A bipartisan congressional effort has yielded a spending package that largely rejects drastic cuts to science funding proposed under the previous administration. The bills, covering agencies like NASA and the National Science Foundation, would result in only slight budget adjustments for 2026, avoiding the deep reductions—some exceeding 50%—previously suggested.
Avoiding a Shutdown, Rejecting Extreme Cuts
The proposed “minibus” bill, which also includes funding for departments like Justice and the Forest Service, is slated for a House vote this week, followed by a Senate review. The goal is to secure passage before the January 30 deadline and avert another U.S. government shutdown. The compromise represents a significant departure from earlier proposals that would have severely hampered scientific research and job creation in the field.
“This package rejects the idea of letting our competitors outpace us by slashing federal funding for scientific research and eliminating thousands of jobs,” Senator Patty Murray stated, highlighting the bipartisan commitment to preserving U.S. scientific competitiveness.
Key Agencies and Funding Levels
Under the proposed legislation:
- NASA would receive $24.4 billion, a minor decrease from 2025, with science missions allocated $7.25 billion—a far cry from the 47% cut previously considered. This would preserve critical missions to Venus, Uranus, and the Habitable Worlds Observatory, which seeks signs of life on exoplanets, as well as the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope. However, the long-troubled $10 billion Mars Sample Return mission is still slated for cancellation.
- The Department of Energy (DOE) would secure a $16.78 billion budget for nondefense programs, including $8.4 billion for its Office of Science—a nearly 2% increase despite pressure for cuts. This includes continued funding for renewable energy, grid protection, and fundamental research in physics and chemistry.
- The Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy (ARPA-E) would see a 24% reduction, bringing its budget to $350 million, though this is still far less severe than the 57% cut proposed earlier.
The Bigger Picture: Congressional Authority vs. Executive Action
While the bills represent a clear rebuke of past budget proposals, experts caution that congressional approval alone may not guarantee full funding. The previous administration has a history of circumventing congressional budgets by reallocating funds or simply refusing to spend allocated money, leading to legal challenges.
Michael Lubell, a physicist and former public affairs director at the American Physical Society, emphasized this point: “Congress might be expressing its disapproval, but until it enforces its constitutional authority, not much will change.”
The situation highlights a broader tension between the legislative and executive branches regarding control over federal spending, particularly in areas deemed politically sensitive. This dynamic raises questions about whether Congress can effectively safeguard science funding against future attempts to undermine it through administrative means.
This moderate funding package, while a step in the right direction, is only one part of a larger battle over the future of U.S. scientific investment.
