It's common to refer to an administration by the name of the current President than "the US government," particularly within the US where the Hill is based. You can find numerous references for example to the "Obama Administration, Clinton Adminstration, Bush Administration, etc" in the media.
There's no "agenda" at work here, you're just being needlessly paranoid.
> "The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and the National Science Foundation (NSF) announced Tuesday the establishment of three quantum computing centers across the nation, involving an investment of $75 million."
It was a White House initiative, so the headline seems to be accurate.
If the administration deserves the blame when it does something bad, it deserves the credit when it does something good.
The Hill is focused primarily on Washington politics so 75% of the stories are about the Administration/House/Senate/Supreme Court/Agency putting out a press release or taking some procedural step.
Turn on any NPR News broadcast over at least the past two decades and the first story will invariably start "The ______ administration…", regardless of who's in office.
It is a neutral headline. I don't sense any agenda one way or the other.
Meta: whilst the title itself is a standard, neutral way for a political news site like TheHill to report a government's decisions, this is one case where editing the title for HN submission might help focus the discussion on the quantum computing initiative rather than the Trump administration. I say that as someone who's considerably more enthusiastic than the average HNer about content on here which is inherently political in nature