Rules Change Fed. R. Evid. 702

In May 2021, the Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules gave final approval to a proposed amendment to Rule 702. Then in May 2022, after allowing a period for public comment, the advisory committee issued its final report to the Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure. The advisory committee recommended that the proposed amended Rule 702 be confirmed and take effect on December 1, 2023.
. . .
The advisory committee’s report also included a lengthy discussion about the perceived need and rationale for the amendment. It lamented “that many courts have declared that the reliability requirements set forth in Rule 702(b) and (d)…are questions of weight and not admissibility, and more broadly that expert testimony is presumed to be admissible. These statements misstate Rule 702, because its admissibility requirements must be established to a court by a preponderance of evidence.”
. . .
​Then, in the spirit of a hundred online memes, the advisory committee told our federal courts “You’re Doing It Wrong.” The report states that in “a fair number of cases,” courts have admitted expert testimony “even though the proponent had not satisfied the Rule 702(b) and (d) requirements by a preponderance of evidence—essentially treating those questions as ones of weight rather than admissibility[.]” The advisory committe opined that such approach was contrary to U.S. Supreme Court holdings and Rule 104(a).

Daniel P. Elms, Rule of Evidence 702 Is Changing Faster Than You Think. ABA May 24, 2023.

You can find the change forwarded in April to Congress here (along with a change to Fed. R. Evid. 106). Unlike the JSC, the FRAC has a robust "history" of the rule changes proposed and/or adopted.

Mil. R. Evid. 1102 would make the change effective for courts-martial July 2025, absent any action by the President.

The ABA article notes that,

Unsurprisingly, litigants took a keen interest in the proposed amendment and the advisory committee’s comments. But perhaps less predictably, courts began to rely on those comments to inform their decisions on pending Rule 702 admissibility issues. In Sardis v. Overhead Door Corp., for example, the appellate court cited the advisory committee’s admonishments in its decision reversing the district court’s admission of expert testimony on shipping container design. And in Bishop v. Triumph Motorcycles America Ltd., the district court followed the path set by Sardis and did the same regarding expert testimony on motorcycle design and safety.