WASHINGTON D.C. — The White House Office of Management and Budget proposed new rules for the awarding and oversight of federal grants. The changes, published on May 29, would convert existing grant policies from nonbinding guidance into enforceable regulations and increase political oversight of scientific research funding.

The proposed rule specifies that government funds can only be spent on projects aligned with administration policies and priorities. It mandates that a political appointee review grant decisions to ensure awards demonstrably advance the President's policy goals. The rule also restricts research topics, limits U.S. scientists’ ability to collaborate with international colleagues, and makes it easier for the government to suspend or cancel grants at any time. Additionally, the proposal prohibits the promotion of theories of disparate-impact liability.

The Office of Management and Budget, the largest office within the Executive Office of the President, stated the changes are intended to improve transparency, accountability, and oversight for federal awards. It added that the revisions ensure American tax dollars are not wasted or misused. The proposal opens a 45-day public comment period that closes on July 13. By midday Thursday, the Federal Register had logged nearly 100,000 comments about the rule.

Critics argue the changes undermine scientific independence. The Planetary Society stated the proposed rule changes would “all but end the use of scientific merit in the selection of grants and programs across the government.” California’s congressional delegation sent a letter asking the Office of Management and Budget to rescind the proposal.

Dr. Eric Rafla-Yuan, a psychiatrist who practices at the Veterans Administration and San Diego County’s psychiatric hospital and chairs the Committee to Protect Public Mental Health, said, “This touches all parts of American life.” He added, “Control of how all of the federal grants and programs are funded will fall under a small group of highly partisan individuals who would have very few limits on how they spend these billions of taxpayer dollars.”

Joanne Padrón Carney, chief government relations officer for the American Association for the Advancement of Science, emphasized the global nature of scientific work. “Science is a global enterprise,” she said. “Especially in biomedical and public health fields, diseases don’t care about borders or government policies.”

Why It Matters

Federal grants support research and programs across health, environment, education, and national security. Shifting grant decisions from scientific review to political criteria could alter which projects receive funding and limit international scientific cooperation. The high volume of public comments—nearly 100,000 in just days—reflects broad concern among researchers, institutions, and lawmakers about the long-term impact on evidence-based policymaking and U.S. scientific leadership.