Academic Funding

NSF Getting Smaller 2020 Raise Than Anticipated

December 17, 2019 3258

Hopes were high that in the 2020 fiscal year the National Science Foundation would receive a substantial increase in funding, relative to both the current fiscal year or the recommendations of the Trump administration. The options seemed to be – based on precedent – the $8.45 billion suggested by the U.S. Senate, the $8.64 billion suggested by the U.S. House of Representatives, or most likely a figure in between the two.

The White House had sought $7.066 billion for the foundation, a figure that never really entered serious conversations. In the current year, NSF had been appropriated $8.075 billion.

The two “minibus” appropriations bills, totaling $1.37 trillion, worked out by both chambers settled the mystery Monday – NSF funding will be $8.278 billion, less than suggested by either chamber of the legislature. That’s a 2.5 percent increase over the current year.

Of that amount, $6.74 billion is set aside for the research and research-related activities, which funds grants for basic research. This amount is of prime importance to social scientists, since NSF is the largest source of federal government money for basic social and behavioral research in the U.S. The bill does not determine how much is allocated to each of the NSF’s research directorates, such as the social, behavioral and economic directorate that passes out most social science research grants.

The bills, which averts further drama in a Washington, D.C. obsessed with the impeachment of Donald Trump, are expected to be signed before the end of the week. Both bills have passed the House and Senate, with the bill containing the NSF appropriation receiving fewer votes in large part because it also contains funding for erecting barriers on the U.S.-Mexico border.

There is other research funding in the bill. Most notably, Congress is allowing research into gun violence, which while not explicitly outlawed had been forbidden since 1996 if the research could be used to support lobbying for gun control. The bill appropriates $12.5 million for both the Centers for Disease Control and the National Institutes of Health, for a total of $25 million, to do things like track death from firearms and examinations of violent incidents.

Other research agencies funded by the bill include the National Institutes for Health, which will receive a 7 percent increase in research funding, to $41.7 billion.

The White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy, which has been a much more quiescent organization under the Trump administration than it had been under President Obama, will receive $5.54 million, largely to focus on the “research integrity” policy largely aimed at concerns arising from China.

The agreement includes $7.56 billion for the Bureau of the Census, which is $3.7 billion above this year’s enacted level and reflects the fact that the decennial census occurs in 2020.

Related Articles

Could Distributed Peer Review Better Decide Grant Funding?
Infrastructure
October 20, 2025

Could Distributed Peer Review Better Decide Grant Funding?

Read Now
SSRC Stands Up Economic Research Rescue Fund for Researchers Hurt by NSF Cuts
Investment
August 28, 2025

SSRC Stands Up Economic Research Rescue Fund for Researchers Hurt by NSF Cuts

Read Now
What You Can Do As Data U.S. Taxpayers Paid For and Use Disappears
Industry
August 21, 2025

What You Can Do As Data U.S. Taxpayers Paid For and Use Disappears

Read Now
Cutting NSF Is Like Liquidating Your Finest Investment
Investment
May 15, 2025

Cutting NSF Is Like Liquidating Your Finest Investment

Read Now
How NIH Funding Works − Until It’s Gone

How NIH Funding Works − Until It’s Gone

In its first 100 days, the Trump administration terminated more than US$2 billion in federal grants, according to a public source database […]

Read Now
Long-Term Impact Requires Archiving Research Communication

Long-Term Impact Requires Archiving Research Communication

In recent years there has been an increased focus on how research papers and supplemental data can be preserved openly. Andy Tattersall, Liz Such, Joe Langley and Fiona Marshall argue equal attention should also be paid to curating communication outputs aimed at engaging non-academic audiences.

Read Now
Your Eyes May Widen at What Ted Cruz Designates as ‘Woke’

Your Eyes May Widen at What Ted Cruz Designates as ‘Woke’

A few months ago, Sen. Ted Cruz announced that he had uncovered $2 billion of science grants funded by former President Joe […]

Read Now
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

0 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments