Split On Science Spending, Trump & Harris Agree On Tech War

Trump's fiscal policy took a page from Reagan-era conservative orthodoxy , prioritizing military spending. Unlike Reagan, however, Trump also took aim at basic research funding , an area with long-standing bipartisan support in Congress. His three subsequent budget proposals were no different : across-the-board reductions to federal research programs, while pushing for increases to defense technology development and demonstration projects.

Congress rebuked Trump for nearly all of his requests. Instead, it passed some of the largest increases to federal R&D programs in US history, even before accounting for emergency spending packages funded as part of the government's pandemic response.

In contrast, the Biden-Harris administration made science and innovation a centerpiece of its early policy agenda – with budgets to match. Leveraging the slim Democratic majority during the 117th Congress, Biden and Harris shepherded three landmark bills into law: the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act , the Inflation Reduction Act and the CHIPS and Science Act . These laws contain significant R&D provisions focused on environmental projects (IIJA), clean energy (IRA) and American semiconductor manufacturing (CHIPS).

CHIPS set up programs within the National Science Foundation and the Department of Commerce to create regional technology hubs in support of American manufacturing. The act also set ambitious funding targets for federal science agencies, especially at NSF, calling for its budget to be doubled from $9 billion to over $18 billion over the course of five years.

Despite its initial push for R&D, the Biden-Harris administration in its final two budget proposals offered far less to science. Years of deficit spending and a new Republican majority in the House cast a cloud of budget austerity over Congress. Instead of moving toward doubling its budget, the NSF suffered an 8% decrease in fiscal year 2024 – its biggest cut in over three decades. For FY2025, which runs from Oct. 1, 2024, through Sept. 30, 2025, Biden and Harris requested a meager 3% increase for NSF, billions of dollars short of CHIPS-enacted spending levels.

On technology policy, Biden and Harris share much with Trump.

Their approach to competing with China on tech follows Trump's lead: They've expanded tariffs on Chinese goods and severely limited China's access to American-made computer chips and semiconductor manufacturing equipment.

Biden and Harris have also ramped up research security efforts intended to protect U.S. ideas and innovation from China. Trump launched the China Initiative as an attempt to stop the Chinese government from stealing American research. The Biden-Harris administration ended the program in 2022, but pieces of it remain in place . Scientific collaborations between the United States and China continue to decline , to the detriment of American scientific leadership .

The Biden-Harris administration has also drawn from Trump-era policy to strengthen America's leadership in“industries of the future .” The term, coined by Trump's then-chief science adviser Kelvin Droegemeier , refers to five emerging technology areas: AI, quantum science, advanced manufacturing, advanced communications and biotechnology. This language has been parroted by the Biden-Harris administration as part of its focus on American manufacturing and throughout Harris's campaign , including during the debate.

In short, both candidates align with the emerging Washington bipartisan consensus on China: innovation policy at home, strategic decoupling abroad.

Sign up for one of our free newsletters

• The Daily Report Start your day right with Asia Times' top stories
• AT Weekly Report A weekly roundup of Asia Times' most-read stories

Science advice not welcome

Trump's dismissal of and at times outright contempt for scientific consensus is well documented . From“Sharpiegate ,” when he mapped his own projected path for Hurricane Dorian, to pulling out of the Paris climate agreement, the World Health Organization and the Iran nuclear deal, Trump has demonstrated an unwillingness to accept any advice, let alone from scientists.

Indeed, Trump took over two years to hire Droegemeier as director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy , or OSTP, doubling the previous record for the length of time a president has gone without a scientific adviser. This absence was no doubt reflected in Trump's short-on-science budget requests to Congress, especially during the beginning of his administration.

On the other hand, the Biden-Harris administration has promoted science and innovation as a core part of its broader economic policy agenda. It elevated the role of OSTP: Biden is the first president to name his science adviser – a position currently held by Arati Prabhakar – as a member of his Cabinet.

By law, the president is required to appoint an OSTP director. But it is up to the president to decide how and when to use the director's advice . If the new White House wants the US to remain a global leader in R&D, the science adviser will need to continue to fight for it.

Kenneth Evans is a scholar in science and technology policy at the Baker Institute for Public Policy, Rice University .

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article .

Already have an account? Sign i Sign up here to comment on Asia Times stories OR

Thank you for registering!

An account was already registered with this email. Please check your inbox for an authentication link.