In Brief
Take Action: Stop the Proposed Optional Practical Training Fees
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has proposed fees of $70,000 for the first year and $30,000 for each subsequent year of Optional Practical Training (OPT) for F-1 visa students. These costs would threaten the participation of international students in U.S. research and undermine the scientific enterprise.
BPS urges members to submit a comment letter opposing this proposal. We’ve outlined the core message—now add your personal story about how these fees would affect you, your lab, and the contributions of international students and scientists to research.
Submit your comments by November 9 at 11:59 p.m. ET.
Get Involved: Join the Public Affairs Committee
The Public Affairs Committee (PAC) plays an important role in advancing the Society’s science policy priorities and ensuring that the perspectives of the scientific community are represented in discussions with policymakers. Through advocacy, outreach, and engagement with Congress and federal agencies, the Committee helps inform policy decisions that affect research funding, the scientific workforce, and the future of scientific discovery.
Members are encouraged to consider joining PAC to help shape the Society’s policy priorities, identify emerging issues affecting researchers, and support efforts to communicate the value of scientific research to policymakers. By joining the committee, members have the opportunity to contribute your expertise, engage with the policy process, and help ensure that the needs of the research community are part of the conversation.
Express your interest in PAC today!
What Science Faces After the Midterm Elections
The November 3 midterm elections could have significant implications for federal research funding and science policy. While a change in congressional control could provide opportunities to challenge some of the Administration’s policies, it is unlikely to result in immediate changes to research funding or federal oversight of grantmaking.
Over the past 20 months, the Administration has canceled billions of dollars in research grants, redirected congressionally appropriated funds toward presidential priorities, reduced staffing at federal research agencies, and eliminated scientific advisory bodies. The Administration has also pursued changes that would give political appointees greater influence over grantmaking decisions at agencies including the National Science Foundation (NSF) and National Institutes of Health (NIH).
Congressional Oversight and Research Policy
If Democrats gain control of one or both chambers of Congress, they could increase oversight of the Administration’s research policies through hearings and investigations into grant terminations, agency leadership decisions, and changes to federal funding processes. However, congressional oversight alone would not reverse executive actions, and legislative efforts to establish new restrictions would face challenges, including the possibility of a presidential veto.
Agency leadership will also remain a concern. NSF has been without a permanent director since April 2025, and the National Science Board, which provides oversight and strategic direction for the agency, was dismissed in April 2026. Changes in congressional leadership could bring renewed attention to these vacancies and the Administration’s approach to science agency appointments.
FY27 Appropriations Could Provide an Opportunity
The immediate opportunity to address some of these concerns may come during the lame-duck session, when Congress negotiates final fiscal year (FY) 2027 appropriations. Lawmakers could seek to include provisions limiting the Administration’s ability to implement proposed changes to federal grantmaking rules, restrict international research collaborations, or exert greater political control over funding decisions.
Congress may also revisit protections for university research funding, including restrictions on changes to indirect cost reimbursements. Bipartisan support for such provisions could provide a path toward maintaining congressional authority over federal research spending and protecting the research enterprise from further disruptions.
However, even with additional safeguards, significant increases in federal research funding are not guaranteed. Budget constraints and competing spending priorities could limit opportunities to restore funding or provide increases for agencies such as NIH, NSF, and the Department of Energy Office of Science.
What Comes Next for Science?
The final two years of the Administration could bring additional changes to federal research policy, particularly in grantmaking, agency oversight, and the role of political appointees in funding decisions. While the midterm elections may create new opportunities for congressional oversight, the extent of any policy changes will depend on the priorities of the incoming Congress and its ability to reach bipartisan agreements.
For the scientific community, continued advocacy engagement with Congress will be important to ensure that research funding remains predictable, funding decisions are based on scientific merit, and federal agencies retain the expertise and resources needed to support the nation’s research enterprise.