A proposed rule from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) would give political appointees significant new power over federal research grants — a move that scientists, former agency officials, and Democratic lawmakers are warning could fundamentally compromise the integrity of American science.
The OMB published the proposed regulatory changes in a Federal Register notice, and if finalized, dozens of agencies would be required to overhaul how they distribute grants worth billions of dollars. The rule is expected to take effect October 1, in time to govern federal awards made in fiscal year 2027. Public comments are due by July 13.
At the heart of the proposal is a requirement that one or more senior political appointees conduct a review of all discretionary grants before they are issued, ensuring awards “demonstrably advance the President’s policy priorities.” That represents a significant departure from current practice, in which career officials typically have final say. The proposal also stipulates that recommendations generated by peer review — the cornerstone of scientific vetting — should remain “advisory” and not treated as binding, effectively allowing political leadership to override scientific consensus on what merits funding.
An OMB spokesperson defended the changes in a statement, saying they are designed to “promote transparency, efficiency, and responsible stewardship of federal funds” and to help agencies identify “waste, fraud, and abuse.”
But critics see something more troubling in the fine print. Jules Barbati-Dajches, an analyst with the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Center for Science and Democracy, argued the proposal would allow loyalists to the administration to determine who receives funding instead of applications being evaluated on their merits.
“When viewed in the larger context of how the Trump administration has attacked and politicized science, including developing a list of topics, like climate science and clean energy, that agencies are prohibited from using, this is especially concerning,” Barbati-Dajches said.
Elizabeth Ginexi, who spent 22 years as a program official at the National Institutes of Health, was equally blunt in her assessment, writing on Substack that the OMB’s proposal is “a complete political control apparatus layered over every stage of the federal science funding lifecycle.”
The rule would also allow agencies to cancel grants after they have already been awarded if they are deemed inconsistent with agency priorities or “no longer in the Federal Government’s interest.” It additionally targets DEI standards, puts applicants’ “affiliations” under scrutiny, and raises concerns about international research collaboration — a development that alarmed Liz Borkowski, a researcher at George Washington University, who noted that blocking the sharing of scientific findings would undermine “long-standing hallmarks of the scientific enterprise.”
Democratic lawmakers swiftly condemned the proposal. Rep. Zoe Lofgren of California, ranking member on the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, called it “the newest dystopian move” from an administration that has spent more than a year “undermining merit-based decision-making at federal science agencies.”
Opposition is already organizing. Colette Delawalla, founder and CEO of Stand Up for Science, said her group was “actively mobilizing” against the rule, warning that its passage “would be nothing short of catastrophic for American science.”
