US set to close office responsible for global science and technology deals

Cuts at the US Department of State could eliminate the office that negotiates science and technology agreements, including with Europe, throwing into confusion the future of global research cooperation with Washington and access for US scientists to international facilities. 

Three people who work for the State Department have told Science|Business that the office, which oversees nearly 60 agreements and more than 2,000 sub agreements, is set to be eliminated. 

“No other office can negotiate these science and technology agreements,” said one official, who wished to remain anonymous. If the office does close, “it puts the US at a huge disadvantage when it comes to international research and development.” 

The cuts are the latest in a fusillade that Donald Trump has fired against the country’s scientific and academic establishments in his first 100 days in office – on the theory that these institutions are wasteful, un-American and “woke”. At present, it’s impossible to say how many of these budget cuts, grant suspensions and firings will actually withstand ongoing court challenges and Congressional review. But already, science advocates say, the damage has been considerable – especially in biomedical research.

At a Congressional hearing 30 April, US Senator Patty Murray, a Democrat from Washington state, said Trump has so far ordered a halt to about 800 biomedical research grants worth more than $1 billion, and aims to cut $21 billion, or 55%, from the National Institute of Health’s budget in the next fiscal year beginning in October. Trump, she said, “has taken a wrecking ball to our biomedical research enterprise.”

The State Department cut, though not yet generating big headlines, is emblematic of the wider Trump approach. Last week, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced cutbacks at the department to end what he called a “sprawling bureaucracy” that is “more beholden to radical political ideology than advancing America’s core national interests.” 

Although Rubio wants to cut back the department, there’s been no public confirmation yet that the OSTC will be axed.

“The Secretary has tasked each Under Secretary with formulating specific reorganization and workforce optimization plans within 30 days,” a State Department spokesperson said in a statement.

“Following approval of those plans, the Under Secretaries will communicate how these Department-wide changes will affect specific bureaus and offices that report to them.”

However, the three people, speaking on condition of anonymity, said they had been verbally told last week the OSTC was set for shutdown by July as part of the cuts. “We were told that the office was being eliminated,” said one official, with the decision mandated from “high up”. 

A OSTC official also publicly said on LinkedIn that the office was set for shutdown. 

Access denied

It’s unclear what will happen to the agreements if there is no one on the US side to maintain and update them. They cover areas like data practices and intellectual property rules during collaboration, and also give US scientists access to foreign research infrastructures. 

“This office maintains thousands of arrangements with countries around the world that grant US scientists access to international facilities, like CERN, monitor volcanos and earthquakes, and provide essential data used in weather forecast models,” said Cole Donovan, a former State Department official, specialising in global research relations.

Any lapse in the agreements could mean “severe disruptions” for US scientists using global research infrastructure, he said. 

The agreements negotiated by the OSTC quietly underpin the US’s scientific collaboration, setting down rules of the road, but sometimes they move into the spotlight. 

Last year, the US and China finally extended their science and technology agreement for a further five years, but only after a difficult renegotiation. US Republicans alleged the agreement had helped Beijing access sensitive US technology, and the renewed agreement stresses it only covers basic research. 

It’s unclear precisely why the office would be a target for closure. However, shutting it down might be consistent with the current US government’s aversion to international cooperation and multilateralism, speculated one department official. 

100 days of Trump

The closure of the OSTC would be the latest blow for science in the US following near daily announcements that have stunned the research community. But there’s a difference between the Trump rhetoric and reality: while the damage of his first 100 days has been extensive, resistance to him has also risen in scores of lawsuits, court orders and legislative manoeuvres. That makes it impossible to judge the ultimate impact of his headline-making cuts. 

In Congress, for instance, for all the screaming headlines, the draft R&D budget that Republicans pushed through for the fiscal year ending 30 September was $193.4 billion – just 3.7% less than in 2024, according to the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Within that budget, the steepest cut was 6.5%, or $7.1 billion, for defence-related R&D, an odd outcome given Trump’s fondness for sabre-rattling. Non-defence R&D was cut just $350 million, or 0.4% – and most of the cutting was to applied research and development, with basic research largely untouched.

Of course, that’s just the start: Trump will soon publish proposals for deeper budget cuts for next year, and that’s “going to be a bad day” for science, warned Sudip S. Parikh, AAAS CEO, in a recent video message to AAAS members. The news leaks about that budget have been alarming: slashing the NASA science programmes, and hacking NIH research. During a Congressional testimony 30 April, Parikh warned that, even if those kinds of cuts are blocked by Congress, the government turmoil is already leading to delays in new grants. As a result, by the end of this fiscal year on 30 September, research agencies may have been simply unable to complete the paperwork for new grants – a situation he called “impoundment by default.”

For the first 100 days, however, the most dramatic headlines have been about Trump’s attempts to sideline Congress by ordering immediate changes in grants, jobs and programmes on his own say-so. The tactic isn’t unknown, attempted by former presidents from Franklin Roosevelt to Richard Nixon. 

But then as now, the legal outcome is uncertain. While thousands have been fired or retired at federal agencies, many are contesting it in court – with some preliminary successes in the form of temporary restraining orders while full hearings proceed. 

Likewise, Harvard University decided last month to fight back rather than negotiate with Trump over $2 billion in politically targeted cuts to the university’s federal research funding. And federal courts have temporarily halted a Trump order to hack funding for “indirect” medical-research costs, such as university lab space and supplies.

But the most obvious damage in these first 100 days may be to the reputation and stability of the US scientific enterprise which is, as AAAS’s Parikh put it, “both powerful and fragile.”

Since World War II, the US has been the world’s biggest R&D spender with its funding methods widely copied; the European Research Council, for instance, is modelled on the US National Science Foundation, while the European Innovation Council borrows from R&D systems at the US Small Business Administration and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. 

But Science magazine reported last week that the NSF director is quitting in the face of a massive 55% cut Trump may propose in his next budget. Nature magazine recently reported that 75% of US researchers who responded to its online poll said they are considering leaving the country. And many nations – including Germany, France, Norway and Canada – have announced programmes to attract disenchanted US researchers, reversing the generations-long tide of scientific talent to the US.