White House Plan to Take Over Federal Grantmaking Draws Criticism from Science Groups

Organizations representing scientists and research institutions reacted with alarm to the publication last week of a proposed rule that would give the Trump administration unprecedented control over the federal grantmaking process. The rule would give political appointees the power to review grant proposals and determine whether they should be funded, as well as terminate existing grants if they do not align with political priorities, among other restrictions. The proposal, titled “Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance,” was published on May 29 by the Office of Management and Budget.

Some groups are still determining their next steps — drafting guidance on the impact of the proposed rule, hosting member-only discussions, and pushing for an extension to the 45-day comment period. Others, such as Stand Up for Science, have launched campaigns seeking a large-scale response from the public. The deadline for submitting comments on the proposed rule is July 13, and over 7,000 comments have already been posted to the Federal Register.

At an online event hosted by Stand Up for Science on Tuesday, Colette Delawalla, the organization’s founder and CEO, urged the more than 2,000 attendees to submit comments and call their members of Congress as part of a campaign to “stop [OMB Director] Russell Vought’s destruction of science.” Congress could stay the rule, Delawalla said, but only if they are united in doing so.

“Vought’s ‘Uniform Regulation’ would be nothing short of catastrophic for American science. This rule would funnel decision power to the Executive Branch about what science is done, by whom, for whom, with whom, and effectively isolate our scientists from the rest of the world,” Delawalla said in a statement shared prior to the event. Stand Up for Science submitted its official comment on June 4.

Elizabeth Ginexi, a former NIH scientific program official who wrote a much-cited blog about the proposed rule on her Substack, also spoke at the Stand Up for Science event, offering advice on how to craft an effective comment.

“Three paragraphs from a scientist describing exactly how a specific provision would destroy their line of research will carry more legal weight than 10,000 identical form letters,” Ginexi said, telling attendees to use the next six weeks to help submit a record-breaking number of responses to the proposed rule.

The Union of Concerned Scientists is also urging the public to comment on the proposed rule and sign a petition in support of the Scientific Integrity Act. That bill was recently reintroduced in the Senate and aims to establish stronger safeguards against political interference in science.

Having a large volume of comments opposing the proposed rule may be helpful to litigators when filing a lawsuit to stop it, wrote Holden Thorp, editor in chief of the Science family of journals, in a recent editorial. Legal challenges to the rule are widely expected, especially if OMB moves to implement it in its current form, but no group has yet announced plans for a lawsuit.

“The time to act is now. The scientific community needs to flood OMB with responses during the public comment period, open until 13 July,” Thorp wrote. “Universities and associations must speak out as a united front to mobilize Congress and be ready to file lawsuits once the regulations are finalized.” In a blog post following his editorial, Thorp again called for an “all hands” bipartisan response to the proposed rule, stating, “I believe this is the event that has evaporated any plausible reason not to speak out.”

What does the proposed rule do?

The proposed rule would change how the government manages federal grants by revising Title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations. If enacted, the changes would apply to all grants awarded by the federal government, not just science funding. Comments on the proposed rule are due by July 13, and OMB wants to issue a final rule that will be in effect by Oct. 1 “to ensure that only a single set of government-wide requirements apply to Federal awards made during fiscal year 2027.”

OMB says the changes are necessary to improve federal oversight of awards, clarify the status of Title 2 of the CFR as OMB regulation rather than guidance, and lessen the administrative burden on grant recipients.

One of the major changes outlined in the proposed rule is the introduction of a new layer of approval in the federal grantmaking process known as “pre-issuance review” that would allow political appointees at federal agencies to block funding for grants that do not meet administrative priorities. The rule would additionally give the Trump administration expanded authority to terminate federal awards that “no longer effectuate program goals, federal agency priorities, or the national interest.”

Other key changes proposed by the Trump administration include:

• New prohibitions on using federal awards to “fund, promote, encourage, subsidize, or facilitate” diversity, equity, and inclusion.
• Expanded limitations on international collaboration, for example, extending the Wolf Amendment restrictions that limit NASA from collaborating with China to apply to all agencies.
• New restrictions on allowable costs, such as prohibiting the use of funding toward research publishing costs, conference attendance, and public relations services.
• Fixed-amount awards would be eliminated, and there would be a greater emphasis on multi-year awards to reduce the frequency of applications and awards.
• All funding opportunities will be posted on Grants.gov with a strict word limit and increased use of “statements of interest” by grant applicants.

Seeking more time to respond

Given the large number of provisions in the proposed rule, several organizations, including the COGR, have requested an additional 45 days to respond. In a letter to OMB, COGR president Matt Owens said a “90-day, or even 120-day, comment period for broad and significant changes of this scale is appropriate and in keeping with past practice.”

The American Council on Education is also seeking an extension, Sarah Spreitzer, ACE vice president and chief of staff, said in an interview. Spreitzer said ACE is working on its response and will go into more detail about some of the issues highlighted in a summary it published last week. ACE is also coordinating with smaller college and library organizations to help them craft their own responses.

Spreitzer hopes to make the case to Congress that giving the Trump administration greater power over science funding decisions could mean that, down the line, a Democratic administration may also yield that power. She said that would create a “whiplash effect” for researchers. Spreitzer also noted that the impact of the proposed rule goes far beyond universities and research institutions, affecting libraries, museums, states – basically, “anyone who gets a grant.”