For the first time in American history, by a candidate during a presidential debate, on Sept. 10, 2024. After Vice President Kamala Harris brought up quantum technology, she and former President Donald Trump went on to have a heated back-and-forth about American chipmaking and China’s rise in semiconductor manufacturing. Science and technology policy usually takes a back seat to issues such as immigration, the economy and health care during election season.
Author
Kenneth Evans
Scholar in Science and Technology Policy, Baker Institute for Public Policy, Rice University
What’s changed for 2024?
From COVID-19 to climate change, ChatGPT to, yes, quantum computers, science-related issues are on the minds of American and alike. The federal government spends each year on scientific research and development to address these challenges and many others. Presidents and Congress, however, rarely agree on how – and how much – money should be spent on science.
With the increasing public focus on , the and , a closer look at Trump’s and Harris’ records on science and technology policy could provide a hint about how they’d approach these topics if elected this fall.
Two distinct visions for science funding
If politics can be described as “who gets what and when,” U.S. science and technology policy through the annual budget process for R&D. By this measure, the differences between the Trump and Biden-Harris administrations couldn’t be starker.
In his , in 2017, Trump spurned decades of precedent, proposing historic cuts across nearly every federal science agency. In particular, Trump at the Department of Energy, the ³Ô¹ÏÍøÕ¾ Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency.
Trump’s fiscal policy took a page from , prioritizing military spending over social programs, including R&D. Unlike Reagan, however, Trump also took aim at , an area with in Congress. His three subsequent budget proposals : across-the-board reductions to federal research programs, while pushing for increases to defense technology development and demonstration projects.
nearly all of Trump’s requests. Instead, it passed some of the largest increases to federal R&D programs in U.S. 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 , the and the . 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 ³Ô¹ÏÍøÕ¾ Science Foundation and the Department of Commerce to create 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’s 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 NSF’s budget, the agency suffered 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, of CHIPS-enacted spending levels.
An emerging consensus on China
On technology policy, Biden and Harris share more with Trump than they let on.
Their approach to competing with China on tech follows Trump’s lead: They’ve on Chinese goods and severely to American-made computer chips and semiconductor manufacturing equipment.
Biden and Harris have also ramped up intended to protect U.S. ideas and innovation from China. Trump launched the as an attempt to stop the Chinese government from stealing American research. The Biden-Harris administration in 2022, but . Scientific collaborations between the United States and China , to the detriment of .
The Biden-Harris administration has also drawn from Trump-era policy to strengthen America’s leadership in “.” The term, coined by Trump’s then-chief science adviser , 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 and throughout , including during the debate.
In short, both candidates align with the emerging Washington on China: innovation policy at home, strategic decoupling abroad.
Science advice not always a welcome resource
Trump’s dismissal of and at times outright contempt for scientific consensus is . From “,” when he mapped his own projected path for Hurricane Dorian, to pulling out of the Paris climate agreement, 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 , or OSTP, doubling 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 – as a member of his Cabinet.
By law, the to appoint an OSTP director. But it is up to the president . If the new White House wants the U.S. to remain a global leader in R&D, the science adviser will need to continue to fight for it.
