Citizen Portal
Sign In

Committee member criticizes proposed cuts to Office of Science and ARPA‑E funding

5050044 · June 23, 2025

Loading...

AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

During questioning at the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, a committee member said the administration's budget request would cut the Office of Science by 14% and ARPA‑E by 57%, warning those reductions could weaken U.S. research capacity and lead to job losses at national laboratories.

A member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee criticized the administration's budget request on the grounds that it would substantially shrink federal research funding, saying the proposal includes a 14% cut to the Department of Energy’s Office of Science and a 57% cut to ARPA‑E.

"The second priority you identified in your confirmation hearing was we must lead the world in innovation and technology breakthroughs. I counter that with your budget request, which includes a 14% cut to the Office of Science, a 57% cut to ARPA e," the committee member said, adding that the cuts appeared at odds with stated priorities.

The committee member said those reductions would likely lead to staff reductions at national laboratories, institutions the speaker described as "premier research institutions." "It's already been raised that these reductions would also lead to staff reductions in national labs, which we've recognized, you're on the record, these are premier research institutions," the member said.

The speaker pointed to prior remarks made during a confirmation hearing in California, saying the nominee had reaffirmed a commitment to the national laboratories and had called them important to maintaining a competitive advantage and security. The committee member then asked how the United States could lead the world in innovation while proposing those cuts.

The remarks consisted of questioning and criticism; the excerpted transcript did not include any formal action or a response from the nominee in the provided material. No vote or committee direction on the budget items appears in the transcript excerpt.