Scientists and research advocates are warning that a proposed Trump administration rule could reshape how federal grants are awarded and potentially disrupt large parts of the U.S. research system.
The proposal, introduced by Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought on May 29, would give political appointees greater control over federal grants, including research funding. Critics say the rule could shift decisions away from scientific experts and subject-matter reviewers and toward administration policy priorities.
The rule has alarmed groups such as Stand Up for Science, whose founder, Colette Delawalla, has been meeting with members of Congress to push back against the proposal. Delawalla argues that the rule could affect not only scientific research, but also a wide range of federal discretionary grants.
According to critics, the proposal includes language that would restrict grants that promote what the administration describes as “anti-American values.” It also says discretionary awards should demonstrably advance the president’s policy priorities. Opponents argue that such language could make politically sensitive or internationally collaborative research vulnerable to cancellation.
TRENDING TODAY
One major concern is the potential impact on clinical trials. Stand Up for Science said it reviewed about 10,000 National Institutes of Health-funded trials and estimated that nearly half could be at risk under the proposed rule. The group said affected research could include cancer trials, pediatric studies, veterans’ health research, suicide prevention work, heart disease studies and diabetes trials.
The group also warned that some projects could be blocked because they involve international collaboration or include language related to equity, public health or other subjects that may be politically targeted.
Supporters of stronger executive control may argue that elected administrations should have more authority over how federal money is spent. But scientists and grant experts say federal research funding has traditionally relied on peer review and expert evaluation to protect scientific integrity and avoid political interference.
Former NIH program official Elizabeth Ginexi, who has criticized the rule, described it as an unusually broad attack on research funding. She and other critics argue that the measure could discourage scientists from studying topics that are politically controversial, even when the research has clear public benefits.
The proposal has also drawn concern because federal grants support far more than laboratory science. Research advocates say grants help fund healthcare programs, veterans’ services, small businesses, housing programs, public health studies and international safety coordination.
Delawalla’s group is urging members of the public to submit comments before the federal government’s July 13 deadline. As of Thursday morning, the OMB page for the rule had received nearly 31,000 comments.
Stand Up for Science is also exploring possible legal responses if the rule is finalized. The organization recently held a virtual meeting with attorneys across the country to discuss potential strategies.
The fight highlights a larger debate over who should control federal research money: political appointees carrying out the president’s agenda, or scientific experts using peer-review standards.
For researchers, the concern is that the proposal could make scientific funding less stable and more political. For the administration, the rule appears to be part of a broader effort to align federal spending more closely with its policy goals.
Why It Matters
The rule matters because federal grants support major parts of the U.S. science, health and public-service system. If political appointees gain more control over which projects receive funding, critics warn that important research could be delayed, narrowed or cancelled.
The concern is especially strong for clinical trials and public health research, where disruption could affect patients, families and long-term medical progress.
What Comes Next
The public comment period runs until July 13. Scientists, universities, advocacy groups and legal experts are expected to keep pushing back before the administration decides whether to finalize the rule.
If the rule moves forward, opponents may challenge it in court and pressure Congress to intervene.
