Innovation at risk: Congress must make vital small-business programs permanent

Advertisement
But the innovation economy is under threat. The Trump administration is slashing federal research funds to public universities and cutting experienced research staff across agencies, including at the National Institutes of Health. These reckless cuts will jeopardize future breakthroughs and sacrifice US competitiveness. We cannot cede next-generation technologies to other countries.
To support and grow the innovation economy, the federal government must bolster the successful initiatives that help keep the United States at the front of the pack. Since 1982 and 1992, respectively, the Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer programs have delivered federal research and development funding exclusively for innovative small businesses and the research institutions they partner with — without forcing entrepreneurs to give up ownership in their companies.
For every dollar spent, these programs have produced
Advertisement
Since the creation of SBIR and STTR, Massachusetts small businesses have become some of the best innovation partners for the federal government and have benefited significantly, receiving
In the biotechnology sector, private early-stage funding can be especially hard to secure because it is capital intensive and requires years of trials and research before products reach patients.
Yet, some Republicans in Congress are demanding major reforms that would hamstring these programs and stifle innovation — all to benefit private interests and private profits. Republican proposals to reform the SBIR and STTR programs would force innovative small businesses to rely on hard-to-secure private investment, which would require entrepreneurs to give up partial ownership in their companies. There is even a proposal to cap the amount of funding available to a single company within the programs, which would end the more than 40 years of a merit-based system. These federal programs were created by Congress, on a bipartisan basis, with the belief that the government has a responsibility to invest in innovative small businesses to further foster innovation in America.
Advertisement
Thanks in part to the SBIR and STTR programs, the United States has experienced a golden age of innovation over the past several decades. To build on this success and fuel a robust innovation economy, Congress must ensure SBIR and STTR can meet the growing needs of entrepreneurs and small businesses for years to come. It can do this by

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Forbes

24 minutes ago

• Forbes

GM's $4 Billion Gamble - Gas Guzzlers Or Electric Future?

General Motors, a flagship of the U.S. auto industry for 117 years, has quietly shifted its bold electric-vehicle ambitions. Just a week ago, the company announced a $4 billion investment to ramp up production of gasoline-powered SUVs and trucks at plants in Michigan, Kansas, and Tennessee—aimed at countering flagging EV demand and mitigating U.S. tariffs. Lafayette - March 12, 2024: Chevrolet Tahoe 4WD Z71 display at a dealership. Chevy offers the Tahoe ... More in LS, LT, RST and Premier models. MY:2024 New President = new plans Once GM pledged to go 'all-electric by 2035', riding the momentum of the Inflation Reduction Act and Biden-era clean energy enthusiasm. But EV sales in the U.S. have softened, Washington's EV subsidies are under threat and tariffs are forcing auto companies to rethink their supply chains. Also, by this time, most everyone who had been thinking about buying an EV has bought one, insiders say. The novelty has worn off. Some have simply shrugged and gone back to either all-gas-powered vehicles, hybrids or PHEVS. GM will relocate full-size gas SUV and light-duty truck production to its Orion Assembly in Michigan, redirect the Chevrolet Blazer to Spring Hill, Tennessee, and bring the popular Chevy Equinox back to Fairfax, Kansas, reconfiguring plants that were previously set for EV output, Meanwhile, its Tonawanda, NY plant gets an $888 million investment to produce V‑8 engines—not electric motors. Why Now? Analysts Sam Abuelsamid (Telemetry) argue GM's 'all-electric by 2035' pledge was always conditional—dependent on generous federal EV incentives and solid consumer demand. With both eroding, GM is hedging its bets, and you can't blame them. The Trump administration further complicated matters with 25% tariffs on vehicles and parts from Mexico. By shifting production to U.S. facilities, GM avoids those costs—an immediate financial relief during a tumultuous market. GM says they're not abandoning EVs This isn't an EV abandonment, GM insists. CEO Mary Barra reaffirmed that an electric future remains central, but the company must remain 'responsive to where the customer is." At a recent Wall Street Journal event, she stressed that infrastructure limitations and consumer affordability still impede widespread EV adoption. Still, GM's U-turn complicates its narrative. Just days earlier, the company urged employees to lobby against California's EV mandate, describing it as disconnected from 'market realities' and threatening vehicle affordability. What are the broader implications? GM joins rivals like Volkswagen and Mercedes, which have scaled back their electrification timetables. Industry experts see this as recognition that while EVs are part of the future, they aren't (yet) the only future. Here's what GM's new position really means: For EV adoption - This signals government policy isn't enough. Automakers need stable incentives and reliable infrastructure to build real EV demand. For domestic jobs - Short-term, the gas engine investment creates U.S. manufacturing jobs and protects against import tariffs. Longterm? GM is now playing both offense and defense—building more ICE vehicles to stay profitable while maintaining EV capacity for when conditions improve. The bottom line is that GM's shift is pragmatic, not ideological or a declaration of 'Drill, baby, drill!' It's a response to market and policy uncertainty—but it also represents a retreat from the aspirational vision of a fully electric future.

USA Today

26 minutes ago

• USA Today

US bombs Iran: Trump's gamble: Nuclear threat ended? Or the start of 'endless war'?

