Contents

• Introduction
• FY2026 Budget and Appropriations Actions
• Research and Related Activities (RRA)
• STEM Education (EDU)
• Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC)
• Other Accounts
• Authorizations of Appropriations and Recent Funding Trends (FY2003-FY2027)
• Policy Considerations
• Support for Basic Research and Infrastructure
• STEM Education and Broadening Participation
• Long-Term Research Sustainability and U.S. Competitiveness
• Institutional Capacity to Carry Out Statutory Responsibilities

Summary

The National Science Foundation (NSF) supports basic research and education in the nonmedical sciences and engineering. NSF is a major source of federal support for U.S. university research. It is also responsible for significant shares of the federal science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education portfolio of programs that support STEM learning and STEM-education-related research.

For FY2025, after a series of short-term resolutions to provide appropriations to NSF, the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2025 (P.L. 119-4), signed by the President on March 15, 2025, provided appropriations at the FY2024 level ($9.1 billion).

The Trump Administration is seeking $3.9 billion in discretionary funding for NSF in FY2026, a $5.2 billion (-56.9%) decrease from the FY2025 enacted level. NSF has six appropriations accounts: Research and Related Activities (RRA; the main research account), STEM Education (EDU; the main education account), Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC), Agency Operations and Award Management (AOAM), the National Science Board (NSB), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG). In its FY2026 budget request, NSF proposes consolidating the EDU account as a subaccount within RRA, which would be the first appropriations account change since FY2003. The FY2026 request would decrease funding in five of six accounts relative to the FY2025 enacted amount: RRA by $4.2 billion (-58.4%), EDU by $883.6 million (-75.4%), AOAM by $93.0 million (-20.8%), OIG by $6.4 million (-26.3%), and NSB by $2.1 million (-41.0%). The request would provide an increase to MREFC ($17.0 million, 7.3%) over the FY2025 enacted funding level. (Congress designated the $234.0 million appropriation for MREFC in FY2025 as emergency funding, which President Trump canceled after making a determination that the funds were not for emergency needs.) The request also requests funding for three prioritized "critical activities": artificial intelligence, quantum information science, and the Directorate for Technology, Innovation, and Partnerships.

As reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations on July 17, 2025, the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2026 (S. 2354), would provide a total of $9.0 billion to NSF for FY2026. This would be a slight decrease of $60.0 million (-0.7%) from the FY2025 enacted amount and an increase of $5.1 billion (130.6%) over the FY2026 request. As reported by the House Committee on Appropriations on September 12, 2025, the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2026 (H.R. 5342), would provide a total of $7.0 billion to NSF for FY2026. This would be a decrease of $2.1 billion (-22.7%) from the FY2025 enacted amount and an increase of $3.1 billion (79.3%) over the FY2026 request. The Continuing Appropriations, Agriculture, Legislative Branch, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Extensions Act, 2026 (P.L. 119-37), signed by the President on November 12, 2025, provides funding for NSF through January 30, 2026, at the FY2025 level.

Since the early 2000s, Congress has authorized increasing appropriations for NSF through four laws, most recently in the CHIPS and Science Act (P.L. 117-167). Since FY2023, enacted appropriation amounts have been largely lower than authorized levels. The 117^th Congress authorized the appropriation of $17.8 billion to NSF for FY2026, which is $13.9 billion (357%) more than the FY2026 request.

Federal funding for basic research and STEM education has long garnered broad interest and support, particularly in light of concerns about U.S. technological leadership and international competitiveness. However, in a time of constrained federal budgets, agencies such as NSF must compete with many other national priorities. As Congress debates FY2026 appropriations legislation, policymakers may consider numerous issues, including (1) the appropriate level of federal support for basic research and infrastructure and whether to prioritize certain scientific areas or societal goals; (2) how congressional funding direction to NSF regarding its STEM education and broadening participation programs aligns with statutory mandates and the Administration's priorities; (3) the long-term sustainability of U.S. research and technological leadership under authorized versus appropriated funding levels; and (4) the institutional capacity of NSF to carry out statutory responsibilities given the current and proposed reductions in staff and funding.

