DOE announced the cohort on July 16, 2026. The program is intended to help move technologies developed with federal research support toward commercial products and companies, with work spanning areas such as critical minerals, batteries and energy technology.

How the program works

LEEP embeds participating entrepreneurs in the national laboratory system. The fellows receive access to laboratory facilities along with technical guidance and business-focused training as they work to advance their startups.

The four laboratories provide a bridge between early-stage companies and research capabilities that may be difficult for startups to access on their own. DOE describes the program as part of a broader effort to turn scientific and engineering advances into businesses.

The announcement identifies the cohort by the number of participants and startups but does not provide a complete breakdown of the 27 companies by state or laboratory. It also does not identify an individual funding amount for each startup.

Examples of the technology focus

DOE cited domestic magnesium production and the use of machine learning to discover battery-cathode materials as examples of the kinds of technology areas associated with the program.

Those examples reflect two challenges with broad economic and national implications: developing domestic sources of important industrial materials and improving the performance or development of energy-storage technologies. The program’s stated purpose is to help entrepreneurs address such technical challenges while building companies around research advances.

The selection of the 2026 cohort is a program announcement, not a declaration that the participating technologies have reached commercial deployment. The support described by DOE is aimed at development, testing, commercialization planning and company growth.

A track record of company creation

DOE says LEEP has launched more than 200 startups over its history. The department also reports that those efforts have attracted more than $6 billion in follow-on funding and created nearly 4,000 jobs.

Those figures are historical program totals rather than results attributed specifically to the 2026 cohort. The new group includes fewer startups than the cumulative number DOE says the program has helped launch, underscoring that the current selection is one stage in a longer commercialization pipeline.

Follow-on funding can help young companies continue development after an initial research phase, while job creation reflects the potential labor-market effect of turning laboratory work into operating businesses. The figures do not, by themselves, establish how much funding or how many jobs the 2026 participants will generate.

Related small-business support

DOE also operates separate Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer programs focused on commercialization. The department’s program information says approximately $147 million in fiscal year 2025 Phase II funding opportunities opened July 22, 2026.

Those SBIR and STTR opportunities are limited to eligible, for-profit U.S. small businesses. They are distinct from the LEEP cohort, but they illustrate the department’s broader use of programs aimed at helping small companies develop federally supported technologies.

What comes next

The selected fellows will be placed at the four national laboratories for the program’s mentorship, technical and training activities. DOE’s announcement does not set out a separate public deadline for the cohort or specify when each startup’s work will produce a commercial product.

For the companies involved, the immediate next step is participation in the laboratory-based program. Its practical significance will depend on whether the technical assistance, facilities and entrepreneurial support help move the startups’ technologies from research and development toward products and sustainable businesses.

The review covers a federal portfolio estimated at up to $65.5 billion. As of January 2026, DOE and the National Nuclear Security Administration were managing 80 capital-asset projects at 16 contractor-operated laboratories and nuclear-enterprise sites. GAO said the changes could affect 66 ongoing and future projects.

What DOE changed

On March 27, 2025, Energy Secretary Chris Wright directed changes to DOE Order 413.3B, the department’s framework for managing major capital projects. The memorandum raised delegated approval authority for qualifying projects at contractor-operated national laboratories from $50 million to $300 million.

It also said projects costing between $300 million and $1 billion could receive independent DOE reviews at selected critical-decision points rather than throughout the full process, provided they show sustained successful performance. Projects above $1 billion would continue under the full scope of Order 413.3B requirements.

DOE described the changes as a way to reduce administrative burdens, accelerate construction and modernization, and save money for taxpayers. The policy is aimed at work supporting national laboratories, energy research, nuclear security and related federal missions.

What GAO found

GAO did not find that the changes had already caused cost overruns, delays or project failures. Instead, the watchdog said the reforms were too recent to demonstrate an effect.

As of March 2026, officials said the formal revision of Order 413.3B was on hold. However, some DOE offices and NNSA had begun implementing parts of the March 2025 direction. DOE’s Office of Science had delegated critical-decision approval authority to national laboratory directors for 20 projects at nine laboratories. Those directors are employees of the management and operating contractors that run the laboratories. NNSA was developing guidance on changes to its independent-review process.

GAO’s concern is that eliminating certain independent reviews could reduce confidence in the reliability of cost and schedule estimates and result in the late identification of potential problems. Independent reviews provide outside scrutiny at important points in a project’s development, before major commitments are made or problems become more expensive to correct.

GAO cited a 2026 peer review that helped support planning to address expected cost increases on an NNSA project in New Mexico. The example does not show that the streamlined approach caused a failure. It illustrates why outside review can matter while a project is still being planned or managed within its approved process.

What happens next

DOE and NNSA agreed with GAO’s recommendations to establish specific goals, expected outcomes and performance measures for the reforms. Both recommendations remain open.

The next accountability test will be whether the agencies publish meaningful evidence about project speed, cost savings, estimate reliability and performance. Readers should watch for updated DOE or NNSA guidance, any changes to Order 413.3B and project-level data showing whether the streamlined approach produces the promised efficiencies without weakening oversight.

GAO reissued the report on July 17, 2026, to correct state labels on a map. The correction identified Pacific Northwest National Laboratory as being in Washington, Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory in New Jersey and Pantex Plant in Texas. It did not alter the report’s central findings.

Sources

• Government Accountability Office report GAO-26-108520
• Department of Energy streamlining memorandum announcement

The report, Science: A New Golden Age, was released July 21, 2026, by Office of Science and Technology Policy Director Michael Kratsios. According to the White House announcement, federal research agencies must prepare action plans within 90 days and incorporate the report’s budget guidance into fiscal year 2028 submissions to the Office of Management and Budget.

The report’s publication does not itself change grant programs or guarantee funding for particular projects. Agencies will have to decide which recommendations to adopt, while Congress will ultimately determine appropriations.

What the blueprint recommends

The report organizes its agenda around four broad priorities: reforming the research enterprise, advancing critical and emerging technologies, making science more AI-driven, and broadening the economic and workforce benefits of federally supported research.

Among its proposed grantmaking changes are more flexible funding, fast-track awards, long-horizon grants, new research organizations, prize challenges and portfolio-based approaches. The full White House report also places more emphasis on individual scientists rather than relying primarily on legacy institutions.

It calls for stronger partnerships among government, universities, technology companies, industry and philanthropic organizations. The stated goal is to move promising discoveries more quickly from research settings into practical applications and national capabilities.

Why AI and national missions matter

Artificial intelligence is central to the blueprint. The report promotes AI-enabled research, scientific foundation models, high-value data sets and autonomous laboratories, which could change how scientists conduct experiments, analyze data and manage research programs if agencies adopt the recommendations.

It also identifies major technology and national-mission priorities, including the Genesis Mission, quantum computing, fusion, lunar exploration and next-generation semiconductors. Those priorities could create new opportunities for universities, national laboratories, advanced-manufacturing companies and skilled workers, but the report does not guarantee particular projects or funding levels.

The White House says the Genesis Mission is intended to use AI to accelerate scientific discovery. The report also calls for closer connections between research and manufacturing, including more training and career pathways for skilled trades and technical workers.

Potential effects on universities, labs and taxpayers

Research universities and academic medical centers may face new competition for federal support if agencies place greater weight on individual researchers, industry partnerships and national technology goals. National laboratories could see stronger alignment with mission-driven programs and large technology initiatives.

Technology firms and advanced-manufacturing employers could gain more opportunities to work with federal agencies. For taxpayers, the central question is whether a more flexible and AI-centered system produces faster scientific progress and economic benefits without weakening basic research, university capacity or life-sciences funding.

Independent reaction has been mixed. Nature described the report as part of a broader shift toward AI-focused research and new funding approaches. STAT reported concerns from scientists and research advocates about the possible movement of federal support toward technology companies, along with questions involving universities, immigration and life-sciences research.

Supporters may see the blueprint as a way to speed discovery and concentrate resources on national goals. Critics worry that greater industry influence or reduced reliance on universities could narrow the range of federally supported research. The practical outcome remains unresolved.

What happens next

The first concrete test will be the agencies’ 90-day action plans. The White House release also identifies a jointly issued fiscal year 2028 R&D priorities memorandum from OSTP and OMB. That memorandum provides budget guidance, but it is not the same as an enacted spending bill or a completed change to agency grant programs.

The FY2028 budget process will provide another signal, although budget requests do not become spending decisions without congressional approval. Later agency notices, grant solicitations and formal program changes will show how much of the blueprint is adopted.

For now, Science: A New Golden Age is an administration policy document rather than legislation. Its practical effect will depend on how agencies interpret it, what appears in budget requests, what Congress funds and whether formal grant or program changes follow.

Sources

• Science: A New Golden Age
• Nature analysis of the White House science plan
• STAT report on the blueprint's mixed reaction