Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought at a meeting in September.
DHS / Tia Dufour
Trump administration seeks total authority over federal grants
The Office of Management and Budget proposed a rule last week that aims to deliver on President Donald Trump’s August executive order giving political appointees the final say over grant decisions across the federal government — including the power to terminate grants that do not meet agency priorities. OMB is accepting comments on the proposed rule until July 13.
Under the rule, all discretionary federal awards would be required to pass a new “pre-issuance review” conducted by political appointees. The appointees conducting the reviews would be instructed to use their “independent judgment” and not routinely defer to the recommendations of others. The rule states that it does not “discourage” the use of peer review processes so long as they “remain advisory and are not ministerially ratified, routinely deferred to, or otherwise treated as de facto binding.”
The criteria for the pre-issuance review would give appointees broad discretion to block awards. For example, awards could be blocked for promoting “anti-American values” or failing to “demonstrably advance the President’s policy priorities.” The pre-issuance review would also give preference to institutions with lower indirect cost rates. The Trump administration has repeatedly tried to cap universities’ indirect cost rates but has been blocked by courts and Congress.
The rule contains a host of other proposed changes, including:
Active and future awards could be terminated at any time if “found to be inconsistent with program goals or agency priorities.”
Agencies would be instructed to prioritize giving awards to institutions that “have demonstrated success in implementing Gold Standard Science.”
Federal awards would no longer be allowed to cover publication costs, processing charges, or open access fees, unless required by statute or approved in advance by the agency. The use of funds to attend conferences would require express agency approval in the award.
More countries would be subject to bans on award collaboration. All foreign entities seeking to collaborate with U.S. researchers would be subject to tighter restrictions.
Applicants would have to pass “risk assessments” that consider, among other things, their memberships and affiliations with other organizations.
Membership costs and professional dues would require prior approval from agencies.
Awards may not “fund, promote, encourage, subsidize, or facilitate” diversity, equity, and inclusion or “gender ideology.”
Agencies would be encouraged to increase award lengths to reduce the administrative burden of recompeting.
The proposal has been met with alarm from congressional Democrats and science groups — including the advocacy group Stand Up for Science, which is hosting a meeting to discuss the proposed rule tomorrow.
2027 NDAA markup on the books for House and Senate
The House Armed Services Committee is scheduled to hold a markup of the fiscal year 2027 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) on Thursday. The latest draft of the bill, released last week, recommends $1.15 trillion for the Department of Defense — mirroring the White House’s request. Both the request and the House proposal seek an additional $350 billion through a separate reconciliation process in order to meet President Donald Trump’s demand for a $1.5 trillion defense budget. However, the outcome of that reconciliation process remains uncertain.
The House bill recommends $219 billion for Research, Development, Test and Evaluation within DOD, essentially level with the administration’s request. The House bill also recommends $400 million for the Golden Dome missile defense project, with a request that the defense secretary submit an alternative plan for procuring munitions to support the missile defense initiative. The administration requested $17.5 billion for Golden Dome, the majority of which would have to be funded through reconciliation. The Senate has not yet published its companion bill, but the Senate Armed Services Committee is scheduled to begin its markup of the bill next week.
NSF slows research funds
The National Science Foundation reportedly placed holds on ongoing and new research funding for four top research universities for almost two months. Nature and the New York Times have since reported that some of that money has started flowing again following media inquiries. According to Nature, Duke, Harvard, Princeton, and Yale are among the universities affected by the freeze, and 85% of the affected proposals were in math, physical sciences, and engineering, including several related to quantum information science.
Also last week, the science advocacy group Grant Witness reported that 18 of the University of California, Berkeley’s NSF grants were “quietly” suspended in April because they allegedly failed to disclose foreign funding, though the affected researchers say they never received foreign funding.
Also on our radar
NSF published an RFI seeking input on the program design and topical focuses of its new Tech Accelerators initiative, which will create investor teams to in turn fund the commercialization of basic research in four technology areas: agriculture, materials, ocean, and scientific instrumentation.
JP Allain, who was appointed the inaugural director of DOE’s new Office of Fusion two months ago, is leaving the agency. DOE did not name a new director in the announcement. Allain served as DOE’s Fusion Energy Sciences associate director from 2023 to 2025.
Following reporting from Science that NIH is imposing stricter rules on foreign co-authorship, NIH announced that it has increased oversight of foreign collaborations but has not expanded its definition for “foreign components.”
A group of Democratic senators published a letter last week accusing the Trump administration of allowing cases to pile up at the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights.
NIST is renaming its Artificial Intelligence Safety Institution Consortium (AISIC) as the NIST Artificial Intelligence Consortium, which will now focus on “AI measurement, innovation and adoption.” The agency again invited organizations to submit letters of interest if they wish to collaborate.
Know of an opportunity for scientists to engage in science policy? Email us at fyi@aip.org.
Do you have a story to tell about how science policy is impacting you?
AIP’s research team is gathering first-hand accounts from scientists, engineers, students, and staff whose careers have been affected by policy and funding changes over the past year. Volunteers can submit their stories via this online form. Participants’ stories will be added to the Niels Bohr Library & Archives digital repository as searchable, citable records — with options for anonymity and a five-year embargo period. Read more about the initiative here.
Around the Web
News and views currently in circulation. Links do not imply endorsement.