House Democrats warn against Trump cuts to scientific agencies
Eleven Democratic lawmakers raised concerns Thursday about proposed cuts to the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
'We have dedicated our careers to the pursuit of scientific discovery before coming to Washington, in laboratories and classrooms here on Earth, and in missions that reached far into space,' the lawmakers wrote in a letter to the president.
'We represent millions of Americans who will be deeply impacted by the recent cuts proposed by representatives acting under your authority, and who believe that the federal government has a fundamental obligation to support science and scientists,' they continued.
'With that in mind, we call on you to immediately stop the dismantling of our nation's scientific enterprise,' they added.
The letter was led by Rep. George Whitesides (D-Calif.), who previously served as chief of staff at NASA.
Trump has proposed steep to cuts to scientific agencies in his budget request for fiscal 2026, including $1.3 billion in cuts to NOAA, $4.7 billion in cuts to NSF, $6 billion in cuts to NASA and $18 billion in cuts to the NIH.
The Democratic lawmakers in Thursday's letter pointed to the importance of research for medical breakthroughs, anticipating and warning about severe storms and boosting American jobs and security in urging Trump to reverse course on the cuts.
They also emphasized the administration's focus on promoting innovation and ensuring American leadership in artificial intelligence (AI) and quantum computing.
'At a time of great power competition in countering China, scientific research and advancement are more important than ever,' the lawmakers wrote. 'As these competitors increase investments in their innovation ecosystems and research enterprises, we cannot afford to undermine the future of our scientific leadership.'
'We urge your administration to follow the longstanding principle of bipartisan support for the scientific community and national leaders who have made science a national priority, embracing it as a driver of economic growth, public health, and environmental safety,' they added.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
24 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
How Democrats can stop talking past each other and start winning
A second group of moderates, including important donors, are libertarians who endorse ' Advertisement The third group of moderate Democrats yearns to turn back the clock to the New Deal coalition. A chief spokesperson is Ruy Teixeira of the Liberal Patriot newsletter. '[T]he New Deal Democrats were moderate and even small-c conservative in their social outlook,' he Advertisement Beginning in the 1970s, college-educated progressives began to focus on issues involving race, gender, the environment, and sexual freedom. Teixeira This brings us to the only moderate position that holds promise for Democrats: defining moderate as being pragmatic, rather than doctrinaire. College-educated progressives need to recognize that their priorities and their cultural values don't match those of most Americans. In 2024, inflation and the economy were Advertisement Centering that economic message is the first pragmatic step in rebuilding Democrats' brand to appeal to both college grads and noncollege grads. The second step is to recognize that cultural preferences differ across class lines. Non-elites value self-discipline because they need to get up every day, on time, without an attitude, to work at jobs with little autonomy. Consequently, they highly value traditional institutions that anchor self-discipline: religion, the military, the family. Those same institutions offer non-elites sources of social status independent of their subordinate positions in a capitalist economy. Blue-collar values reflect blue-collar lives. That's why, on cultural issues, college-educated progressives need to stop demanding a mind-meld with the Democratic Party. If you're playing to win, politics requires not purity but an ability to build coalitions with people whose values may differ from yours in fundamental ways. Democrats need to treat voters without college degrees as respected coalition partners, making tradeoffs. Advertisement This doesn't mean that progressives need to abandon their values; it means they have to act on them. Here are two uncomfortable facts: Progressive activists as a group are much
Boston Globe
24 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
I didn't want to need free groceries
So I share Kidder's lament that feeding the hungry is on track to be a growth industry in Donald Trump's America. The Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Experience first. Before 2009, as the son of a judge and the privileged middle class, I'd never been unemployed and in need of charity in three decades of working. I loved what I did, even though freelance writing is a constant scramble for income. I've always read a book before bed; as a freelancer, I chose only books for which I was earning a reviewer's paycheck. Advertisement When the recession and its double-digit unemployment hit, the 'subprime mortgages,' 'mortgage-backed securities,' and unregulated 'shadow banks' that underlay them — and that many Americans had never heard of — unleashed work-killing forces too devastating for individual initiative to counter. Even wealthy Harvard scrapped a lucrative project (by my bank account's standards) that I'd done for four straight summers. My then-wife's part-time job invaluably backstopped the family income. But after a year of little work and with no idea how long I'd be idle, I despaired of ever being employed again. Free groceries to stretch our household resources seemed the only responsible path, especially with a child to feed. Advertisement The other folks in St. Paul's basement made for an interesting cross-section of people. Some were fellow baby boomers. The age and dress of others suggested they were students, presumably not destitute but nevertheless on a budget as they contended with Greater Boston's formidable living costs. No one dressed in rags. (Neither did the recipients Kidder observed, which he attributes to their efforts 'to ward off disgrace' from having to seek charity.) My anxious heart beat fast during my first time at the pantry. Normally a chatterbox, I made little small talk with others. It took a number of weeks before the habitual visits and the saintly volunteers' freedom from judgment thawed some of my embarrassment. I also found psychic balm in the relief of free food for my household's budget. Not everyone adjusted as easily. At least one person at the pantry teared up at having to seek aid in public. I never saw her return. Advertisement The volunteers who set out and distributed food never questioned who we were or why we were there. Hard hearts will call that poor quality control. Those who know better, who relied on the kindness of these strangers, recognize it as mindfulness of recipients' dignity. Today, those who do such work can't fully backfill the Beautiful Bill's shrinkage of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly called food stamps). Kidder notes that the national food bank network Feeding America says SNAP supplied nine times as much food as its own agency's food banks do. That the bill's backers had not just food support but the broader safety net in their sights is clear from the legislation's attaching work requirements to Medicaid. Two years ago, perhaps anticipating this dark American moment, Republican Representative Steve Scalise Yet do work. Work requirements Perhaps if our leaders saw who goes to food pantries and why — perhaps if they spent a week or two living as pantry patrons — the mythic myopia would lift from their eyes. But there are none so blind as those who will not see. Advertisement
Boston Globe
24 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Gutting EPA climate rules will put lives at risk
Removing the greenhouse gas regulations will increase extreme weather and pollution, which will put lives at risk, hurt the economy, and increase Americans' health costs by shifting costs to lost productivity and lost income. Advertisement The very real impact of extreme weather is hard to miss. Brutal heat is becoming the norm. Take last month, when Advertisement Further, an estimated But beyond the headlines of death and destruction, extreme weather is also having an impact on daily lives. Climate change compromises livelihoods, particularly for the millions who work outdoors. If it's too hot to harvest a crop or work on a construction site, it will impact workers' incomes as well as the bottom line for businesses. Extreme heat causes In the agriculture sector, extreme heat drives up food prices, because there are fewer days when food can be harvested — a Cutting regulation isn't saving ordinary Americans money; it's saving big business money. The EPA Advertisement The sad truth is the administration is abandoning its responsibility to act, and American citizens and people around the globe will pay the price. Denying the incontrovertible truth about climate change risks more death and damage to property and business. Further, under the guise of deregulation, the administration is strategically undermining the authority of scientists and the public's access to facts on how greenhouse gas emissions will impact lives and livelihoods. White House officials will not back down. Instead Congress and state and city officials, as well as courts, must block the plan. Otherwise, we risk deepening misunderstanding with the public, economic damage, more loss of life, and putting our long-term prosperity at risk. This isn't giving Americans more choice, it's stripping them of their right to clean air, safe communities, and a secure job.