Introduction

The National Science Foundation (NSF) supports basic research and education in the nonmedical sciences and engineering. Congress established the foundation through the National Science Foundation Act of 1950 (P.L. 81-507) to "promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense; and for other purposes." NSF is a major source of federal support for U.S. university research, especially in the social sciences, mathematics, and computer science. It is also responsible for significant shares of the federal science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education portfolio of programs that support STEM learning and STEM-education-related research.

This report describes the Trump Administration's FY2026 budget request for NSF and tracks legislative action on FY2026 appropriations to the agency.¹ It also presents information on historical funding for the agency and compares NSF budget authorizations of appropriations with previous enacted appropriations and the FY2026 budget request.

NSF has six appropriations accounts: Research and Related Activities (RRA; the main research account), STEM Education (EDU; the main education account), Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC), Agency Operations and Award Management (AOAM), the National Science Board (NSB), and the Office of Inspector General (OIG). The majority of NSF's primary mission activities are funded through RRA, EDU, and MREFC; collectively, these three accounts compose over 90% of NSF's requested funding for FY2026.

Appropriations are generally provided at the account level; program-specific direction may be included in appropriations acts or in accompanying conference reports or explanatory statements. For RRA, Congress has sometimes specified authorizations and appropriations at the subaccount level, and NSF's budget justifications include activities and obligations at that level.² In the FY2026 budget request, NSF proposes consolidating the EDU account as a subaccount within RRA.³ This would be the first appropriations account change since FY2003, when the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003 (P.L. 108-7, in Division K, Title III) provided for a separate appropriations line item for NSB.⁴ This report provides information for RRA and EDU separately to facilitate comparison across fiscal years, as well as combined RRA and EDU amounts to illustrate the proposed consolidation in the FY2026 NSF budget request.

For FY2025, after a series of short-term resolutions to provide appropriations to NSF, the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2025 (P.L. 119-4), signed by the President on March 15, 2025, provided appropriations at the FY2024 level.⁵ Congress typically directs funding for a subset of programs and activities within the RRA, EDU, and MREFC accounts in accompanying explanatory statements.⁶ In this report, at the account level, FY2026 requested amounts are compared with FY2025 enacted amounts. At the RRA subaccount level, FY2026 requested amounts are compared with the FY2024 current plan amounts because FY2025 subaccount funding information was not available.⁷

FY2026 Budget and Appropriations Actions

The Administration is seeking $3.9 billion in discretionary funding for NSF in FY2026, a $5.2 billion (-56.9%) decrease from the FY2025 enacted level and FY2024 current plan amount (see Table 1). The request would decrease budget authority in five of six accounts relative to the FY2025 enacted levels: RRA by $4.2 billion (-58.4%), EDU by $883.6 million (-75.4%), AOAM by $93.0 million (-20.8%), OIG by $6.4 million (-26.3%), and NSB by $2.1 million (-41.0%). The request would provide $251.0 million for MREFC, an increase of $17.0 million (7.3%) over the FY2025 enacted amount.

The NSF FY2026 budget request does not list funding for MREFC in FY2025. Congress designated the $234.0 million appropriation for MREFC in FY2025 as emergency funding.⁸ However, the President canceled that funding after determining that the funds were "improperly designated by the Congress as emergency," and he did "not concur that the added spending is truly for emergency needs."⁹ According to the NSF FY2026 budget request, "MREFC appropriated funds were not included in the emergency designation transmitted to the Committee on Appropriations on March 24, 2025, and are thus not available for expenditure."¹⁰

Broadly, the FY2026 NSF budget justification "reflects a strategic alignment of resources in a constrained fiscal environment," prioritizing investments in public-private partnerships and those that "offer strong potential to drive economic growth and strengthen U.S. technological leadership."¹¹ The budget justification prioritizes three "critical activities" ongoing at NSF:

• artificial intelligence (AI)—$655.2 million requested for FY2026, $19.6 million (3.1%) more than the FY2024 current plan;
• quantum information science (QIS)—$231.2 million requested, $1.0 million (0.4%) more than the FY2024 current plan; and
• Directorate for Technology, Innovation, and Partnerships (TIP) programs—$350.0 million requested, $267.9 million (-43.4%) less than the FY2024 current plan.¹²

