Shutdown Fight Risks Longer SBIR Funding Freeze – Options Examined

How We Got Here

WASHINGTON D.C., Jan. 27, 2026 — With days left before a critical funding deadline, Congress is hurtling toward a partial government shutdown that could further delay the revival of a flagship small-business research program. Lawmakers in both parties had hoped to avoid another shutdown and turn their attention to reauthorizing the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program, which has languished for months without authorization. Those plans were upended after federal immigration agents fatally shot a second U.S. citizen in Minneapolis last week, igniting a political firestorm over homeland security funding. Now, a budget standoff over ICE’s funding has imperiled not only government operations but also the timeline for restarting SBIR – a program that fuels technology development at thousands of startups. As the January 30 budget deadline looms, Congress and the White House are scrambling for solutions amid public outrage, stark partisan divisions, and surging pessimism in prediction markets that the government will stay open(**).

Be the first to know about the latest SBIR program updates, funding opportunities, and industry insights delivered directly to your inbox. Sign up for our free newsletter!

Only days ago, a shutdown seemed less likely. On January 22, the House passed the fiscal 2026 Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appropriations bill by a 220–207 vote, and separately approved a five-bill spending package by a 341–88 vote as lawmakers try to fund agencies through September.(**). But on January 24, in a snowy Minneapolis neighborhood, Border Patrol agents shot and killed Alex Pretti, a 37-year-old U.S. citizen and Veterans Affairs nurse, during an immigration enforcement operation(**). Pretti’s death – coming just weeks after the fatal Jan. 7 shooting of Renee Good, another U.S. citizen, by ICE agents in the same city – provoked an outcry. Protests and vigils in Minneapolis underscored growing public anger, and lawmakers in Washington immediately came under intense pressure to rein in ICE’s tactics and funding.

The shooting intensified the partisan standoff over DHS funding. Senate Democrats, citing Pretti’s death, announced they would withhold votes for the DHS appropriation unless it is revamped with reforms to prevent such “tragedies”(**). Even moderate Democrats who previously broke ranks to end the last shutdown now say they cannot support DHS funding as-is. “I will vote against DHS’s funding until additional reforms are in place,” said Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, a New Hampshire Democrat, calling for an independent inquiry and bipartisan talks on new safeguards(**). Republicans, for their part, have rejected Democrats’ demand to pull the DHS bill out of the broader funding package, warning that a holdup would jeopardize critical department functions beyond immigration enforcement. Over 80% of the DHS bill finances other services – from disaster relief to the Coast Guard – Appropriations Chair Sen. Susan Collins noted in urging colleagues not to block the spending package(**). Collins cautioned that forcing a shutdown over the ICE dispute would be “dangerous and detrimental” to national security and public safety. The White House also pressed lawmakers to pass the full bipartisan funding package “to avoid the shuttering of federal agencies” so soon after the last stoppage(**).

Complicating matters further is the fact that ICE’s operations would barely slow even under a new funding ban. Last year, in an unrelated maneuver, President Trump secured a massive $75 billion fund for ICE as part of a tax overhaul dubbed the “One Big Beautiful Bill.” Those funds are available on autopilot, meaning ICE does not actually require fresh appropriations to continue its current activities(**). In other words, congressional Democrats’ push to defund ICE now is largely symbolic – ICE can keep operating at full tilt regardless. Nevertheless, the symbolism carries weight amid public furor, and neither side is relenting. As a result, the odds of a shutdown have skyrocketed. Prediction markets that once pegged a shutdown as a remote 8–10% probability now put the chances above 75%(**). Barring a sudden breakthrough before midnight Friday, large swaths of the federal government will run out of funding. It would be the second shutdown in a little over three months, after the record 43-day funding lapse that ended Nov. 12, 2025.(**).

For the SBIR program, this turmoil comes at an especially fraught moment. SBIR’s congressional authorization expired on Sept. 30, 2025 (with the lapse taking effect as FY2026 began), halting new SBIR/STTR awards and solicitations across participating federal agencies until Congress acts.(**). In normal times, lawmakers likely would have resolved the SBIR impasse by now. Indeed, in recent weeks there were signs of bipartisan progress: key negotiators in the House and Senate quietly traded compromise proposals to revive SBIR(**). Senate Democrats, led by Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts, circulated draft reauthorization language in December, signaling willingness to narrow their differences with Republicans(**). Late last week, Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa – the Republican chair of the Senate Small Business Committee – responded with a counterproposal that significantly pared back earlier reform demands(**). Ernst’s new draft dropped some of the most stringent provisions (such as a controversial “clawback” of funds from past grant winners and an extensive 10-year lookback on companies’ foreign ties).

