The Office of Management and Budget is proposing sweeping changes to federal grantmaking that threaten scientific progress and our nation's economic competitiveness. Driven by OMB Director Russel Vought's "Unitary Executive" philosophy, the proposed rule shifts grantmaking decisions from nonpartisan expert and career staff to political appointees with little expertise. Key concerns include denying funding based on the research topic or a researcher's organizational affiliations, prohibiting international collaboration, and allowing funded grants to be terminated without cause. Federal grantmaking to states and municipalities to build or repair infrastructure and address other priorities will also be politicized in ways that adversely affect business competiveness at home and abroad.
The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is proposing sweeping changes to its guidance on how government agencies assess, select, and oversee federal grants and cooperative agreements. Based on its likely effects, the rule could inflict lasting harm on our nation’s scientific progress, global competitiveness, economy, health, infrastructure and national security. American businesses, large and small, should quickly familiarize themselves with its provisions and make their concerns known to OMB, the White House and the U.S. Congress.
The driving force behind this effort is Russell Vought, President Trump’s director of OMB. A noted advocate of the “Unitary Executive theory,” Vought believes that Article II of the Constitution vests all executive power directly in the president, giving him absolute control over the work of federal agencies, civil servants and the federal budget. In addition, Vought was a key architect of Project 2025. He authored a section of its summary report and created a "transition playbook" to guide its quick implementation. The playbook remains confidential.
The preamble to OMB’s proposed rule signals its intent. Elizabeth Ginexi, an NIH program officer for 24 years, notes that it “relies heavily on Heritage Foundation reports, partisan Senate committee documents, and White House fact sheets, rather than independent scientific or administrative assessments. It characterizes decades of peer-reviewed research on climate, public health, equity, and international collaboration as “woke,” “neo-Marxist,” “anti-American,” or “divisive ideology.” It treats the scientific community’s professional infrastructure, including conferences, journals, international partnerships, and open access publishing, as wasteful overhead to be controlled or eliminated.”
Among the rule’s many troubling sections, five stand out as particularly harmful:
For decades, Congress appropriated funds to federal science agencies based on the expectation that grantmaking would utilize a merit-based, expert-review process to ensure that it is “open, fair, reliable, and free of political influence, favoritism, or retaliation,” according to the nonpartisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
OMB’s proposed rule shifts decisionmaking authority from federal experts, grant review committees and career administrative staff to political appointees with little expertise. To emphasize the point, political appointees will be forbidden to defer to peer reviewers or routinely ratify their recommendations. Instead, grants must “demonstrably advance the President’s policy priorities.” Any proposal deemed to “promote anti-American values,” however loosely that is defined, can be dismissed out of hand.
Science doesn’t change depending on who is in office. If merit is replaced by political ideology, junk science will prevail. America’s post-WWII leadership in science and technology will be lost, we will struggle to compete in the global marketplace and our economy, quality of life and national security will decline.
Under this section, grant applicants affiliated with one or more organizations that “advocate for the overthrow of the United States Government” or “undermine public safety or national security” may be barred from consideration. Given OMB’s expansive framing of topics that constitute “anti-American activity,” this provision could be invoked to exclude applicants who support mainstream environmental, public health or civil rights organizations.
This section would severely disrupt international partnerships that have been foundational to U.S. leadership in multiple fields.