The FY2026 budget request also highlights "continued investments in key areas," including

• biotechnology—$248.6 million requested, $105.1 million (-29.7%) less than the FY2024 current plan;
• advanced manufacturing—$110.1 million requested, $200.5 million (-64.6%) less than the FY2024 current plan;
• microelectronics and semiconductors—$65.8 million requested, $76.8 million (-53.9%) less than the FY2024 current plan;
• advanced wireless—$59.5 million requested, $83.9 million (-58.5%) less than the FY2024 current plan;
• the Established Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR)—$107.7 million requested, $142.3 million (-56.9%) less than the FY2024 current plan;¹³
• the CyberCorps: Scholarship for Service program—$21.7 million requested, $41.3 million (-65.5%) less than the FY2024 current plan;
• the Historically Black Colleges and Universities-Undergraduate Program (HBCU-UP) and Historically Black Colleges and Universities-Excellence in Research Program (HBCU-EiR)—$56.5 million in total requested, $5.0 million (-9.7%) less than the FY2024 current plan; and
• the Tribal Colleges and Universities Program (TCUP)—$7.1 million requested, $9.4 million (-56.9%) less than the FY2024 current plan.¹⁴

As of the publication date of this report, congressional actions on full-year FY2026 appropriations for NSF have proposed much smaller reductions in RRA funding compared with the FY2025 enacted amounts (Table 2). Enacted, rather than agency estimated, FY2025 funding amounts are used because Table 2 reflects congressional appropriations and priority setting, rather than implementation by Administrations.

As reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations on July 17, 2025, S. 2354 (the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2026) would provide a total of $9.0 billion to NSF for FY2026. This would be a decrease of $60.0 million (-0.7%) from the FY2025 enacted amount¹⁵ and an increase of $5.1 billion (130.6%) over the FY2026 request. The Senate committee-reported bill would provide funding for the RRA and EDU accounts separately, in line with prior-year appropriations account structures.

As reported by the House Committee on Appropriations on September 12, 2025, H.R. 5342 (the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2026) would provide a total of $7.0 billion to NSF for FY2026. This would be a decrease of $2.1 billion (-22.7%) from the FY2025 enacted amount and an increase of $3.1 billion (79.3%) over the FY2026 request. The House committee-reported bill proposes funding levels for each of NSF's accounts except EDU, in line with the agency's budget request.

The Continuing Appropriations, Agriculture, Legislative Branch, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Extensions Act, 2026 (P.L. 119-37), signed by the President on November 12, 2025, provides funding for NSF through January 30, 2026, at the FY2025 level.

Research and Related Activities (RRA)

The Trump Administration is seeking $3.3 billion for RRA in FY2026 (including EDU under the proposed account consolidation), a $5.1 billion decrease (-60.8%) compared with the FY2024 current plan. Excluding EDU funding, the FY2026 request includes $3.0 billion for RRA, a $4.2 billion (-58.5%) decrease from the FY2024 current plan.

The FY2026 request includes decreases for all except one of the RRA subaccounts—Mission Support Services would increase by $70.9 million (56.3%) compared with the FY2024 current plan amount (see Table 3). The largest decrease in dollars would be for Mathematical and Physical Sciences ($1.0 billion, -66.8%), and the largest percentage decrease would be for the Office of International Science and Engineering ($51.0 million, -80.0%). The other subaccounts would receive decreases between 25.9% (for the Office of the Chief of Research Security, Strategy, and Policy) and 75.0% (for Engineering).

As reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations, S. 2354 would provide $7.2 billion for RRA (excluding EDU), equal to the FY2025 enacted amount. Leaving aside EDU, the Senate committee-reported bill does not specify appropriations for RRA subaccounts.

As reported by the House Committee on Appropriations, H.R. 5342 would provide $6.4 billion for RRA (including an unspecified amount for EDU-related activities),¹⁶ $2.0 billion (-23.7%) less than the FY2025 enacted amount (including EDU) and $3.1 billion (94.5%) more than the FY2026 request (including EDU). The House committee-reported bill does not specify appropriations for RRA subaccounts.

