Air Date: Week of November 13, 2026

Rep. Lofgren (D-CA), the likely chair of the House Science Committee, says it will be busy with oversight, legislation, and general improvements to the American science enterprise. Above, Congresswoman Lofgren gives opening remarks at a Science Committee hearing in April 2026. (Photo: NASA Headquarters / NASA/Joel Kowsky, Wikimedia Commons, Public Domain)

A House Committee to watch as Democrats take control in January will be Science, Space, and Technology, which oversees federal grants and research at the National Laboratories and agencies like NASA, NOAA and EPA. In line to become its Chair is Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren of California. She discusses some of her priorities with hosts Steve Curwood and Jenni Doering, including investigations of canceled grants and withheld research funds, as well as the possibility of bipartisan legislation.

Transcript

DOERING: It’s Living on Earth, I’m Jenni Doering

CURWOOD: And I’m Steve Curwood.

As Democrats prepare to take control of the House in January, they’re gearing up to advance a long list of priorities. One key player in that effort will be the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, which oversees federal grants and research at the National Laboratories and agencies like NASA and NOAA.

DOERING: Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren represents California’s 18th district and, as the most senior Democrat on the Science Committee, is in line to become its next chair. And she joins us now -- Representative Lofgren, welcome to Living on Earth!

LOFGREN: Well, thanks. I'm glad to be with you.

CURWOOD: How are you feeling? What was your reaction on Election Day and after, as you understood that the Democrats would take control of both the House and Senate with sizable margins?

LOFGREN: It's huge, and it's a wonderful opportunity that we have to deliver for the American people on the things that matter to them. Obviously, the cost of living was top of mind for many, many voters. People are concerned about the corruption of this administration, which in many cases is related to the cost spiking. We need to deal with all of that. Obviously, it's a multifaceted effort. Everything from healthcare costs to energy costs and the like, and each committee in the Congress will have a piece of the remedy that we need to bring to bear as best we can.

DOERING: And now, speaking of the committee that you are currently ranking member of and may become chair of come January, this is the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology in the House. What issues fall under that committee, just for listeners who aren't familiar?

LOFGREN: Well, the entire science enterprise, primarily anything with the research, is related to the Science Committee. We have jurisdiction over the space program as well some of the issues that we've worked on in fusion energy research, quantum computing, AI has been a focus of the committee, as well as just generally basic science research. So we do touch over into issues that relate to climate and in the science portfolio, it's a broad jurisdiction. Very exciting. We've looked at some of the things that EPA has done, which has really been outrageous things that they've done, as well as the Department of Energy and the like. So it's a fun committee. My predecessor Eddie Bernice Johnson used to call it the committee of the future.

CURWOOD: There you go. Now, what are your top priorities as you assume this position? The things that have been sort of undone or moved ahead by the Trump administration, that list is fairly long. What's at the top of your list?

LOFGREN: Well, we need to do two main things. One is oversight, to put a spotlight, and in some cases, to uncover what the administration has done that has damaged the science enterprise in this country, and then we also need to do legislation to change policies that will better serve the American people. Now, the committee has a long history of bipartisanship, and it certainly has even in this Congress when it comes to legislation. I will say the Republicans have not been active in criticizing the administration, but we have worked collaboratively to pass a number of bills. I think all the bills that we passed were either unanimous or close to it, and so I'm hoping that that spirit of bipartisanship can continue on some of the bills that we need to enact in our subject area. You know, in terms of oversight, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency has done tremendous damage. I mean, 20% of the agency's workforce has quit, retired, or been fired. They've shut labs down. The Office of Research and Development was completely wiped out. We've made multiple requests for records and documents, and they haven't produced a single one. Their science capacity has been gutted, and the science integrity is really impaired. It's an industry capture event, and climate denialism is rampant in the agency. It's pathetic. Their basic mission is to use the best available science to protect health and the environment, and they've not done so. We're preparing our letters right now to Mr. Zeldin to renew our oversight requests. I sent a similar letter to the Department of Energy Secretary Wright last week, and we need to know about their reorganization plans, the Endangerment Finding they made, and a number of other things. But that's, you know, first on the agenda.

