Strategic Investments the U.S. Should Make in the Bioeconomy Right Now
In 2023, the U.S. bioeconomy generated 643,992 domestic jobs and contributed $210.4 billion to the U.S. GDP, establishing it as a significant economic force. This impact is largely due to its broad and diverse scope. While the U.S. bioeconomy does not have a consensus definition, nearly all versions of the definition include biotechnology as a central driver. Consequently, a wide range of industries are encompassed within the bioeconomy (Table 1). Previous administrations, including the previous Trump Administration, have championed and advanced biotechnology and biomanufacturing. The Biden Administration released the Executive Order on Advancing Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Innovation for a Sustainable, Safe, and Secure American Bioeconomy (Bioeconomy EO) focused on expanding domestic biomanufacturing capacity, streamlining regulations for biotech products, and expanding market opportunities. With a new chapter ahead of us, the United States is presented with incredible challenges and opportunities in the face of China’s dominance in this space.
However, the broad scope of the U.S. bioeconomy also presents significant challenges. While there is general consensus on the types of industries relevant to the bioeconomy, there is no definitive agreement on which should be included or excluded, resulting in certain sectors within an industry being classified as part of the bioeconomy even if the industry as a whole is not. This lack of clarity creates confusion which could result in missed opportunities for ongoing development and support programs that these industries could benefit from. Furthermore, this ambiguity fosters the creation of artificial silos, hindering cross-sector communication and potentially causing a loss of valuable collaborative capabilities. This lack of clarity additionally complicates the measurement of the bioeconomy’s economic contributions, leaving valuable opportunities for growth and development underexplored due to an inability to identify sectors that require further investment.
The Bioeconomy EO made significant strides in understanding the U.S. bioeconomy, but substantial growth remains. A key lesson learned is the need for a common, consensus-based definition and lexicon to improve communication across sectors, as agencies like the DOD, USDA, and DOE often struggle to talk across sectors without a shared language. NIST’s Bioeconomy Lexicon, last updated in February 2025, remains incomplete, with important terms like continuous fermentation still undefined. Additionally, there is a growing need for standards and metrics, and continued investment in NIST’s initiatives, which are essential to build a unified strategy that maximizes the bioeconomy’s full potential.
Despite these difficulties, the U.S. bioeconomy continues to demonstrate resilience and growth, particularly as we enter the next technological revolution driven by advancements in artificial intelligence, biotechnology, advanced manufacturing, and sustainable development. This underscores the critical need for investment across all levels of the U.S. bioeconomy. By making strategic investments in the bioeconomy now, the U.S. can position itself to capitalize on future innovations and advancements, unlocking the projected growth potential, which is expected to reach $400 billion by 2030. Investment in the U.S. bioeconomy not only promotes economic growth but also yields broader benefits, like fostering job creation, driving development of new technologies that enhance the quality of life, providing resilience to long-term prosperity, and staking out significant competitive advantage at the global scale. Overall, the U.S. bioeconomy represents a powerful force with immense potential, one that must be recognized and leveraged further.
Investment in the Bioeconomy Drives Regional Development
Given the vastness of the U.S. bioeconomy, a top-down approach alone will not be enough to drive the rapid growth needed for global competitiveness. A bottom-up approach, led by regional efforts, is essential for fostering growth and innovation across the country. Combining both approaches can boost the national GDP, stimulate regional economies, and create jobs. Regional programs like the EDA Tech Hubs, NSF Biofoundries, and U.S. Manufacturing Institutes like BioMADE and NIIMBL are already supporting localized bioeconomies, or micro-bioeconomies, tailored to specific resources and technologies.
While federal initiatives are important, it is equally important to assess their effectiveness. Understanding the return on investment from these programs is essential, not just for local micro-bioeconomies, but for their broader impact on the U.S. economy. For example, BioMADE has seen significant budget increases, including a $450 million boost in 2023, but its 2024 allocation of $75 million across 65 projects raises questions about fund distribution. As BioMADE supports more projects, further evaluation is needed to determine how effectively it is utilizing resources to advance U.S. biotechnology and biomanufacturing.
Ultimately, it will be essential for stakeholders in the U.S. bioeconomy to closely examine regional programs and assess their effectiveness. A comparative analysis of funding across different programs, agencies, and performance metrics will be necessary to ensure these investments are delivering tangible benefits and are aligned with broader bioeconomy goals. One key lesson from the Bioeconomy EO is that the U.S. must acknowledge that we can do more and that we have not yet done enough. The U.S. bioeconomy is still in its early stages, with significant room for growth and improvement. If the federal government and regional entities do not continue investing in this crucial sector, the nation will face serious economic, social, and global challenges in the future. Failing to act will only stifle progress and allow global competitors to surpass the U.S. in production, manufacturing, skill development, and resource acquisition. To ensure the U.S. bioeconomy thrives, sustained investment, decisive action, and a unified national and regional strategy are essential.
What Areas of the U.S. Bioeconomy Still Need Development?
The bioeconomy EO focused on many different components of the bioeconomy to grow and foster, but despite the EO’s best efforts, not all areas have developed to the same degree. Several areas still require further development, investment, and strategy to safeguard and grow portions of the U.S. bioeconomy.