Though the Senate and House committee-reported bills do not specify appropriations for RRA subaccounts (aside from EDU in the Senate committee-reported bill, discussed below), the appropriations reports accompanying the bills provide programmatic and funding direction to NSF on a range of topics, as is typical for the agency.¹⁷ RRA programs or research areas that include specific funding direction in Senate or House appropriations report language are described in Table 4. Areas of broad agreement on funding direction between the Senate and House reports include the Regional Innovation Engines program, EPSCoR, the National AI Research Resource (NAIRR) pilot program continuation, and the HBCU-EiR program.

STEM Education (EDU)

The FY2026 budget request includes $288.4 million for EDU, an $883.6 million decrease (-75.4%) from the FY2025 enacted amount. As reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations, S. 2354 would provide $1.0 billion for EDU, $172.0 million (-14.7%) less than the FY2025 enacted amount and $711.6 million (246.7%) more than the FY2026 request. As reported by the House Committee on Appropriations, H.R. 5342 does not specify an amount for EDU.

The FY2026 budget request includes few details on funding for programs within EDU, as restated within RRA. Regarding broadening participation (BP) programs, the FY2026 "skinny budget," released in advance of the full agency budget, states,

NSF "Broadening Participation" programs have funded projects such as: "Reimagining Educator Learning Pathways Through Storywork for Racial Equity in STEM".... These efforts would no longer receive Federal dollars and all [diversity, equity, and inclusion]-related programs at NSF are eliminated.¹⁸

The FY2026 budget proposal requests no funding for nearly all (27) of the focused BP programs.¹⁹ The three exceptions are the HBCU-EiR, HBCU-UP, and TCUP.

The Senate report provides funding direction for 14 programs and activities under its EDU recommendations, 9 of which are considered focused BP programs (see Table 5). The Senate report further states, "The Committee continues to support the Broadening Participation in STEM programs."²⁰ In contrast, the House report does not break out recommendations within EDU, instead stating that "the Committee accepts [the Office of Management and Budget's] request to consolidate the STEM (EDU) account within the [RRA] account ... [and] supports the Administration's efforts to increase American competitiveness by refocusing STEM investments into programs that serve all Americans."²¹ As Table 5 shows, the House report does provide some programmatic and funding direction for programs and activities listed under EDU in the Senate report.

Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC)

The MREFC account supports large construction projects and scientific instruments. The RRA account provides funding before and after construction (i.e., for the initial planning and design, as well as post-construction operations and maintenance), while MREFC funding supports the acquisition, construction, and commissioning phases of major research infrastructure. As shown in Figure 1, MREFC funds construction of major research facilities with cost estimates over $100 million and mid-scale research infrastructure (Mid-scale RI - Track 2) with cost estimates of $20 million to $100 million. RRA funds smaller infrastructure projects (Mid-scale RI - Track 1) with cost estimates of $4 million to $20 million and the acquisition of Major Research Instrumentation (MRI) with cost estimates of less than $4 million.

Figure 1. NSF Portfolio of Instrumentation and Infrastructure Programs by Account

Source: National Science Foundation (NSF), FY 2026 Budget Request to Congress, May 30, 2025, p. MREFC-2. Notes: R&RA = Research and Related Activities; MREFC = Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction.

The Trump Administration is seeking $251.0 million for MREFC in FY2026, an increase of $17.0 million (7.3%) from the FY2025 enacted amount (prior to the Administration canceling the designation of $234.0 million appropriated to NSF for MREFC as emergency funding in FY2025, as described previously in this report).

