The Trump administration’s effort to shake up federal grantmaking has begun sending shock waves through the scientific community.
The Office of Management and Budget has proposed revising regulations overseeing government assistance, according to a Federal Register notice published Friday. Dozens of agencies would have to rework how they deliver grants worth billions of dollars under the rule, which is slated to take effect later this year.
The OMB effort is part of President Donald Trump’s larger campaign to exert political control over the federal scientific enterprise that spans across the government and flows into public and private universities.
Liz Borkowski, a researcher at George Washington University, said there was “a general bipartisan recognition” that experts in a given field are the most qualified to set research goals and send funding to worthwhile science.
“This rule seems to be envisioning science as a tool for advancing political priorities rather than for answering important questions,” Borkowski told POLITICO’s E&E News.
Asked for comment for this story, an OMB spokesperson said the regulatory changes will align spending with current law, executive orders and “agency priorities.”
“Overall, the goal is to promote transparency, efficiency, and responsible stewardship of federal funds,” the spokesperson said. “They also improve the ability of agencies to identify and respond to waste, fraud, and abuse.”
OMB’s proposal said institutions would be given priority that demonstrate “rigorous and reproducible scholarship;” incorporate performance metrics of Trump’s “Gold Standard Science;” and stick to “research integrity” when applying for federal funds.
Under the rule, one or more senior political appointees designated by their agency head must conduct “a pre-issuance review” of all discretionary grants, making sure they follow several principles, including to “demonstrably advance the President’s policy priorities.” Career officials typically have the final say on awards.
Jules Barbati-Dajches, an analyst with the Union for Concerned Scientists’ Center for Science and Democracy, said instead of applications being awarded on merit, political appointees loyal to the administration could decide who receives funding.
“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.
In addition, recommendations for funding generated by peer review should remain “advisory” and not regarded as “de facto binding” by appointees, according to the proposal. That would allow political leadership to ignore consensus opinion from scientists on what requires research.
Further, the proposal would give the green light to agencies to cancel grants even after they are awarded, including if they are “inconsistent with program goals or agency priorities” or determined to be “no longer in the Federal Government’s interest.”
“What OMB is proposing is not a reform of grants management,” Elizabeth Ginexi, a former National Institutes of Health program official for 22 years, said on Substack. “It is a complete political control apparatus layered over every stage of the federal science funding lifecycle.”
Democratic lawmakers blasted the OMB rule as well.
“The Trump administration has spent a year and a half undermining merit-based decision-making at federal science agencies,” said Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), ranking member on the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, in a statement. “This newest dystopian move would destroy what remains of merit-based review dealing a crippling blow to science.”
The proposed regulation also takes aim at diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, government standards — “woke” programs that centered on race and were championed by the Biden administration. But funds would also be halted for “issue advocacy;” applicants’ “affiliations” would be considered; and “the use of international elements” in research taken into account.
“I’m also alarmed by the fact that this rule would block sharing of scientific findings and hinder international collaboration, both of which have long been hallmarks of the scientific enterprise,” Borkowski said.
Trump has unsettled the scientific community after his return to the White House.
Hundreds of scientists and engineers have left EPA since last year. The agency has dissolved its Office of Research and Development, transferring that program’s remaining staff to other parts of the agency.
Other institutions have been targeted as well. Last month, the administration fired every National Science Board member. The group oversees the National Science Foundation, a major source of research funding.
OMB’s proposal is expected to be effective Oct. 1 to ensure “government-wide uniformity and transparency” for federal awards made in fiscal 2027, according to Friday’s notice. Public comments on the rule are due on or before July 13.
The administration’s critics are beginning to rev up opposition to the regulation. Colette Delawalla, founder and CEO of Stand Up for Science, said her organization was “actively mobilizing” to stop it.
“The passage of [OMB Director Russ] Vought’s ‘Uniform Guidance’ would be nothing short of catastrophic for American science,” Delawalla said in a statement. “This rule would funnel decision power about what science is done, by whom, for whom, with whom, and effectively isolate scientists from the rest of the world.”
Borkowski said U.S. grant funding in the past has helped scientists develop cures for diseases, boost crop production, and reduce deaths from hurricanes and wildfires.
“If an administration starts viewing science as something that should be driven by politics rather than expertise, we stand to lose immeasurable benefits to public health and well-being,” she said.
Contact Kevin Bogardus on the encrypted messaging app Signal at KevinBogardus.89.