One important area is Supply Chain Resiliency. In March 2024, the USDA published a report aimed at creating a more resilient biomass supply chain, in accordance with the deliverable in section 5C of the bioeconomy EO. Biomass is an important component of the U.S. bioeconomy but the bioeconomy supply chain encompasses much more. Resiliency should extend to ensuring that all material and intellectual inputs and outputs in the U.S. bioeconomy are safeguarded against disruptions, such as those experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic, and built to last. The pandemic exemplified our reliance on products made outside of the U.S. to keep our biomanufacturing ecosystem functioning, such as the need for single-use plastics or specific biological inputs for vaccine production. In light of this, achieving true resilience requires building a flexible, global supply chain to ensure access to diverse biological resources and the ability to rapidly adapt to global market demands, rather than relying solely on a U.S.-centric model. Establishing stockpile agreements and treaties will be key to ensuring the bioeconomy’s supply chain can withstand unforeseen challenges.
Another important aspect is Bio-Based Product Procurement. The bioeconomy EO included several deliverables focused on bio-based procurement, such as identifying procurement challenges, producing annual fiscal reports, and creating new procurement programs within different agencies. However, despite the emphasis on these issues, little has been published beyond a USDA report that offers generic recommendations to address challenges. These recommendations, such as measuring the bioeconomy and coordinating carbon intensity labels, fail to address the real difficulties that have hindered bio-based procurement at the federal level.
Additionally, Workforce Development & Bioliteracy is crucial for the success of the U.S. bioeconomy. To fully capitalize on the potential of the bioeconomy, a skilled workforce is required. While the OSTP has released an action plan to boost the bioeconomy workforce, further investment and coordination are necessary to meet the bioeconomy’s needs. The U.S. manufacturing sector has been the backbone of the economy since the industrial revolution, and transitioning to biomanufacturing offers the opportunity to create new jobs and bring substantial economic growth to regions across the country. However, this shift requires significant workforce development reforms, including reassessing immigration policies to ensure that the best global talent is attracted to the U.S., further strengthening the economy.
Strategic Next Steps for the U.S. Bioeconomy and the New Administration
To strategically foster the growth of the U.S. bioeconomy and remain globally competitive, the new administration must not only prioritize the development of currently underdeveloped areas within the bioeconomy but also establish the foundational infrastructure necessary for long-term success. A crucial first step would be establishing a clear and adaptable definition of the U.S. bioeconomy. This would help not only in measuring its progress but also in defining which sectors and sub-sectors fall under its umbrella.
Additionally, the administration should focus on regional development through the creation of micro-bioeconomies, which would diversify and strengthen the national bioeconomy. Implementing a bottom-up approach allows regions to tailor their strategies to local strengths, like existing industries, academic institutions, or workforce capacities, while aligning with broader federal priorities. This could involve reskilling and redeploying existing manufacturing capacity into biomanufacturing, leveraging local resources, talent, and infrastructure. These efforts would not only support economic growth and job creation at the regional level, but also enhance national resilience by decentralizing production and fostering innovation across the nation.
To support this regional strategy, the federal government must provide a comprehensive national framework based on clear goals and achievable metrics. For instance, a target such as increasing the production of bio-based products by 50% by 2050 for domestic consumption could help coordinate efforts across various agencies and set a clear path for growth. Furthermore, the federal government should focus on providing the necessary infrastructure for biotechnology and biomanufacturing development, not only physical infrastructure, such as processing facilities and biomanufacturing plants, but also intangible infrastructure like workforce development, talent enhancement, financial mechanisms, and intellectual property creation. The Trump administration could also lead in advancing bio-based material production and green chemical production through novel biotechnologies. These efforts would not only benefit American consumers by providing sustainable alternatives to essential products but would also strengthen national security and defense positions.
The Trump administration presents significant opportunities to advance the bioeconomy, but it must also carefully navigate the wide-ranging activities the sector encompasses. Policy changes, particularly cuts to funding for scientific research and development, could have unintended consequences that hinder progress. While some repealed executive orders may not have directly affected the sector, reductions in funding for science and education are likely to create ripple effects, such as a shortage of trained workers or disruptions in the supply chain, which could trigger cascading negative impacts. Therefore, thoughtful and strategic decision-making is crucial to ensuring the bioeconomy reaches its full potential.
While the U.S. has made significant advancements and remained a global leader in biotechnology over the past decade, the next four years will be critical in determining whether it can sustain that leadership. According to the National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology, China has prioritized biotechnology and, by extension, the bioeconomy for the past 20 years and is rapidly advancing toward dominance in the field unless the U.S. takes decisive action. Meanwhile, the Netherlands recently announced an investment of approximately €1.3 billion to expand its biotechnology sector, with the goal of becoming a global leader by 2040. This growing international investment signals rising global competition, and the U.S. must strengthen its bioeconomy to stay ahead. The Trump administration does not need to start from scratch; it can build on the accomplishments of its first term and the progress made since.
While the U.S. has made significant advancements and remained a global leader in biotechnology over the past decade, the next four years will be critical in determining whether it can sustain that leadership.
It’s paramount to balance both innovation capabilities and risk as we work towards ensuring that the U.S. bioeconomy is a priority area for both the Nation and for National Security.
The Federation of American Scientists supports the National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology’s Final Report and the Recommendations contained within it.
The U.S. should create a new non-governmental Innovation Accelerator modeled after the successful In-Q-Tel program to invest in small and mid-cap companies creating technologies that address critical needs of the United States.