Requested MREFC funding would support three main activities: Mid-scale RI - Track 2 ($25.0 million requested) and continued construction on two ongoing major research facility projects (projects with costs over $100 million):

• the Antarctic Infrastructure Recapitalization (AIR; $24.0 million requested) program, which is a portfolio of investments to improve U.S. Antarctic Program (USAP) infrastructure, including facilities, utilities, equipment, and the vehicle fleet, and
• the Leadership-Class Computing Facility (LCCF; $201.0 million requested), led by the Texas Advanced Computing Center at the University of Texas at Austin, which the budget request describes as "a distributed facility that will provide unique computational and data analytics capabilities, as well as critical software and services."²²

As reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations, S. 2354 would provide a total of $350.0 million for MREFC in FY2026, $116 million (49.6%) above the FY2025 enacted level and $99.0 million (39.4%) above the FY2026 request. The Senate report directs $90.0 million for the Mid-scale RI - Track 2 program, $70.0 million above the requested amount. Regarding Antarctic research infrastructure, the Senate report describes concerns about pausing Antarctic field research and delaying the Fourth Generation Ground Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB-S4) and IceCube-Gen2 projects because of infrastructure challenges, Antarctic infrastructure modernization efforts being years behind schedule, and a lack of community and stakeholder consultation in related decisionmaking. In response, the Senate report would direct NSF "to request sufficient resources to support concurrent infrastructure upgrades, ongoing research, and major facility planning, and to submit a comprehensive plan within 180 days" on specified topics.²³

As reported by the House Committee on Appropriations, H.R. 5342 would provide $251.0 million for MREFC in FY2026, $17.0 million (7.3%) above the FY2025 enacted amount and equal to the FY2026 request. The House report supports the Mid-scale RI - Track 2, AIR, and LCCF projects. The House report also echoes the concerns noted in the Senate report regarding pauses in Antarctic field research and delays in the CMB-S4 and IceCube-Gen2 projects, noting that such delays "threaten loss of U.S. leadership as competitors set up new Antarctic research efforts" and also calling for an update on Antarctic research infrastructure.²⁴

Other Accounts

The Trump Administration seeks $355.0 million for the AOAM account, a $93.0 million (-20.8%) decrease from the FY2025 enacted amount. The FY2026 budget request notes that the requested AOAM funding "reduction is commensurate to the needs of NSF at the total FY 2026 request level."²⁵ The Senate committee-reported bill would provide $444.0 million for AOAM in FY2026, $4.0 million (-0.9%) below the FY2025 enacted amount and $89.0 million (25.1%) above the FY2026 request. Further, the Senate committee-reported bill would direct NSF to update its Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG) to "more thoroughly address issues relating to the scope of Native-owned lands" and tribal authorities.²⁶ The House committee-reported bill would provide the requested amount for AOAM.

The budget request includes $18.0 million for OIG, which would be a decrease of $6.4 million (-26.3%) from the FY2025 enacted level, and $3.0 million for NSB (NSF's governing body), $2.1 million (-41.1%) below the FY2025 enacted amount. The Senate committee-reported bill would provide funding equal to the FY2025 enacted amounts for OIG ($24.4 million) and NSB ($5.1 million). The House committee-reported bill would provide funding at the level requested by the FY2026 budget proposal for both accounts.

Authorizations of Appropriations and Recent Funding Trends (FY2003-FY2027)

In the early 2000s, some Members of Congress, alongside many leaders in industry and academia, expressed concerns about U.S. technological leadership and international competitiveness. These concerns centered, in part, on the adequacy of federal funding for basic research and support for the U.S. STEM workforce. In response, Congress enacted three laws that authorized increases in appropriations for NSF over an 11-year period (FY2003-FY2013).

First, the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-368) authorized year-over-year increases in appropriations for NSF, from $5.5 billion for FY2003 to $9.8 billion for FY2007. In constant (i.e., inflation-adjusted) 2023 dollars, authorizations of appropriations increased from $8.8 billion in FY2003 to $13.9 billion in FY2007. According to the act's findings (Section 2),

the emerging global economic, scientific, and technical environment challenges long-standing assumptions about domestic and international policy, requiring the National Science Foundation to play a more proactive role in sustaining the competitive advantage of the United States through superior research capabilities.