DOERING: Now we also wanted to ask you about what's been happening at the National Science Foundation. We've reported in the past on how the Trump administration has targeted vital American science establishments by freezing and canceling grants, and also refusing to release obligated funds at the National Science Foundation, how might your committee, the Science Committee, go about investigating those missing funds and ensuring they're returned?

LOFGREN: Well, we're going to get to the bottom of what has happened. The NSF was the crown jewel of our government's support for discovery science across all fields of science and engineering. The president asked for a $3 billion cut in fiscal year '25 and '26, and it's worth reminding ourselves that in a bipartisan way, Congress said no to that cut. We enacted and funded the agency close to the fiscal year '24 level, but as you mentioned, the money does not appear to be going out. There are whistleblower accounts that the administration is sort of taxing up to 30% of funds for some kind of slush fund that they want to do sort of their politicized priorities, not science, but maybe funnel it into tech firms. We're not sure. That would be in complete contravention of the law. So we're going to get to the bottom of that, what they have done. But looking forward, and I've discussed this with the incoming chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee, I think Congress needs to consider and take a look at how we might be more prescriptive in the crafting of authorizations and appropriations, so that the opportunity for mischief is severely curtailed, and the opportunity for court orders is significantly enhanced, and that's something that we will be looking at very carefully.

CURWOOD: Can you talk to us a bit more about what's gotten frozen at NSF, I'm thinking of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, or NCAR, and then also over at NOAA. I think the biggest grant under NSF was going to the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution to deal with climate stuff, and that simply got stuck.

LOFGREN: It's not going, and you know the interesting thing is the courts have been the sole branch of government that didn't cave, right? With the exception of the Supreme Court, but the trial courts have been pretty good about ordering the administration to comply with the law. But of course, it takes a long time, and so by the time the courts make their decisions, the damage has been done, and they slow walk the compliance, or it's too late to undo it. So yes, we're going to take a look at NOAA, which is so important across the board to every part of America needs NOAA and relies on adequate weather information. I mean, whether you're in agriculture or whether you're in a Gulf Coast State, you know, worried about hurricanes, or here in the West dealing with droughts. We need to know all of that, and they have impaired that capacity. They've not only impaired that, they've impaired the satellite capacity to capture data where they've illegally made changes there. So we're going to put a spotlight on all of it. Try and unwind the misconduct, and prospectively be in a legislative posture that will make it more difficult for them to engage in misconduct in the future.

DOERING: And just to drill down on the climate aspect of this, when it comes to places like the National Center for Atmospheric Research or NOAA, how important is it at this moment in time when the UN is telling us we are surpassing 1.5 degrees Celsius, this critical threshold? How important is it to have that data as weather disasters mount?

LOFGREN: It's hugely important. We went into an effort to preserve the data. There was an effort to destroy all the data that had been accumulated, and working with scientists in Europe to try and portal some of the data so it would not be lost once this administration is gone. And there was some success there, but the new collection of data and the gaps that are being created are not good for science. And of course we know that climate change is real. Unfortunately, some of my colleagues on the right wing in the Congress they say it well, it's just weather. They don't believe that there is actually climate change. Every farmer in America can tell you that there's climate change. So we need to do something about this. One of the things that I'm very focused on, and I have been through my entire career, and it's the progress that's been made is fabulous, is fusion. If we can score on commercialization of fusion, it is something we need for decarbonization, not just an energy source, but we're way past the time when, I mean, I'm for renewables, and we need to put the tax incentives in, and we need to support the whole renewable, I mean, the cheapest energy is solar at this point, but we also need to recapture carbon not only from the air but from the sea, which is the biggest carbon sink. That's a more difficult challenge, but it is a doable challenge if we're going to try and be successful in preserving a livable planet.

CURWOOD: And what about research funds for universities? I mean,

LOFGREN: Yes.

CURWOOD: I hear a lot of complaints that those have been really slashed. I hear that the applications for PhD programs that require grant support are down some 20%. That there's really a lot of concern there.

