In a letter to DOE Office of Science Director William Brinkman, FESAC chair Martin Greenwald wrote: "It is clear that the community is upset about the current budget trajectory and the potential impact on our domestic program." Greenwald said "I felt that it was important for you to understand the views expressed by the committee without delay." He said that the FESAC had voted 17-0, with 2 recusals and 1 absent to tell him that "The committee objects to the theme/impression that these cuts leave the program relatively unscathed and strongly cautions against claims of impactful potential at this level or lower without real study and discussion." The letter said "the damage is real" and the "portent for the future is even more threatening." The letter stated that if the ITER situation "is in flux inside the Administration, this does not appear to be the time to make termination decisions that cannot be reversed." It questions "the wisdom to do(ing) lasting changes to program based on an undefined ITER profile and in the absence of an overall plan for the program." The FESAC urged DOE to seek "buy-in" from the fusion community, saying, "cohesion of (the fusion) community is critical as we confront hard decisions." They say, "we don't want (the) community to give a message different from DOE/OS/OFES." The FESAC asked Brinkman to charge FESAC to assist DOE to prepare a fusion plan. They stated, "The plan should run to 2021 (ITER start): and include option(s) and plans for next decade." They say, the study should include "planning for ITER-era Burning Plasma leadership" and "planning for (a) Fusion Nuclear Science Program leading to fusion energy."

In an April 13, 2012 letter to FESAC, DOE Office of Science Director William Brinkman, to whom FESAC reports, asked the FESAC to assess "priorities among and within the elements of the magnetic fusion program." However, Brinkman told FESAC that their assessment should not include the priority of ITER within the program nor non-tokamak elements such as High Energy Density Laboratory Physics (HEDLP) and General Plasma Science. This gave FESAC very little maneuvering room. He also asked that they address priorities under three different funding assumptions: (1) the FY2013 President's budget (which was 16% lower than FY2012), (2) Restoration to the FY 2012 level, and (3) a 50% growth during a 5 year period using "rolloff" as ITER construction funding requirements decline. Though no timeframe was specified for completion of the assessment, FESAC internally aimed for a September 2012 completion, hopefully in time to impact preparation of the FY 2014 budget request. For various reasons described in their final report, the study was delayed. It was discussed and approved by a 10-4 vote at a January 31, 2013 FESAC meeting and released to the public on February 10, 2013. In his letter transmitting the report, FESAC chair Martin Greenwald states, "FESAC acknowledges that the answers to the (Brinkman's) charge are incomplete."

Under the first budget assumption case (the President's FY 2013 budget submission) the FESAC concluded that the budget level "is inadequate to address even the highest priorities in a timely way." Under the second budget assumption case (restoration to FY 2012 level) the FESAC concluded "that even the FY 2012 levels were insufficient to make full use of our nation's fusion research infrastructure or to allow timely completion of high-priority tasks." Under the third case (50% increase using ITER rolloff funds) FESAC recommended that "highest emphasis be given to science-rich feasibility issues that will directly impact the path to a DEMO fusion device" and, in particular, they endorsed a "Fusion Nuclear Science Program" that "would permit moving forward with a Fusion Nuclear Science Facility (FNSF). "

Much greater detail is contained in the 61 page report, which is available from Fusion Power Associates (fusionpwrassoc@aol.com).