Enacted appropriations did not meet the ambitious authorized funding levels in P.L. 107-368 (over the FY2003-FY2007 period), and concerns about federal support for basic research to support American competitiveness continued. Subsequently, Congress enacted the America COMPETES Act (P.L. 110-69) in 2007 and the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-358), which included authorized increases in annual appropriations for NSF over a six-year period (FY2008-FY2013), among other provisions to bolster U.S. competitiveness. Together, the 2007 and 2010 COMPETES acts authorized appropriations for NSF to increase from $6.6 billion in FY2008 to $8.3 billion in FY2013. In 2023 constant dollars, authorizations of appropriations increased from $9.2 billion in FY2008 to $10.7 billion in FY2013. Again, enacted appropriations fell below the authorized levels over that time period (FY2008-FY2013).²⁷ Figure 2 show the trends in NSF authorizations, budget requests, and appropriations since FY2003 in current dollars. Figure 3 show the trends in NSF authorizations, budget requests, and appropriations since FY2003 in 2023 constant dollars. Both figures are based on data in Table A-1.

Figure 2. Current Dollar NSF Authorizations, Budget Requests, and Appropriations, FY2003 to FY2027 (in millions of current dollars)

Sources: See Table A-1. Notes: NSF = National Science Foundation.

Figure 3. Constant Dollar NSF Authorizations, Budget Requests, and Appropriations, FY2003 to FY2027 (in millions of constant 2023 dollars)

Sources: See Table A-1. Notes: NSF = National Science Foundation. To calculate constant FY2023 dollars, CRS used the gross domestic product (GDP) chained price index found in White House, Table 10.1, "Gross Domestic Product and Deflators Used in the Historical Tables: 1940–2029," in Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2025, https://web.archive.org/web/20250116091701/https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/hist10z1_fy2025.xlsx.

Authorizations of appropriations for NSF were last enacted in the CHIPS and Science Act (P.L. 117-167), which authorized appropriations at the account level for each of FY2023-FY2027, in addition to specifying authorizations of appropriations for a subset of programs and activities (Table 6). While the act highlighted concerns about national security and support for technology transfer in addition to basic research, it also echoed long-standing concerns about ensuring U.S. leadership in technological innovation, noting a need for "authorization and funding for investments in research, education, technology transfer, intellectual property, manufacturing, and other core strengths of the United States innovation ecosystem."²⁸

Under the act, authorizations of appropriations for NSF were to increase from $11.9 billion in FY2023 to $18.9 billion in FY2027 (in current dollars). For FY2026, NSF is authorized to be appropriated at $17.8 billion, which is $13.9 billion (357%) more than the FY2026 request and $8.8 billion (98%) more than the Senate committee-reported appropriations bill (S. 2354).

In constant dollars, baseline appropriations for NSF peaked at $9.5 billion in FY2020 and have decreased slightly each year since when adjusted for inflation. In constant dollars, enacted funding for NSF in FY2025 is $195 million more than in FY2003 (Figure 3).

Policy Considerations

Federal funding for basic research and STEM education has long garnered broad interest and support, particularly in light of concerns about U.S. technological leadership and international competitiveness. However, in a time of constrained federal budgets, agencies such as NSF that support those activities must compete with many other national priorities. As Congress debates FY2026 appropriations legislation, policymakers may consider numerous issues, including those pertaining broadly to support for basic research and infrastructure, STEM education and BP programs, long-term research sustainability, and institutional capacity of NSF to carry out statutory responsibilities.

Support for Basic Research and Infrastructure

NSF is the primary federal agency supporting basic research across all of the nonmedical sciences and engineering. Policy justifications for public investments in basic research tend to center on the societal benefits (i.e., benefits to society at large) even in the absence of a direct or short-term private return (i.e., benefits accruing to the investor, such as increased revenues or stock values). The private sector may not prioritize investment in basic research because of uncertain returns on investments and long time horizons for resulting commercial applications, instead favoring more use-inspired research and development where there is a clearer return on investment.

