Similar to the New Deal in how it directly increased government participation in the public’s lives, this shift in R&D funding has indirectly done the same modern day Americans. And while some may argue that past military-based innovations have equally increased the living standards as those peacetime initiatives with no military intent (ex. the creation of the atomic bomb fueled research that in turn created nuclear energy power plants), the intention is wholly different. Outcome does not justify initial attitude. This new attitude toward research, this new modern day government is one dedicated to funding research to improve its citizen’s lives, not just to protect the country from external …show more content…
Some argue that non-military based R&D is an overstep of the federal government's boundaries. The most prevalent figure at the center of this debate is, perhaps unsurprisingly, President Donald Trump. In Trump’s 2017 “skinny budget”, a veritable “wish list” of spending goals, Trump proposed a 2.1% decrease in Department of Defense R&D spending, an 11% reduction in NSF funds, a 36.8% decrease in the EPA’s Science & Technology account, and a 21.5% decrease in NIH funding (Hourihan, Parkes, 2017). Mick Mulvaney, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, explained Trump’s decision in a March 16th press briefing, stating “We think there’s been mission creep… We think they [these agencies] do things that are outside their core functions” (Reardon et al., 2017). In other words, the Trump Administration believes these subsets of the federal government are given too much liberty. Similar to FDR’s rejection of the National Research Foundation due to the foundation’s chairman having too much power, Trump is also trying to limit the R&D’s role in the federal government. Trump’s doctrine of faith in the free market and low levels of government intervention, as well as his intent to appeal to fiscal conservatives, prevails over government-sponsored R&D funding. This