The Tempering Role of Congress in the Face of Budgetary Cuts to Federal R&D

By Zach Perkins, Graduate Student at the University of Illinois Chicago

April 29, 2025

The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) is one of several offices within the Department of Energy (DOE) that awards grants for both public and private sector research and development (R&D), with FY 2023 appropriations totaling nearly $3.5 billion. Historically, the goals of presidential administrations have held a significant role in determining how these funds are allocated among program areas, such as President Bush’s Hydrogen Fuel Initiative (HFI), which led to an over $1.7 billion investment in hydrogen fuel cell R&D during the early 2000s. Although the HFI presents a successful example of the White House energy policy influencing EERE, several other stakeholders, such as Congress and DOE staff, ultimately have the power to shape these initiatives in support of their own interests. A notable example of this dynamic could be observed during the first Trump administration when significant reforms, including deep budget cuts and a narrowing of program activities to focus on early-stage R&D, were proposed. The failure of these reforms to materialize provides an informative case study into the ability of competing EERE stakeholders to resist White House energy goals.

Proposed Trump-Era Reforms

During the first half of the 2010s, EERE enjoyed both strong support for renewable energy from the Obama administration and unprecedented funding in the wake of the $787 billion American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009. President Trump’s 2017 inauguration began a significant reversal in White House budgeting priorities, broadly aiming to redirect spending from social welfare, environmental, and healthcare programs towards areas such as defense and infrastructure. The DOE was no exception, with the clean energy-oriented EERE as a prime target for budget cuts. An early sign of these reforms came shortly after Trump’s victory when former Texas Governor Rick Perry, who had previously called for the elimination of the DOE, was selected to lead the agency he once opposed. Notably, Perry represented a departure from environmentalism, which had dominated the agency during the Obama administration, in favor of an “all of the above” strategy, placing a renewed emphasis on traditional fossil fuels in addition to renewable energy. Although Perry acknowledged the growing impact of climate change during his time as Energy Secretary, he rejected the conclusion that human-driven greenhouse gas emissions were its primary driver. Likewise, the administration’s pick to lead EERE faced further opposition, failing to be officially sworn in until 2019 due to concerns over past positions including opposing federal subsidies for renewable energy.

In addition to leadership changes, the White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) proposed deep cuts to EERE’s appropriations each fiscal year of the Trump administration, including an 87% decrease in funding from $2.3 billion to just $343 million in FY 2020 in an effort to narrow EERE programming to only early-stage R&D. Longstanding assistance and deployment programs including the Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) and State Energy Program (SEP), both of which predate the DOE itself, were to be eliminated altogether. According to DOE, an approximately 30% decrease in EERE staff was anticipated with a third of EERE’s 2,500 active projects to be terminated. While these deep reforms had support from both the White House and new DOE leadership appointees, these proposals faced swift resistance from other EERE stakeholders.

Reasons for Failure

1. Congressional Opposition

Although the White House’s OMB is responsible for drafting the President’s initial budget proposal, Congress maintains the authority to modify or outright reject the President’s budget through its House and Senate Appropriations Committees, who review and hold hearings on the President’s recommendations. Importantly, budget resolutions are exempt from presidential vetoes or filibusters, simply requiring a majority vote to pass, therefore limiting presidential authority. Despite Trump’s support for comprehensive budget reforms, his plans faced opposition from Congress, including from members of his own party, who controlled the Senate during his entire presidency and the House from 2017 to 2019. Following extensive congressional hearings, Congress not only rejected Trump’s reforms but approved modest increases in EERE appropriations each year of his presidency.

2. Internal Department of Energy Opposition

One of the areas where Trump’s reforms saw modest success was within DOE leadership as the President holds the authority to appoint positions within the agency. The DOE's new leadership was particularly effective at stifling certain clean energy initiatives in favor of program areas such as grid resiliency, which aligned more with the administration’s broader goals. The most notable change arose from a new internal review process, which required leadership approval for projects deemed politically sensitive, with some former EERE employees alleging at least 46 projects were successfully sidelined during this new process. The topics flagged for review were extensive and included comparisons of different energy sources or future projections of clean energy technology. Although these political appointees were able to use their influence to support White House goals, the vast majority of DOE personnel were not political appointees, which limited the ability of the White House to drastically alter the culture within the agency.

3. COVID-19 Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic in early 2020 forced the White House to redirect their focus towards maintaining public health and preventing economic collapse. While not directly related to EERE, the $2.2 trillion Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act passed in March 2020 and was the first of several COVID-related stimulus packages, ushering in an era of heightened government spending and sidelining conversations on budget reductions for agencies such as DOE, which had already seen strong bipartisan opposition pre-pandemic.

Conclusion

The White House holds significant power over DOE decision-making. Nonetheless, Congress and DOE staff have the ability to temper or boost the President’s proposals. This discussion is particularly relevant as President Trump has returned to the White House and signaled a return to prioritizing traditional fossil fuels over clean energy R&D. During his first week in office for a second term, President Trump began implementing sweeping civil service reforms. Additionally, the Trump administration has offered buyouts to over 2 million government employees and ordered a freeze on federal grants, both of which have been temporarily halted by federal judges. These measures, if successful, could potentially allow for sweeping personnel change within DOE, removing one of the main barriers the administration previously faced in implementing their goals. Ultimately, as Congress moves into appropriations season, the legislative branch will determine if once again Trump’s budgetary reforms are rejected or if the White House’s controversial cuts to offices such as EERE will prove successful.

The contents of this blog reflect the author’s views, and not necessarily those of the GFRC.