WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a 412-page proposal to revise federal financial assistance rules on May 29, 2026. The proposal would require political oversight of more than $1 trillion in federal grants across 42 federal agencies.

The OMB proposal remains open for public comments until July 13, 2026. Under the new rules, political appointees could review and veto any federal grant at any time for any reason. The proposal prohibits the use of federal grant funds for any mention of diversity, equity, and inclusion or gender ideology, while requiring all federal grants to align with the President's policy priorities.

Joanne Padrón Carney, chief government relations officer at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, said, "What OMB is recommending is that they change this from just a simple guidance to a regulatory policy." Carney added, "It puts in place a whole expansive authority over agencies and their procedures and their priorities when it comes to funding scientific research."

Colette Delawalla, founder and CEO of Stand Up for Science, said, "Everyone will be affected, not just scientists. Every community in the country." She also stated regarding the ability to publish work for public access using grant money, "It won't exist anymore."

The proposal restricts scientists from collaborating with colleagues in many other countries without approval and requires scientists to obtain preapproval to attend conferences. It also prevents researchers from using grant money to publish their work for public access. Jeremy Berg, former editor-in-chief of Science journals and former director of the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, said, "When you were just in basic science, there really wasn't much politics at all."

Berg described the current grant review process: "It's looked at by three scientists on a study section who read the proposal fairly carefully and write critiques, and then it's discussed at the study section meeting, and that gets a score based on that, and then that goes to advisory councils." Berg criticized the idea that agencies fund "neo-Marxist things," stating, "Saying that the NIH or NSF or whoever has been funding neo-Marxist things, that's not evidence. That's not a reason. That's nonsense." Congress has the authority to submit an objection that could prevent the rule change from going forward. The OMB is required to review and address all substantive public comments on the proposal.

Why It Matters

The proposal affects agencies including the Department of Education, Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of Housing and Urban Development, NASA, and Department of Health and Human Services. The increased political oversight and restrictions on grant funding could alter how research is conducted and disseminated, impacting both the scientific community and broader public access to scientific findings.

The changes could also set new precedents for how federal funds are directed, potentially aligning them more directly with executive priorities. Concerns have been raised about the potential for political influence in areas historically governed by scientific peer review and the impact on fields such as diversity and inclusion initiatives.