Science policy this week: August 11, 2025

What’s Ahead

A bronze-colored doorknob that reads, "Seal of the President of the United States." — A doorknob at the White House.

Daniel Torok/White House

Trump gives grantmaking authority to political appointees

President Donald Trump signed an executive order last week to give political appointees power over grantmaking decisions, specifying that each agency must have one or more senior appointees or their designees review and approve funding opportunities and grants. Agencies may use peer review methods for grantmaking on an advisory basis, but these recommendations should not be “ministerially ratified, routinely deferred to, or otherwise treated as de facto binding,” the order adds. As part of the justification for increasing political oversight over grant review, the order claims the National Science Foundation has funded grants that “promoted Marxism, class warfare propaganda, and other anti-American ideologies,” alluding to a review of NSF grants published by Senate Commerce Committee Chair Ted Cruz (R-TX) in 2024.

The order requires all grant awards to “demonstrably advance the president’s policy priorities” where applicable and prohibits them from supporting “forms of racial discrimination by the grant recipient” including the use of race as a selection criterion for employment or program participation, “denial by the grant recipient of the sex binary in humans,” and other initiatives that “promote anti-American values.” The order also directs appointees to give preference to institutions with lower indirect cost rates and directs the Office of Management and Budget to limit the use of grant funds for indirect costs. It adds that appointees should give grants to “a broad range of recipients” instead of “repeat players,” and ensure grantee institutions comply with the earlier “gold standard science” executive order.

House Science Committee Ranking Member Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) derided the order, pointing out that political appointees may have conflicts of interest. “This means someone who has made millions lobbying for chemical companies could block research into the dangers of pesticides, PFAS, microplastics — the list goes on,” Lofgren stated. COGR, a consortium that represents research institutions, also criticized the order. COGR President Matt Owens said the peer review process, sheltered from political appointees, is “a key reason U.S. science and innovation are the envy of the world.” Owens added that by seeking to further cap grant funds for indirect costs, “the administration refuses to acknowledge and pay for the true costs of research critical to the security of the nation and the health of its people.”

Academies launches fast-track study on GHG impacts

The National Academies is launching a fast-track review of the latest science on the societal impacts of greenhouse gas emissions in response to the Environmental Protection Agency’s recent proposal to rescind the 2009 endangerment finding that underpins its regulatory authority over GHGs. The review will focus on research conducted since 2009 and will be published in September, in time to inform the EPA’s decisionmaking. The Academies is self-funding the study and has put out a request for information for white papers, reports, and peer-reviewed articles relevant to the effect of human-made greenhouse gas emissions on human health. Submissions are due Aug. 27.

The EPA’s justification for rolling back the endangerment finding cited a report commissioned by the Department of Energy that concluded climate change “appears to be less damaging economically than commonly believed, and that aggressive mitigation strategies may be misdirected.” DOE is accepting comments on that report until Sept. 2. Dozens of climate scientists are planning to offer a coordinated critique of the report, according to CNN.

GAO concludes NIH has illegally slowed spending

The National Institutes of Health’s grant terminations and pause on grant reviews violate impoundment law, as they coincide with a decline in grantmaking from February to June with no indication that the funds are being used for another congressionally mandated purpose, according to a decision issued last week by the Government Accountability Office. Between February and June of 2025, NIH awarded $8 billion less than in the same period last year, according to GAO. The Department of Health and Human Services has shown “no sufficient justification” for its earlier pause on grant review meeting notice submissions in the federal register, the GAO report states. It adds that if the administration pursues deferrals or rescissions of funds, it must send a message to Congress outlining the amounts in question and the reasons for the impoundment. In a press release about the report, Senate Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Patty Murray (D-WA) also noted that the administration initially cut off an additional $15 billion in NIH funding last week before quickly reversing the decision. GAO’s role is to support Congress and its decisions do not have any legal binding on their own.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to overturn the lower court ruling that restored around 900 NIH grants. Higher education associations filed an amicus brief opposing the administration’s efforts. The court’s emergency docket decision could come at any time.

NSF board elects new leaders

The National Science Board has elected chemist Victor McCrary as its official chair and particle physicist Aaron Dominguez as its vice chair. McCrary had served as vice chair of the board since 2020 and became acting chair this year when Darío Gil stepped down after being nominated to the top science job in the Department of Energy. Dominguez joined the board in 2020 and works as provost at The Catholic University of America.

The board’s main functions are to oversee the National Science Foundation and provide advice to policymakers on science and technology policy. Among the board’s current priorities is developing “domestic STEM talent,” the new leaders indicated in a statement, citing President Donald Trump’s executive order on promoting excellence and innovation at Historically Black Colleges and Universities. They also plan to focus on supporting Tribal Colleges and Universities, Hispanic-Serving Institutions, trade schools, and community colleges. Other priorities include “winning the technology race with China,” fostering public-private partnerships, and “championing a reimagined NSF.”

Also on our radar

The Trump administration has proposed that UCLA pay a $1 billion settlement to restore almost $600 million in grant funding frozen by the administration. Meanwhile, a judge has ordered NSF to justify its freezing of 300 grants that were awarded to UCLA given that the move conflicts with a June court order that restored terminated grants to California faculty.
The Commerce Department is reviewing Harvard’s patents derived from federally funded research and has threatened to invoke the government’s “march-in” rights to gain control over them.
The interagency Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory Committee will meet on Friday. The committee is one of five advisory committees based at NSF that are continuing to meet because they were established in law, whereas the rest of NSF’s advisory panels were terminated by the Trump administration in March
NSF announced several initiatives last week in alignment with the Trump administration’s AI Action Plan, including grants for test beds and a call for “programmable cloud labs.”
The National Weather Service has received permission to hire over 400 employees after undergoing workforce cuts months earlier.