Response to request for community input on NSF’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2026–2030 NSF Strategic Plan

This response is prepared jointly by the Computing Research Association (CRA), an association of over 270 North American computing research organizations, both academic and industrial, and partners from six professional computing societies, and the Association of Computing Machinery’s (ACM) U.S. Technology Policy Committee, the U.S. policy branch of the world’s largest educational and scientific computing society, uniting educators, researchers, and professionals to inspire dialogue, share resources, and address the field’s challenges.

Should you have any questions about this response, please contact Brian Mosley in the CRA Office of Government Affairs or Tom Romanoff in the ACM Office of Public Policy.

Responses to questions in the RFI:

What opportunities exist that could help enable progress toward NSF’s objectives and strategies?

The most significant opportunity to enable progress is a return to the broad mandate set out by Congress and the agency’s organic act.

• Restore Foundational Funding: Progress in AI, biotechnology, and quantum science (Objective 1.2), as well as many other fields, cannot be sustained if the underlying computer science, mathematics, and engineering disciplines are starved. The “cluster” approach risks creating silos that miss cross-disciplinary breakthroughs. NSF must seize the opportunity to reaffirm its commitment to the “endless frontier” of all science, not just near-term priorities.
• Leverage the Full Academic Ecosystem: The Plan misses the opportunity to tap into the full domestic talent pool. To truly “Advance American leadership,” NSF must not retreat from programs that actively remove systemic barriers for groups underrepresented in computing and other STEM disciplines. “Geographic diversity" alone is an insufficient proxy for the diverse perspectives needed to drive innovation.

How might NSF foster partnerships with a wide range of organizations to implement the strategies in its FY 2026-2030 Strategic Plan?

Partnerships require trust and stability, both of which have been eroded over the last year.

• Rebuild Trust with Universities: The proposed imposition of a 15% indirect cost cap and the retroactive cancellation of awards have created a volatile environment. Universities are risk-averse; they cannot effectively partner with an agency that may arbitrarily terminate funding based on shifting priorities. Implementing Strategy 2 under Goal 1 (“partnerships”) requires NSF to guarantee that signed grant agreements will be honored.
• Industry Collaboration: While industry collaboration is vital, it cannot replace federal support for basic research. Industry relies on NSF to fund the high-risk, long-term work that shareholders will not support. The Plan’s emphasis on “market-ready solutions” (Strategy 3, Objective 1.2) risks turning NSF into a product development agency rather than a discovery engine, which will be a detriment to the nation.

What data or evidence should NSF consider as it develops mechanisms to evaluate progress and measure success in achieving the objectives in its FY 2026-2030 Strategic Plan?

NSF must track the negative externalities of the current restructuring, not just the “successes" of priority clusters.

• Track “Lost” Science: In addition to measuring “Number of patents” (Objective 1.1), NSF should track the volume of highly-rated proposals in foundational areas (e.g., theoretical computer science, systems, databases) that are now going unfunded due to the diversion of resources to “priority clusters.”
• Workforce Retention: For Goal 3 (Modernizing Operations), the metric “Average number of days to hire” is insufficient. NSF must measure retention rates of career scientific staff and loss of institutional memory.
• Impact of Security Measures: Regarding Objective 1.3 (“Safeguarding the research enterprise”), NSF should measure the chilling effect of new security protocols. Data should be collected on how many international collaborations are abandoned not due to actual risk, but due to excessive bureaucratic hurdles or fear of prosecution.

Is there any other information that would assist NSF in achieving the goals and objectives under its FY 2026-2030 Strategic Plan?

While CRA and USTPC share the Plan’s stated high-level aspirations, to “Ensure American excellence,” “Advance American leadership,” and “Support national security,” we must express our profound concern that the strategies outlined, when viewed in the context of the actions taken over the past 12 months, will not achieve these goals. Instead of mitigating the damage caused by recent budget cuts, staff reductions, and the politicization of grantmaking, this Draft Strategic Plan appears to codify a restructuring that threatens to dismantle the nation’s science and engineering ecosystem.

CRA and USTPC urge NSF to be mindful and careful when implementing language derived from the “Restoring Gold Standard Science” Executive Order as a strategic pillar. Scientific integrity is maintained by peer review and community consensus, not by political priority. And to achieve the goal of “American Excellence,” NSF must acknowledge that scientific inquiry requires academic freedom.

CRA and USTPC stand ready to work with the Foundation to restore the agency’s ability to fulfill its statutory mission. We are concerned that the agency’s reorganization would do more harm than good and hobble the nation’s S&T research at a time when it needs to be supercharged. Our great fear is ceding the 21st century to nations that continue to invest broadly and boldly in their research ecosystems.

PDF available here.