Author: Felicia Bowling

In January, NSF released a draft 2026-2030 Strategic Plan. The draft is briefer and more high-level than previous plans, outlining nine objectives along with high-level strategies to achieve them and measures of success.

Of particular interest to STM members, NSF proposes to measure success of the first objective — “Uphold tenets of Gold Standard Science while enabling groundbreaking research and innovation” — by tracking the number of resources deposited in public access repositories.

STM provided comments, which were required to be submitted via an online form within two weeks, noting that publishers are key partners in achieving NSF’s objectives. STM emphasized that Gold Standard Science hinges on publishers’ investments and that inflexible and unfunded public access policies risk undermining NSF’s goals. STM also noted that measures of success should be broader.

Read STM’s full submission here.

On Tuesday, February 3, after a brief partial government shutdown, Congress funded the remaining parts of the government for the remainder of Fiscal Year 2026 (with the exception of the Department of Homeland Security). The final bill included funding for NIH and other remaining science agencies.

Funding for NIH was increased slightly (~1%), while DOD’s basic research budget was cut by about 5%, and applied research increased by 15%.

The bill directly reaffirms Congress’ intent that indirect cost rates at NIH remain at previously negotiated levels and directs NIH to explore the FAIR model for funding indirect costs, though not before 2027.

It also indirectly endorses Senate Labor–Health and Human Services report language (see STM’s previous comments to NIH here) supporting NIH’s efforts to “address rising APCs,” while directing NIH to work with the scientific community on the details of “an APC allowable charge limit.”

Delve deeper via the Joint Explanatory Statement (p 41), the Senate report (p 149), the full bill itself, and/or AAAS’ analysis of the budgets.

Tucked into the “Joint Explanatory Statement” accompanying the Appropriations “Minibus” passed in January is a non-binding provision requesting that the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) report on the status of a “process of repealing the August 25, 2022, Memorandum to Executive Departments and Agencies entitled, ‘Ensuring Free, Immediate, and Equitable Access to Federally Funded Research,’” commonly known as the Nelson memo.

STM has learned that the current Administration has expressed concerns about the Nelson memo and is reviewing potential options.

It is worth recalling that the Commerce, Justice, and Science bills passed by both the House and the Senate this summer also included provisions raising concerns about the implementation costs of the Nelson memo, as well as its potential impact on copyright and researcher choice.

STM continues to engage with policymakers on these issues and will keep members informed as developments unfold.

To kick off the new year, Congress agreed to a “minibus” spending package that rejects the Administration’s draconian cuts to federal science funding. The package includes several key science agencies, with only slight reductions for NSF, NASA, USGS, and NOAA, and modest increases for the DOE Office of Science and NIST. While these numbers might ordinarily disappoint the research community, the bill has garnered broad support as it averts the steep cuts initially proposed by the President—as well as the smaller, but still substantial, reductions advanced by the House. Notably, the bill includes a provision requesting an update from OSTP on the status of the Nelson memo.

Some agencies, including NSF, have paused awarding new grants pending final passage of the bill. Once it’s signed by the President, funding is expected to resume, allowing grants to start flowing again.

Looking ahead, Congress must now tackle more contentious funding bills, including those for NIH (as part of the Labor-HHS bill) and the Department of Homeland Security (which includes immigration enforcement). Without new legislation, funding for these agencies will expire at the end of the month. The Labor-HHS bill also includes report language concerning NIH’s proposed publication expense cap policy.

Last year, NIH abruptly cancelled or rejected thousands of grants based on their alleged non-alignment with Administration priorities. This included the unilateral rejection of projects addressing disfavored topics such as diversity, equity, and inclusion. In response to legal challenges — though without admitting wrongdoing — NIH has agreed to reconsider more than 5,000 grants. According to Inside Higher Ed, 499 of the first 528 reconsidered proposals have now been approved.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) last year issued a Request for Information (RFI) on “how DOE should best structure and enable partnerships to curate DOE scientific data across the National Laboratory complex for use in artificial intelligence (AI) models.”

In response, STM highlighted the importance of clear licensing frameworks, the value of high-quality and validated information, and the need to respect copyright and intellectual property. We also emphasized opportunities for collaboration between DOE and the scholarly publishing community to advance responsible AI development.

Read STM’s full submission here.

On January 13, NSF released a draft of its 2026–2030 Strategic Plan and invited public comment by January 26, 2026. The draft is shorter and more high-level than previous versions, outlining nine objectives along with broad strategies and success measures for each. For example, to measure progress on the first objective — “Uphold tenets of Gold Standard Science while enabling groundbreaking research and innovation” — NSF proposes tracking the number of resources deposited in public access repositories. Read more in the strategy itself.