Services Committees, said Trump should go further in funding defense. They called for $640 billion in spending for the Pentagon next year.

John Holdren, President Obama’s science adviser, recently said that he expects steep cuts in federal R&D programs. Speaking at the University of Maryland on 27 February, Holdren said that NASA is likely to see funding reductions for Earth observation, robotic missions, and the James Webb Space Telescope. Other targeted programs could include energy efficiency, renewable energy, and fusion R&D at DOE; social sciences research funded by NSF; and climate science activities at NOAA, DOE, and other agencies. The National Institutes of Health is likely to fare better, Holdren said, since health is an issue that directly affects lawmakers and their families.

Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), ranking Democrat on the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, lamented Trump’s impending cuts. “I’ve said it before and I’ll keep saying it—research and education lead to innovation, innovation leads to economic development, good-paying jobs, and the revenue to pay for more research,” Johnson said in a statement . “The only responsible course of action for our nation is to invest in our research agencies, not hamstring them with draconian cuts.”

Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO) implored the House Appropriations Committee to “not go backwards on vital science funding.” Testifying on 28 February, Polis said the economic benefits from Colorado’s 30 federal laboratories—including the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, National Center for Atmospheric Research, NIST, and NOAA—total $2.6 billion. “Science is the underlying current moving our economy forward,” he said, adding that “there are plenty of other places within your budget that you can cut funds that will protect and expand the economy.”