It's Donald Trump's war now. The decision to bomb Iran revealed the conflict between some of the president's fundamental impulses. The highest hope of President Donald Trump's bombing of Iran: A rogue nuclear program that had defied a half-dozen of his predecessors has finally been destroyed. The deepest fear: Just four years after the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan ended America's longest war, the United States is now enmeshed in another war in a volatile region, with perilous and uncertain consequences. "Our objective was the destruction of Iran's nuclear enrichment capacity and a stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world's No. 1 state sponsor of terror," Trump said in a late-night announcement in the East Room on June 21, interrupting Americans' Saturday night plans with news that B-2 bombers had dropped the world's most powerful conventional bombs on three sites considered crucial to Tehran's nuclear program. "Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must now make peace." Watch Trump's address to the nation after US bombed Iranian nuke sites More: US on 'high alert' for Iran retaliation, says nuke program 'obliterated' That's the calculation behind "Operation Midnight Hammer," anyway − that despite its initial bluster, Tehran will be forced to abandon its nuclear program. But Trump acknowledged there were other possibilities. "Remember, there are many targets left," he said, surrounded by a solemn-looking trio of advisers − Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. "If peace does not come quickly, we will go after those other targets with precision, speech and skill." A war between Trump's fundamental impulses The White House debate over whether to launch the bombers put at odds some of Trump's most fundamental impulses. One is his fervent opposition in all three of his presidential campaigns against "forever wars," including the costly and controversial conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. His "America First" agenda reflects a determination to focus less on places like Ukraine and more on challenges close to home. Though most Republican congressional leaders praised the president for the decision, some people prominent in the MAGA movement did not. "This is not our fight," Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene complained on social media. "Every time America is on the verge of greatness, we get involved in another foreign war." On the other hand, Trump is also famously impatient with problems that have frustrated standard solutions. Witness, for instance, his willingness to press the limits of the law in identifying and deporting millions of undocumented immigrants. The lengthy efforts at negotiation with Iran, like much of diplomacy, seemed unlikely to reach the sort of dramatic and decisive conclusion he favors. The bombing of Iran also reflects his alliance with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who argues that Iran's nuclear program poses an existential threat to his country. For the prime minister, achieving his decades-old dream of destroying that program is the stuff of legacy. It's the stuff of Trump's legacy, too − a powerful message for a president who cannot run for the Oval Office again. Netanyahu struck that chord. "Congratulations, President Trump," he said in Tel Aviv. "His leadership today has created a pivot in history that can help lead the Middle East and beyond to a future of prosperity and peace." Congressional leaders notified as planes headed home For better or worse, this will be Trump's war. For one thing, he didn't seek the approval of Congress, which under the Constitution has the right to declare war, though the president has broad authority to order the use of military force. The War Powers Act, passed after President Richard Nixon's secret bombing of Cambodia during the Vietnam War, requires presidents to notify Congress and limits the length of deployments. After the U.S. bombers had left Iranian airspace, the administration immediately notified congressional leaders, Hegseth told reporters at a Pentagon briefing early June 22. Virginia Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, said Trump had risked dragging the United States into a long war "without consulting Congress, without a clear strategy, without regard to the consistent conclusions of the intelligence community, and without explaining to the American people what's at stake." Those will be the elements of the debate ahead, in echoes of the Iraq War. How serious was the Iranian nuclear threat? And how will voters weigh the stakes and the cost? In Istanbul, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi accused Trump of having "deceived his own voters" by launching a strike despite his campaign promises. The U.S. administration holds "sole and full responsibility for the consequences of its actions," he said. But he didn't specify whether Iran would retaliate against U.S. forces in the region. Hours after the bunker-buster bombs were dropped, Iran launched a new round of missiles toward Israel. On June 23, the foreign minister plans to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin, an ally but one who has his own war to fight.

The Hill

29 minutes ago

• The Hill

Trump in wake of Iran attack: ‘Everyone, keep oil prices down'

In the wake of the U.S. attack on Iranian nuclear facilities, President Trump on Monday urged 'everyone' to keep oil prices down. 'EVERYONE, KEEP OIL PRICES DOWN. I'M WATCHING! YOU'RE PLAYING RIGHT INTO THE HANDS OF THE ENEMY. DON'T DO IT!' Trump said on Truth Social. Oil is traded on a global market, and the energy produced in not only the U.S. but in players around the world including Iran, Russia and Saudi Arabia contribute to the prices that Americans pay at the pump. Prices have spiked in recent days amid escalations between the U.S. and Iran — and gasoline prices were up an average of 8 cents compared to a week ago, according to the American Automobile Association. The $3.22 cent average price was still well below highs in 2022 when the national average was as high as $5 per gallon. Iranian state media reported Sunday that Tehran is considering a closure of the Strait of Hormuz, through which much of the world's oil supply flows, threatening further price increases. Trump also wrote on social media calling on the Department of Energy to drill quickly. 'To The Department of Energy: DRILL, BABY, DRILL!!! And I mean NOW!!!' he added on Truth Social. The Energy Department is primarily a research and funding agency — and is also tasked with maintaining the nation's nuclear weapons stockpile. Unlike many countries, the U.S. does not have a state-run oil company, so the government cannot make the unilateral decision to try to drill. It is up to private companies whether they want to produce oil in the U.S., though some government agencies such as the Interior Department can try to make it more attractive to drill on public lands. Presidents have relatively little influence on oil and gasoline prices generally. —Alex Gangitano contributed.