After the Trump administration returns to power in 2025, U.S. science and technology policy underwent notable adjustments in policy orientation, resource allocation, and organizational relationships. This article addresses the question of whether these changes represent merely cyclical policy adjustments associated with political turnover, or a deeper institutional shift in the logic of the U.S. science and technology governance that may signal a new phase in the science——state relationship formed after World War Ⅱ. To examine this issue, the study adopts a structural perspective on science and technology governance and develops a three-layer analytical framework consisting of ideational foundations, governance logic, and policy manifestations. Based on this framework, the paper systematically analyzes the changes in the U.S. science and technology policy around 2025. The findings suggest that the U.S. science and technology governance is gradually shifting from a supportive structure centered on the academic research system, which historically emphasized investigator-driven basic research, toward a strategic structure oriented toward national capability building. This transformation is manifested through mechanisms including the institutional embedding of strategic priorities, the normalization of research security rules, the strengthening of directional fiscal and industrial policy instruments, and the path-locking of key technology agendas. Further analysis indicates that this shift is rooted in three Intellectual foundations: a strategic-state conception of government, a competition-driven logic of technological acceleration, and the techno-nationalist narrative associated with “America First.” Overall, the changes observed around 2025 are unlikely to be merely cyclical policy adjustments; rather, they may signal the emergence of a new phase in the U.S. science and technology governance with significant implications for global science and technology governance. The paper concludes by discussing the policy implications of these developments for China’s science and technology governance.