Listen to the article
Trump Administration Proposes Major Cuts to Cybersecurity and Science Agencies
The Trump administration has unveiled its fiscal year 2027 budget proposal, calling for significant cuts to key technology and science agencies, most notably a $707 million reduction in funding for the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA).
The proposed CISA cuts would further strain an agency already operating with nearly 1,000 fewer staff than it had in January 2025. According to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the reduction aims to “refocus CISA on its core mission while eliminating weaponization and waste.”
The budget document specifically criticizes CISA, stating the agency “was more focused on censorship than on protecting the Nation’s critical systems, and put them at risk due to poor management and inefficiency, as well as a focus on self-promotion.” This language echoes statements made last year by former Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, who accused CISA of infringing on First Amendment rights during the 2024 elections.
Noem previously targeted CISA’s election-focused entities that combated misinformation and propaganda, which were shut down last spring. She told lawmakers in May that CISA was “back on mission” after eliminating components that allegedly detracted from the agency’s core functions.
The budget proposal does not provide specific details about which “so-called misinformation and propaganda” programs would be eliminated, but suggests some funding cuts target offices that duplicate “existing and effective programs” at state and federal levels.
Interestingly, the budget appendix shows a smaller cut to CISA of around $360 million, creating a discrepancy with the primary budget document. Regardless, either reduction would significantly impact the agency’s operations.
This marks the second consecutive year of proposed cuts to CISA, following the FY2026 proposal that included a $491 million reduction. That earlier proposal faced bipartisan pushback, with lawmakers favoring a much smaller cut of $134 million.
CISA’s funding situation remains precarious. As part of DHS, the agency has been operating without a full-year appropriations bill for FY2026, instead relying on continuing resolutions and temporary measures since October 2025. The current DHS shutdown is tied to ongoing disputes over immigration enforcement funding.
The proposal also targets the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), reducing its budget by $52 million to begin “the privatization of TSA’s airport screeners.” According to the administration, this would “yield cost savings compared to Federal screening and begin reform of a troubled Federal agency.”
The timing of these proposed TSA cuts is particularly challenging, as the agency’s workers have gone without pay for multiple periods during late 2025 and spring 2026. This has resulted in high absenteeism and resignations, according to recent congressional testimony from TSA Administrator Ha Nguyen McNeill. President Trump ordered last week that TSA employees be paid despite the shutdown.
Under the proposal, small airports would be required to enroll in a TSA-funded program for private screeners. Overall, the budget proposes $63 billion in discretionary funding for DHS, representing a 3.3% decrease from the 2026 continuing resolution level.
Science and technology agencies face equally significant cuts. The Department of Commerce would see a 12.2% decrease from FY2026 enacted funding levels, leaving it with $9.2 billion in discretionary spending authority. Within Commerce, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) faces a $993 million reduction, with the administration criticizing the agency for focusing on “a radical climate agenda” and promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion principles.
The budget also proposes cutting $2.2 billion from the National Telecommunications and Information Agency, defunding its Digital Equity program. The administration describes this program, which was funded by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act to promote internet adoption among underrepresented communities, as “unconstitutional” and claims it awarded grants “based on race.” Notices that these grants were being canceled began circulating in May 2025 after Trump announced he would end the program.
In contrast, the Department of Energy would receive a 10% increase in discretionary budget authority, totaling $53.9 billion. The administration plans to repurpose clean energy funding from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act to support artificial intelligence initiatives, including $1.2 billion for seven AI supercomputers at national laboratories. However, the DOE’s Office of Science would still face a $1.1 billion cut, with priorities shifting from clean energy and climate research to high-performance computing AI, quantum information science, fusion, and critical mineral research.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.


12 Comments
The proposed budget cuts to science and technology agencies could have significant implications for the mining, metals, and energy sectors. These industries rely heavily on government-funded R&D, technology deployment, and workforce development initiatives. Hopefully Congress will take a more balanced approach in finalizing the budget.
While budget priorities are always debated, the proposed reductions to CISA and science/tech agencies seem quite drastic. These organizations play a vital role in safeguarding critical infrastructure, driving technological progress, and bolstering US competitiveness. I hope Congress takes a balanced, evidence-based approach in finalizing the budget.
The proposed budget cuts could have major implications for the mining, metals, and energy sectors. R&D, technology deployment, and workforce development in these industries often rely on government science and tech agencies. Hopefully the final budget preserves essential funding in these areas.
You make a good point. The mining, metals, and energy sectors are crucial to the economy and national security. Maintaining robust support for related scientific research and innovation will be key.
The proposed cuts to science and technology agencies are concerning. These institutions play a vital role in driving innovation, advancing research, and shaping the future economy. Reducing their resources could hamper progress in key areas like renewable energy, materials science, and next-gen computing.
I agree, investments in science and technology should be a priority. Cutting funding to these agencies could have far-reaching consequences for the country’s competitiveness and long-term economic prosperity.
It’s concerning to see the administration taking such a hardline stance against CISA, accusing the agency of ‘censorship’ and ‘self-promotion’. Cybersecurity threats are only growing, and CISA’s role in protecting critical systems and democratic processes is crucial. Any changes to its mandate and funding should be carefully considered.
I agree, the rhetoric around CISA is quite alarming. Cybersecurity is a matter of national security, and the agency’s work is vital. Politicizing these issues risks undermining the effectiveness of these important institutions.
The accusations of CISA focusing on ‘censorship’ and ‘self-promotion’ rather than core mission are quite strong. While I’m not aware of the specifics, it’s important these claims are substantiated. Cybersecurity threats are evolving rapidly, and CISA plays a critical role in protecting the nation’s digital infrastructure.
Valid concerns. Any significant changes to CISA’s mandate and funding should be based on clear evidence and thorough analysis, not political rhetoric. The agency’s core functions in safeguarding critical systems must be maintained.
Interesting to see the proposed budget cuts for CISA. While cybersecurity is critical, there are always debates around the right balance between security and civil liberties. It will be important to ensure any changes don’t compromise protection of critical infrastructure and democratic processes.
You raise a fair point. Any adjustments to CISA’s mandate and funding will need to be carefully considered to maintain a robust cybersecurity posture without overreach.