All of that is now in jeopardy. Averting a shutdown would have allowed lawmakers to pivot to SBIR reauthorization immediately, capitalizing on the recent negotiations. But with a shutdown increasingly likely, SBIR’s restart could be postponed for weeks or even months longer. What exactly might happen next? Below, we examine several plausible scenarios for SBIR reauthorization – from a quick fix tacked onto a last-minute budget deal, to a prolonged limbo in which the program remains frozen. We also consider the practical hurdles each scenario faces, and how a government shutdown would overlay additional delays on any eventual “restart” of the program.

Option 1: A ‘Clean’ SBIR Extension Attached to the Jan. 30 Spending Bill

One immediate path would be to simply extend SBIR’s authorization for one year by piggybacking on whatever stopgap measure or omnibus bill Congress passes to avert (or later end) a shutdown. In legislative terms, this means taking the text of H.R. 5100 – a straightforward, one-year SBIR/STTR extension – and appending it to the must-pass funding package. H.R. 5100 is the “clean” SBIR bill the House approved back in September 2025, just before the program’s expiration(**). It would revive SBIR and its sister Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) program through September 30, 2026 with no changes to their rules. Because the House already passed this extension with broad bipartisan support (it passed the House under suspension of the rules with broad bipartisan support), the legislative text is pre-vetted and widely agreeable. Attaching it to a budget bill would be the simplest, fastest way to turn the SBIR funding pipeline back on. “Clean” reauthorization has been the rallying cry of many research advocates who argue that prolonging the lapse serves no one’s interests.

Procedurally, lumping an SBIR extension into the larger spending bill is feasible and not uncommon – appropriations packages often carry along unrelated authorizations that need timely renewal. Proponents note that SBIR enjoys strong support in both parties; the only reason it wasn’t extended in time was a dispute over program reforms (discussed further below). By temporarily extending the status quo, Congress would give itself breathing room to debate those reforms after restoring the program’s operation(**)(**). Given the mounting pressure from universities, startups, and federal R&D agencies, there is a compelling case to “just get it done” now and hash out the details later. As one industry group lamented when the Senate failed to act in September, “a one-year extension would keep programs running and allow more time for negotiations to continue”(**). In practical terms, a clean extension via the Jan. 30 vehicle could have SBIR solicitations up and running again within days of enactment.

The big question is whether Senate Republicans will allow it. In the fall, Sen. Ernst and several GOP colleagues blocked exactly this move, objecting to passing H.R. 5100 without adding what they consider overdue safeguards. Their blockade on Sept. 30 caused the current lapse. Those senators could again refuse to go along with an SBIR rider now, unless coupled with concessions. However, the political calculus may be shifting. At this stage, a clean extension could be seen as a face-saving compromise: Republicans would get the government funding bill they want, and Democrats would get SBIR restarted (a priority especially for many blue-state research institutions). Both sides could declare intent to continue negotiations on reforms in the coming months. If the alternative is watching America’s small-business innovators languish further, the clean extension might suddenly look more palatable. Notably, nothing in H.R. 5100 precludes later amendments; it simply prevents the program’s continued “screeching halt” that is currently “devastating… the R&D community,” as a coalition of clean energy startups described the lapse. In summary, Option 1 is the quickest fix: tuck the one-year SBIR extension into whatever legislative package keeps the lights on in Washington this week.

Option 2: A Short ‘Bridge’ Extension, Then Negotiated Reforms for a Longer Deal

If hardliners are unwilling to grant a full year of SBIR status quo, Congress could pursue a temporary stopgap extension – say for a few weeks or months – to buy time for a comprehensive reauthorization deal. In this scenario, lawmakers would include a very short-term SBIR authorization (perhaps through mid-2026 or even just a few months) in the funding bill, explicitly as a bridge. The idea is to prevent an outright lapse in the program without prejudicing the ongoing debate over reforms. Once the immediate budget crisis is over, negotiators would then have a fresh deadline to hammer out a multi-year SBIR reauthorization that addresses the contentious policy issues.

This play is a classic of congressional strategy: when a long-term deal is elusive, do a short-term patch to avoid damage in the interim. “Congress may decide to extend the authority for the programs without making any policy modifications,” the Congressional Research Service noted last month, contrasting that approach with a full reauthorization with changes(**). Such short bridges have been used in the past for SBIR. More than a decade ago, for example, the program survived on a string of stopgap extensions – 14 in total – before a broader reauthorization was finalized in 2011. A contemporary bridge extension could likewise carry SBIR through the current impasse. It would reassure small businesses that new funding opportunities will resume, while giving lawmakers a bit more breathing room to reconcile differences over issues like repeat awardees and foreign research security.

