A new report by the Trump administration that outlines a model for the future government support for science and technology has drawn heavy criticism from the US scientific community. Entitled Science: A New Golden Age, it emphasizes developments by public–private partnerships at the expense of university-driven research with critics asserting it places politics above science.

The 104-page report aims to update a 1945 document – Science, the Endless Frontier – that was issued by Vannevar Bush, who served as director of the US government’s Office of Scientific Research and Development in the 1940s. The report eventually led to creation of the National Science Foundation (NSF) in 1950.

The 2026 report focuses on how government R&D spending reaches the scientific community and claims that the US research enterprise has become too centred on established research institutions rather than individual researchers.

The report wants the government to significantly reduce the amount and number of grants it gives universities and instead make large investments in industry and non-profits. It also calls for a significantly scale-up of the use of artificial intelligence in science.

“We must renew the R&D enterprise on which our scientific leadership depends,” US science adviser Michael Kratsios and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) director Russell Vought write in an accompanying memorandum.

Yet critics says that funding for exploratory science is not the administration’s only target. “It’s very clear that Kratsios/Trump want to destroy universities, or what he calls ‘legacy institutions’,” says public policy expert Shobita Parthasarathy from the University of Michigan. “There is no respect for basic research, which has historically driven innovation in the US [but that] industry won’t fund.”

Neal Lane, former US science adviser who served as NSF director between 1993 and 1998, takes issue with how individual agencies are asked to implement the points raised in the report. “Unlike previous rules, which were uniform guidance, allowing an agency like NSF to set their own rule, the new rule is a binding uniform regulation applying to all agencies as written,” he says.

Lane is also unhappy with the report’s dismissive approach to peer review, which it argues slows down innovation, proposing instead to diversify funding mechanisms with alternatives such as “golden tickets” rapid grants and prize challenges.

“For many decades, expert peer review has been regarded as the gold standard for funding research and publishing the results,” he says. “It is not credible for the administration to claim it supports ‘gold standard science’ without peer review.”

‘Misguided approach’

While some see merit in aspects of the report, or at least a need to rethink the underpinning of scientific research, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) see the administration’s approach as a misguided way to address those challenges. “Reforms must strengthen scientific independence – not weaken it,” an AAUP statement asserts.

That view is echoed by the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), which note that while the report calls for a “lighter, faster, and more capable research enterprise”, it says that the to the “uniform guidance that governs how federal grant funding is administered runs counter to that goal”.

The report comes as the administration’s proposed budget for financial year 2027, which Congress must approve, would cut overall government spending on R&D by 22%, with support for the NSF slashed by more than 50%, NASA by 23% and the Department of Energy’s Office of Science by 15%. The OMB also proposes guidelines that would allow agencies to terminate grants that “no longer serve agency priorities or the national interest”.

Tess DeBlanc Knowles, a senior director at the US thinktank the Atlantic Council, says US science will be hit badly if those cuts go ahead. “No amount of experimentation can counteract the damaging effects that dramatically reduced funds will have on the foundation of the US’s scientific and technological leadership and ability to train the next generation of scientists,” she says.

• A new report by the American Institute of Physics has found that physics and astronomy PhD graduates are quitting the US in record numbers. The proportion of non-US citizens leaving the US post-degree nearly doubled, from 16% in 2024 to 29% in 2025 – the largest one-year increase since 1997. The report also says about 12% of US citizens post-physics PhD left the US in 2025, compared to just 5% two years earlier.

The post Critics deride US administration’s ‘golden age of science’ report appeared first on Physics World.

Astronomers have raised concerns over a decision by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to permit the launch of a private satellite that can reflect sunlight onto the Earth’s surface after dark. Astronomers, however, fear that the mirror, and the several thousand that could follow it, will negatively impact both optical and radio astronomy.

The proposal by the Californian company Reflect Orbital involves putting a mirror-carrying-satellite – Eärendil-1 – into low-Earth orbit. Reflect Orbital aims to use the craft to test technology intended to deliver sunlight to solar farms after sunset, thus expanding the production of solar power at a time of peak demand for electricity.

In orbit, the satellite will unfold an 18 × 18 m aluminiumized Mylar reflector that can deliver a roughly 5 km circular spot of light to the ground with about the brightness of a full Moon.

In addition to providing solar power after dark, the company sees its technology as potentially effective for response to disasters, construction work and outdoor events at night.

Assuming Eärendil-1’s flight proves successful, the company plans to launch 1000 larger satellites in 2028, which would be able to reflect as much light as 100 full Moons with 5000 more satellites two years later.

The FCC has approved only the radio operations of “a single demonstration satellite [that is] an example of a potentially groundbreaking technology”. Other aspects of Eärendil-1, however, do not require official authorization.

Ben Nowak, chief executive and co-founder of Reflect Orbital, sees the licence as “the first step toward rigorously testing our technology’s efficacy and the safeguards we have developed”.

Flash points

Orbiting satellites’ impact on astronomy is hardly a new phenomenon. Their burgeoning number has already reduced observing times for optical astronomers, particularly after sunset.

Following the approval, the American Astronomical Society (AAS) has expressed “dismay” at the FCC’s decision. [Eärendil-1] carries the potential for significant harm to our members and the broader community of those who depend on a dark night sky,” the association says in a statement. “[This] could include damage to sensitive research equipment, potential flash-blinding of pilots and drivers, and potential permanent eye damage to anyone looking through a mid-sized telescope.”

While some satellite owners have been open to working with astronomers to reduce the impact on astronomy, astronomer Marcel Agüeros from Columbia University, who is also president of the AAS, told Physics World that Reflect Orbital “has been far less open” to discussing its plans. “We know nothing about the satellite’s orbit, for example,” adds Agüeros.

DarkSky International, a nonprofit organization that aims to preserve and protect the nighttime environment, has now called on the company to commission a “comprehensive, independent environmental impact assessment conducted by qualified experts”.

“The burden of proof rests with the operator to demonstrate that their system will not cause environmental or public harm, and a full, independent assessment is the necessary first step,” notes DarkSky International.

That move is backed by Agüeros, who adds that there doesn’t seem to have been much thought about the consequences of the FCC’s decision. “When you start to mess with the nighttime, there should be a very high bar you have to clear,” he adds. “We’re losing our ability to experience a dark sky – an experience that gives you a sense of your place in the universe that is pretty much unmatched.”

Reflect Orbital spokesperson Christopher Buscombe told Physics World that the company “care deeply” about the night sky and that they “want to preserve astronomical observation”.

“We’re also working with the National Science Foundation to develop a coordination agreement on these questions and look forward to their input,” adds Buscombe.

The post Astronomers express outrage after regulators approve ‘space mirror’ permit appeared first on Physics World.