Further, NSF's support for research infrastructure funds multiuser facilities, which are required to be available to the broader scientific community, not solely for one institution. The Senate report describes NSF's RRA appropriation as one that "funds scientific discovery, trains a dynamic workforce, and supports broadly accessible state-of-the-art tools and facilities" through, for example, "expansion of the knowledge base; ... stimulation of knowledge transfer among academia and the public and private sectors, and international activities, and bring[ing] the perspectives of many scientific disciplines to bear on complex problems important to the Nation."²⁹

Some stakeholders assert that federal funding for basic research and multiuser research infrastructure provides critical support for foundational science and tools that lead to future innovations.³⁰ Other stakeholders have questioned the value of federal funding for certain scientific areas or societal goals, asserting that reduced funding for NSF and other science agencies will help balance the federal budget and lead to better federal stewardship of taxpayer dollars or that federal funding should be targeted toward particular scientific fields with "high-impact ... over others with less direct relevance to national competitiveness."³¹ The FY2026 budget request proposes modest increases in funding for activities related to AI and quantum science. Congress may consider whether federal funding for basic research and multiuser research infrastructure is of value to the academic community and important for U.S. competitiveness, as well as what level of funding is appropriate to support such activities when balanced with concerns over the size of the broader federal budget. Congress may also consider whether and in what ways to focus investments to support advancing American leadership and innovation in specific science and technology areas.

STEM Education and Broadening Participation

Historically, NSF has been one of the largest providers of federal funding for STEM education, including for research on STEM learning; support for undergraduate, graduate, and technological workforce training; and support for teacher development. The FY2026 budget request would implement two major changes to the organization and support for STEM education through the proposed (1) consolidation of the EDU account within RRA and (2) reduction in funding for EDU by 75%. NSF typically receives appropriations at the account level, with recommended funding for programs and research areas described in associated report language. Congress may consider whether to support the Administration's proposed consolidation of EDU within RRA through appropriations language or whether such a consolidation might reduce Congress's ability to direct appropriations for STEM education activities.

Relatedly, the FY2026 budget request includes no funding for numerous focused BP programs, including many that are statutorily established, such as the Eddie Bernice Johnson INCLUDES Initiative. INCLUDES began as a pilot program in 2016 to "scale up effective practices in broadening participation in STEM studies and careers of groups historically underrepresented in such studies and careers" and was subsequently expanded and codified in August 2022.³² More broadly, Congress has directed NSF to apply the "broader impacts" review criterion as part of what is often called a gold-standard review process for funding proposals. The broader impacts criterion "encompasses the potential to benefit society and contribute to the achievement of specific, desired societal outcomes."³³ NSF is statutorily required to apply this criterion to identify and demonstrate project support goals, including "expanding participation of women and individuals from underrepresented groups in STEM."³⁴

As reported by committees, the Senate and House appropriations bills and accompanying reports differ on recommendations for EDU funding and support for BP efforts and focused programs (Senate report language specifies funding for EDU and numerous BP efforts and focused programs, while the House report language does not). Congress may consider how direction in enacted appropriations law and related report language may impact NSF's ability to carry out its statutorily mandated STEM education programs and BP criteria. Congress may also consider whether its priorities for NSF-supported education and BP programs have changed. If so, policymakers may consider amending or removing existing statutory direction or conveying such changes in priorities through appropriations report language.

Long-Term Research Sustainability and U.S. Competitiveness

Several factors may influence the long-term sustainability of the U.S. research enterprise through supporting foundational research and educating and training the future STEM workforce. Two factors may have particular salience for appropriations discussions, given their potential to increase programmatic uncertainty and reduce purchasing power. First, since FY2003, Congress has generally enacted appropriations at lower amounts than authorized levels (Figure 2). Second, Congress has increasingly funded NSF through continuing resolutions (CRs) rather than full-year appropriations acts enacted prior to the start of a fiscal year.

Regarding authorizations of appropriations, as described above, common concerns over the past 25 years have been the adequacy of federal support for foundational and cutting-edge research, the adequacy of the STEM workforce, and U.S. leadership in critical technologies, including for economic strength and national security. Policymakers supporting increasing appropriations for federal R&D funding have asserted that such increases would strengthen education, grow the economy, and generate scientific and technological discoveries in support of U.S. competitiveness.³⁵ Others have asserted that more federal funding has not translated into greater scientific discovery or impact, calling for more "creativity and precision" in federal R&D spending with a focus on national priorities.³⁶