Why might a brief extension be more viable politically now? It essentially splits the difference between the warring camps. Sen. Markey and House Democrats have already signaled openness to an “extend now, debate reforms later” approach – in fact, In December, Markey urged the Senate to pass the House-approved one-year extension to reopen the programs while negotiations continue, but Ernst has opposed any extension that does not include reforms.(**) A compromise bridge could be shorter than a year to assuage GOP concerns. From the reformers’ perspective (led by Sen. Ernst), a short renewal can be tolerated if paired with a hard deadline for enacting changes. They would retain leverage, since the program’s fate would still require revisiting soon. Some Republicans privately fear that if SBIR were extended a full year, momentum for reforms might evaporate. A three-month or six-month extension is a way to keep everyone at the negotiating table.

Such a move would also acknowledge an uncomfortable reality: the longer SBIR stays idle, the more all sides lose. Advocates warn that the longer the authorization lapse persists, the higher the risk that mid-stage projects will be disrupted and prior federal investments wasted. A primer released by Markey warned that a continued lapse could cause over 10,000 small businesses to lose their DoD contracts, plus around 1,500 at NIH, over 600 at DOE, and around 280 at NSF (figures drawn from a CRS survey).(**) Neither party wants to be blamed for kneecapping a 40-year-old innovation engine. A short-term extension in the Jan. 30 funding bill would at least stop the bleeding. Lawmakers could frame it as a procedural necessity – “We’ll extend these programs for now, so that entrepreneurs aren’t caught in the crossfire, while we finish our work on a smart long-term modernization,” as one might imagine a lawmaker saying.

Of course, a bridge extension would need to be coupled with an explicit understanding to engage on reforms. Both Markey and Ernst would have to agree on a roadmap (e.g. forming a SBIR working group or guaranteeing floor time for a reform package by a set date). The upside is that this approach delays the thorny decisions but doesn’t dodge them indefinitely. It is, in essence, the very compromise many observers expected: extend without changes or reform with changes – Congress could choose to do a bit of both (extend now, reform later). The risk is that if trust breaks down, SBIR could face another cliff when the short extension expires. But given the stakes, that might be a risk worth taking if it gets the program restarted sooner rather than later. Option 2, then, is a “kick the can – but only a short distance” approach, aiming to avert a lengthy lapse without abandoning the reform effort.

Option 3: Fold a Reauthorization with Reforms into a Must-Pass Package

Another possible outcome is more ambitious: instead of deferring the debate, Congress could embed a full SBIR reauthorization – complete with agreed-upon reforms – into a larger must-pass bill in the near future. In other words, skip the clean extension and go straight to a negotiated overhaul of the program as the price for Senate Republicans’ cooperation. This could occur either in the current spending package (if a shutdown deal emerges that encompasses more than just funding) or in a subsequent must-pass vehicle such as a defense authorization or infrastructure bill later in the spring.

The template for this approach already exists. Comprehensive SBIR reauthorization legislation has been written and introduced in both chambers – it’s just waiting for a vehicle. One prominent proposal is the INNOVATE Act (S. 853 / H.R. 4777), a Senate Republican-led bill that would reauthorize SBIR/STTR through 2028 and institute numerous policy changes(**). Introduced by Sen. Ernst and her House counterparts in early 2025, the INNOVATE Act reflects the reformers’ wish list: tougher screening of foreign ties, stricter performance benchmarks for repeat grant winners, and new pilot programs to boost commercialization. Another is the SBIR/STTR Reauthorization Act of 2025 (S. 1573 / H.R. 3169), led by Sen. Markey and Rep. Nydia Velázquez of New York, which takes a more expansionary approach – proposing to make the programs permanent and increase their funding commitments for the first time in over a decade(**). These bills (along with various discussion drafts) have been percolating through committees; in fact, the Senate Small Business Committee held hearings last spring on “reforming SBIR/STTR for the 21st century,” gathering testimony on many of the very issues now at stake. The legislative language is thus fully developed. Option 3 would mean taking whichever negotiated blend of these proposals can gain 60 votes in the Senate and attaching it to the next big “cannot fail” bill.