LOFGREN: There is a lot of concern, and I don't think we have had an adequate complete accounting of that yet. I mean, they stonewall us. The Democrats on our website, our Science Committee website, have a portal for people to tell us if their grants have been canceled. That's how we're getting information from the grantees. This does tremendous damage to our country. You know, since World War II, we had a system in place. Was it perfect? No, and it could be improved. But destroying it is not improving it. Where there would be the bipartisan support for basic research that was primarily university-based, and then from those wonderful discoveries, there would be commercial development and prosperity. And it was the envy of the world.

Everyone was trying to copy what we were doing, and they've dismantled that through just stupid political moves, mindless destruction. I've talked to so many university presidents who've told me that they have not admitted otherwise admissible doctoral and postdoctoral students because they don't know how to pay for the research. So those students are either going into another field or going to another country. Another part of this issue is the steep decline in foreign students. You know, if you take a look at the Americans who won Nobel prizes, somewhere between 40 and 50% are Americans who were born in another country. Americans by choice. The pattern has been best and the brightest in the world want to come to America. They get their doctorates. They love America. They become Americans, and then they win the Nobel Prize for America. Well, there's been a close to 70% drop off in foreign students coming into the U.S. So, for a variety of reasons, they're not being given visas, the universities are being charged. People are being terrorized. That's going to have a bad impact on the science enterprise. We should be happy that super smart people want to come here and become Americans with us.

DOERING: Now, a lot of Americans are concerned about the rapid pace of how artificial intelligence is developing. What do you think the Science Committee might be able to do to impose regulations or slow down the rapid pace of AI?

LOFGREN: Well, it's not clear what the leadership on the Democratic side, how they want to structure the approach to AI. Right now, three committees have most of the jurisdiction over AI, and that's the Science Committee, the Judiciary Committee, and the Energy and Commerce Committee. I'm on two of the three, and we could approach it collaboratively. There's been a discussion among some whether we should do a separate select committee. I don't know if that would be a wise approach, since it'll take six months to get staffed up and organized, but AI has tremendous possibilities. It also poses tremendous challenges, and there do need to be constraints and controls. And we need to assign responsibility and liability to the developers of AI for harm that is caused, so that is something we're prepared to do our part as soon as whatever the leadership decides in terms of how they want to divide up the responsibility, we're ready to serve, and to do what the American people need to make sure that this technology serves their needs, not the needs of the tech bros.

CURWOOD: So you have written that, as Science Committee chair, you will quote, work to put a stop to Trump's politicization of science. Explain that for us. Why is taking the politics out of science so important from your perspective?

LOFGREN: It's important, well I'll just give you an example. Ted Cruz, his staff, put together a little report fingering, you know, DEI in science, right? Which was crazy. So they did a word search, and then looks to me that DOE and NSF and NIH just took that document and started canceling grants based on it. I'll give you an example of a researcher who was doing research on dementia in a university, and she had people who were part of the study, but the people who surrounded the university were all high-income Asian and Anglo individuals, and she needed a broader sample to validate the sample. That's not DEI. That's science. They canceled it, right? They canceled the grant based on the keywords. Stupid stuff. The idea is, and always has been in American science, is if your idea is peer reviewed, it could stand up to review, that's the measure of valid science. It's not somebody saying I don't like blue states. But we're going to be very busy with our oversight activities in crafting legislation that diminishes the opportunity for bad conduct and trying to get this science enterprise back on track and better. I mean, I'm not one who could say it was perfect before, and sometimes the grant making was too attenuated, too bulky, tended to favor large institutions over small ones. We can do better, but that's a lot different than destroying it.

DOERING: Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren represents California's 18th district and is incoming chair of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. Representative Lofgren, thanks so much for joining us.

LOFGREN: Thank you.

CURWOOD: And thank you.

 

Links

Learn more about Congresswoman Lofgren

Read about the Democratic Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

Read Rep. Lofgren's press release, "Ranking Member Lofgren Demands Answers on Over a Billion of Withheld FY26 Funds at NSF"