Congress may consider whether the reduced NSF funding levels proposed in budget requests and appropriations bills and reports are adequate to support fundamental and translational research in critical technologies—including through many statutorily directed programs and topics, such as the list of "key technology focus areas" to be updated annually by the NSF Director.³⁷ Relatedly, some analysts have asserted that STEM workers "sustain the U.S. research enterprise and drive innovation in critical and emerging technologies, supporting the nation's competitiveness in the global economy,"³⁸ yet demand for talent in critical areas such as AI appears to be growing at rates faster than the supply of AI talent trained in the United States.³⁹ Congress may consider the appropriate level of funding to train the next generation of U.S. STEM researchers and technical experts to support U.S. leadership and global competitiveness, and whether there is a greater role for private-sector investments in training and education to grow the U.S. STEM workforce. For example, Congress may consider whether appropriations approaching currently authorized levels are necessary or whether reductions in appropriations for NSF could be mitigated by leveraging increased funding from private-sector partners.

In recent years, a substantial portion of NSF funding has come through continuing appropriations. Continuing appropriations acts—often known as CRs—provide short-term funding until appropriations decisions are finalized and thus can lead to uncertainty for agencies. On the one hand, CRs allow for ongoing appropriations discussions without a funding gap. On the other hand, they may lead to reductions or delays in agency operations, such as hiring staff, granting awards and contracts, and beginning new projects, as CRs typically prohibit new activities not funded in the previous fiscal year.

Further, when funding for an agency and its programs remains at prior-year levels, the overall purchasing power of appropriated monies is effectively reduced because of the impacts of annual inflation, which has been targeted at 2% by the Federal Reserve in recent years.⁴⁰ The House committee report (H.Rept. 119-272) directs "not less than the fiscal year 2025 enacted level," and the Senate committee report (S.Rept. 119-44) directs "not less than the fiscal year 2024 enacted level," for multiple programs. As shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3, though current dollar appropriations for NSF have generally increased since FY2003, inflation-adjusted appropriations have remained flat on average.

Some analysts have argued that even small sustained losses in federal science funding may lead to long-term negative impacts to scientific research and innovation.⁴¹ This may be particularly true for basic research, which often has more uncertainty and longer timelines for generating returns on investment than applied research. Others have argued that funding from other public and private sources should be sought to support scientific research broadly in lieu of more federal funding, though questions remain about whether and how private investments might bridge the gaps from large reductions in public funding.⁴² Some analysts have asserted that federally funded R&D appears to complement, rather than substitute for, private investment.⁴³ Further, there may be more opportunities to leverage private-sector funding to support federal research funding programs through public-private partnerships. For example, NSF has previously administered programs to support AI R&D in collaboration with Amazon, Capitol One, and Intel.⁴⁴

Institutional Capacity to Carry Out Statutory Responsibilities

Amid the Administration's efforts to reduce the size of the federal workforce, between January and July 2025, NSF staffing levels were reportedly reduced by one-third, though some of those in senior executive staff roles may have remained with the agency in lower positions.⁴⁵ The FY2026 budget request proposes a change in total NSF full-time equivalent (FTE) staff from 1,848 FTEs in FY2024 to 1,378 FTEs in FY2026, a reduction of 470 FTEs (-25.4%). That reduction includes a decrease of 230 FTEs (76.7%) referred to as rotators—temporary staff from the research community hired for two to four years through authority provided by the Intergovernmental Personnel Act of 1970 (IPA; P.L. 91-648). According to the FY2026 budget request,

the expertise provided by these IPAs is essential to help shape the NSF research portfolio and support transformational advances across the frontiers of all fields of science, engineering, and education. In FY 2026, NSF plans to reduce the number of IPAs to better support the Administration's priorities in artificial [i]ntelligence, biotechnology, nuclear energy, quantum science, and translational science.⁴⁶

Should Congress provide RRA, EDU, and MREFC appropriations at higher levels than in the FY2026 budget request, Members may consider the appropriate level of appropriations for AOAM to support programs and activities funded through those accounts, as well as the adequacy of the number of NSF staff (FTEs) needed to continue to implement and monitor its programs and funding awards, and to maintain what NSF describes as the essential functions of IPA FTEs.

Appendix. National Science Foundation (NSF) Funding History

Table A-1 shows NSF authorizations, budget requests, and appropriations since the agency was first authorized in FY1951.

Footnotes