Why go this route? The primary reason is that it might be the only way to get Senate Republican buy-in to reauthorize SBIR. Figures like Sen. Ernst have made clear they view a clean renewal as unacceptable “business as usual.” They want reforms enacted, not just promised. By delivering those reforms upfront – tightening rules around so-called “SBIR mills” (firms that win many awards but show little commercial result), enhancing due diligence to keep Chinese and other foreign influence out, and so on – GOP skeptics would feel their concerns were heard(**). In exchange, Democrats would secure a multi-year continuation of SBIR, ending the uncertainty. In essence, SBIR’s reauthorization becomes a bargaining chip: Republicans agree to keep the government open (or take some other must-pass action), and Democrats agree to a package of improvements to the SBIR program. Considering that draft text for a compromise is already on the table as of mid-January(**), the pieces could theoretically come together quickly.

History provides some precedent. Major policy riders often hitch a ride on omnibus budget bills in the final stretch of negotiations. For instance, the CURES Act in 2016 carried numerous research provisions into law as part of a larger package. In 2022, when SBIR last faced expiration, a late compromise added new research security measures to appease critics – that deal was struck in the 11th hour and attached to a short-term funding extension. The current situation could echo that, but on a grander scale: essentially resolving the SBIR standoff within the shutdown standoff. It’s a heavy lift, no doubt. Both sides would have to agree on the reform contours very fast (possibly compressing what would normally be weeks of committee markups into a flurry of leadership negotiations). The silver lining is that the main contours of a deal are already visible. For example, there appears to be consensus on strengthening vetting of awardees’ foreign affiliations(**); likewise, everyone seems to agree on bolstering commercialization support, though they differ on how. Ernst’s latest offer to drop the harshest cap in favor of a more flexible commercialization benchmark hints that common ground is within reach(**).

If such a deal is struck, the SBIR program’s authorization could be renewed for several years (perhaps through 2028 or 2029) in one sweep, removing the cloud of uncertainty. The downside is timing: achieving this in the next few days, amid a charged shutdown fight, might be unrealistic. It could instead happen a bit later – for example, after a brief funding lapse, Congress might resolve both the budget and SBIR in one package to reopen the government. Alternatively, lawmakers might address SBIR in the context of another must-pass bill soon, like the next defense spending or farm bill, if the current crunch doesn’t allow it. One way or another, the existence of fully formed reform legislation and the Senate’s demonstrated interest (through hearings and drafts) make Option 3 a tangible possibility. This route would definitively end the SBIR lapse with reforms in place, at the cost of more negotiation upfront.

Option 4: Pass a Standalone Reauthorization Bill Later (Multi-year or Permanent)

A fourth scenario is that Congress eventually reauthorizes SBIR/STTR through the regular standalone legislation process, rather than tacking it onto another bill. In this case, the House and Senate would each take up one of the comprehensive SBIR reauthorization bills (or a negotiated substitute), move it through committee markups and floor debate, and pass it as an independent measure. This could yield a longer-term or even permanent extension. For instance, the Markey–Velázquez SBIR/STTR Reauthorization Act of 2025 introduced last May would make the programs permanent – eliminating the expiration date entirely – and increase their funding allotments across agencies(**). That bill also includes enhancements like improved Phase III commercialization support and expanded outreach to underserved regions. SBIR enjoys 40 years of bipartisan accolades, so in principle, a well-crafted reauthorization could win broad approval on its own merits.

However, this scenario appears to be the least immediate path. Both S. 1573 in the Senate and H.R. 3169 in the House remain at the introduced stage – they have not advanced out of committees since their spring 2025 debut(**)(**). Moving a standalone bill would require precious floor time in both chambers, which is hard to come by amid other priorities (spending bills, judicial confirmations, election-year politics, etc.). Unless leadership agrees to fast-track it (e.g. via unanimous consent in the Senate, which is unlikely given objections), a standalone SBIR bill could languish for months. The political alignment also needs to ripen: the Markey/Velázquez proposal is essentially the Democrats’ vision (permanent authorization, higher funding), whereas Republicans have their own vision (temporary authorization with more rules). These would need to be reconciled, potentially through regular order in committees. In short, Option 4 might be a “plan B” if the near-term maneuvers fail – Congress could circle back later in 2026 to enact a comprehensive SBIR law when tempers have cooled.

The upside of a full standalone reauthorization is clear: it could provide long-term stability and possibly end the cycle of frequent expirations. Small-business advocates have long urged making SBIR permanent to avoid periodic disruptions. Many in Congress agree in theory. Should that day arrive, it would likely look like a compromise between the pending bills: perhaps a multi-year authorization (if not permanent), some moderate reforms to address abuse and foreign risks, and maybe modest increases in funding set-asides. But until a consensus is reached, this route means SBIR remains in limbo. Given that months of talks have not yet yielded a deal, waiting for a standalone bill implies waiting indefinitely. It is worth noting that both the House and Senate small business committees are chaired by Republicans (Rep. Roger Williams in the House and Sen. Ernst in the Senate), so they control the scheduling of any markup. They may prefer to use the leverage of must-pass situations (as in Option 3) rather than move a standalone bill that could be amended in unpredictable ways on the floor.

In summary, Option 4 is the “regular order” approach: ultimately desirable for thorough debate and a robust authorization, but probably too slow to address the current crisis. If it comes to pass, it might be later in 2026 after interim measures. Until then, the continued lapse would persist unless one of the earlier options is realized.

Option 5: Status Quo – The SBIR Lapse Drags On Indefinitely

Finally, there is the grim possibility that no reauthorization measure passes in the near term, leaving the SBIR/STTR programs in a continued state of suspension. In this outcome, neither a stopgap extension nor a reform package clears the Senate, and the programs remain lapsed until the political stalemate is resolved. Unfortunately, this “Option 5” is simply a continuation of what has been happening since October 1: agencies keep existing SBIR awards running (using previously obligated funds) but cannot issue any new SBIR Phase I or II solicitations or grants. Some agencies have been able to tread water by funding small businesses through other mechanisms or using FY 2025 money for awards that were already in progress(**). But the core of the SBIR pipeline – new competitions for innovative R&D proposals from small firms – has been on hold across the government.

This scenario is “defensible” only in the sense that it reflects reality if Congress fails to act. By default, a lapsed authorization means no new activity. The longer it persists, the more severe the impact. Agencies like the Department of Defense, Department of Energy, National Science Foundation, and NIH normally distribute $4 billion to $6 billion annually through SBIR/STTR. That spigot is now shut. Already, solicitations that were due out in Q1 of FY 2026 have been canceled or delayed. Program managers have been pulled off their usual tasks. Small firms that expected to compete for grants this fall have been left in limbo, some shedding staff or shelving projects. While current SBIR contractors can continue work (there is no retroactive cut to funds already awarded), even they face uncertainty for follow-on phases and renewals. For example, a company awaiting a Phase II award decision can only move forward if FY 2025 funds were still available and the agency chose to go ahead despite the lapse. Many agencies, following the Pentagon’s lead as the largest SBIR funder, have formally paused all new awards and pending decisions until reauthorization.

In Washington terms, this status quo represents a significant policy failure – essentially a multi-billion-dollar R&D initiative with bipartisan backing has been allowed to stall out. Yet it will persist unless and until one of the above legislative options is adopted. Congress could, in theory, do nothing and still fund government operations without SBIR (since SBIR’s budget comes from set-asides of agency R&D funds, not a standalone appropriation). Political pressure from affected constituencies is the main force arguing against inaction. Already, coalitions of small businesses and universities have been loudly urging lawmakers to end the lapse(**)(**). Some defense officials have also warned that gaps in the SBIR pipeline could set back U.S. technological competitiveness, as other countries continue supporting their innovators(**). Nevertheless, one cannot discount congressional inertia. If the shutdown fight consumes all bandwidth or if partisan mistrust remains too high, SBIR could remain unauthorized for many more weeks by default. That would mean no new opportunities for startups in the foreseeable future, and agencies potentially reallocating some unspent R&D funds elsewhere.

In summary, Option 5 is essentially a non-choice – it’s what happens if none of the choices above are made. It is the status quo of paralysis, in which SBIR stays dark. While this option carries the most negative consequences (and arguably no one in Congress explicitly wants it), it could linger as an outcome of gridlock. Until there is a legislative vehicle that can garner 60 votes in the Senate and pass the House, the SBIR program’s hiatus will simply continue. Agencies will manage as best they can to keep existing projects alive, but America’s small-business innovators will be left waiting at the starting line for new funding opportunities.

Shutdown Fallout: A Slow Restart for SBIR (Even After a Deal)

Layered on top of all these scenarios is an external factor largely out of SBIR stakeholders’ control: a government shutdown itself, which now appears imminent. A shutdown – whether it lasts days or weeks – would further delay any SBIR reboot, no matter which path is eventually taken. History provides some guidance: the 2013 shutdown (16 days long) and the 2018–2019 shutdown (35 days, the previous record) both caused backlogs in federal grant-making that took months to unwind(**). The current fiscal year already experienced a 43-day shutdown (Oct. 1 to Nov. 12, 2025) – the longest in U.S. history(**) – and its aftermath is instructive for what might happen next.

At minimum, any new shutdown pauses all “non-excepted” work at agencies for its duration. That means if the government is closed for, say, two weeks, you can effectively add two weeks to the timeline of SBIR’s revival. But beyond the direct time lost, there is the issue of restart frictions and backlog. When the government reopened in November, agencies faced a pile-up of tasks. Notably, the National Institutes of Health had to cancel over 370 peer-review meetings during the October–November shutdown, disrupting the evaluation of more than 24,000 grant applications(**). This was an unprecedented logjam. To catch up, NIH implemented emergency measures: for example, through May 2026, NIH is reducing the percentage of applications discussed in each study section from ~50% to just 30–35%, and simplifying review summaries, in order to process the backlog faster(**). In effect, NIH acknowledged it will take months to fully recover; the delayed fall review cycle is bleeding into the winter and spring cycles.

The National Science Foundation, similarly, warned researchers that even after funding resumed, normal operations would not snap back overnight. NSF reported that not all grant review panels canceled during the shutdown could be rescheduled and that new or rescheduled panels would only begin 3–4 weeks after the agency’s reopening on Nov. 13, 2025(**). Program officers first had to decide which evaluations to make up and which to handle via ad hoc reviews. NSF reported that not all grant review panels postponed during the shutdown would be rescheduled, and that new or rescheduled panels were expected to begin 3–4 weeks after the agency’s reopening on Nov. 13, 2025. Other agencies echoed this pattern: the NIH, NSF, and others had to delay funding decisions and award notices while staff worked through backlogs. NSF explicitly told investigators to expect “some delays in processing new awards and funding actions” even after reopening, prioritizing only the most time-sensitive projects first.

What does this mean for SBIR? It suggests that if the government shuts down again on Jan. 30, even briefly, the restart of SBIR will face extra lag time. Any legislation to reauthorize SBIR can’t be enacted until the government is funded again, obviously. Then, once a bill does pass, the agencies will need to crank the machinery back up. If workers are furloughed during a shutdown, that stops preparatory work like drafting solicitations or setting up review panels. When they return, there may be a surge of other pent-up tasks (from other programs) competing for attention. For example, during the last shutdown, agency staff couldn’t even communicate with researchers; NIH had to extend application deadlines en masse after missing weeks of correspondence. An SBIR reboot will have to fit into this recovery workflow.

In practical terms, experts say to add at least the length of the shutdown, plus a buffer of several weeks, to any SBIR timeline. A short shutdown of a few days might only nudge SBIR’s restart by those few days and perhaps a week of catch-up. But a long shutdown of multiple weeks could translate into months of downstream delays. The October–November episode is an example: a 43-day shutdown resulted in some review processes being pushed 3+ months off schedule (as seen with NIH’s cycle extending to May and NSF’s month-long panel delay). Small businesses awaiting SBIR solicitations or award notices should be prepared for a slow ramp-up even after the political impasse ends.

One silver lining is that agencies are learning to mitigate these impacts. For instance, NIH’s emergency adjustments – like discussing fewer proposals in each meeting – are painful but allow them to process more applications quickly once meetings resume. NSF’s decision to use ad hoc reviewers or forgo some panels is another triage technique. These steps mean that when SBIR does get reauthorized, agencies might employ similar tactics to handle the flood of submissions that will come in (recall that every missed month potentially accumulates hundreds of deferred proposals). Applicants, in turn, might face stiffer competition and truncated review feedback in those first rounds back, as agencies triage.

In short, the shutdown overlay means that even the best-case SBIR reauthorization option will not yield immediate results once the program is reinstated. Whether Congress opts for a clean extension or a full reform package, a shutdown would slow-roll its implementation. The historic benchmarks – 16 days, 35 days, 43 days – offer a guide: each day of shutdown is essentially a day of SBIR not just frozen but also accumulating backlog that requires additional days (or more) to unwind. Policymakers and the public should calibrate expectations accordingly. If a shutdown comes and goes, patience will be needed as agencies work to reschedule peer reviews, reopen solicitations, and clear bottlenecks. As the National Science Foundation put it in November, new panels wouldn’t even start for a month after reopening(**) – a cautionary tale for any upcoming reboot.

Be the first to know about the latest SBIR program updates, funding opportunities, and industry insights delivered directly to your inbox. Sign up for our free newsletter!