An old wooden guillotine used for executions. This is what the proposed OMB rule will do to ALL Federal grants
getty
Over the last year, the Trump administration has significantly reduced many scientific research grants, labeling them as “wasteful” or overly “woke.” The administration’s objective is to dismantle the diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility priorities set by the Biden administration. Kelly Fleming’s recent article explores the impacts of these changes on research.
The Office of Management and Budget’s new proposal, rule “2 CFR Part 200,” intends to broaden these cuts beyond scientific research, affecting daily life. This proposal aims to solidify these cuts into regulations, impacting every federal grant to states, cities, local agencies, and nonprofits nationwide. Elizabeth Ginexi noted, “This new OMB Rule Is Bigger Than Science—Much Bigger.”
Every federal grant will be scrutinized by a political appointee, bypassing the traditional peer review by field experts. The intention is to ensure grants align with what Trump deems “American.” Decisions will be subject to political scrutiny. The OMB proposal even allows the termination of existing awards if they no longer align with federal agency priorities or the government’s interests.
Melinda Rostal, DVM, MPH, PhD, was involved in researching Rift Valley Fever in Africa with EcoHealth Alliance. She warned that the virus poses a threat to the Western Hemisphere, potentially becoming the next Zika virus with unforeseen birth defects like microcephaly. The funding for EcoHealth was completely cut, causing the agency to shut down. Rostal describes this as the “first shot across the bow of science” in international collaborative research.
Though Rostal now receives some overseas funding, she focuses on advocacy with Defend Public Health to raise awareness about the proposed OMB rule. She expressed urgency, saying, “I’m desperate to do this, because for my family, my friends, everyone, these regulations put our entire community under threat. It risks legalized, politicized extortion.”
These rules are likely to impact your health and community’s quality of life. To voice your concerns, write a comment in the Federal Register and call your local representatives before July 13.
Medicaid
In FY 2024, Medicaid spending reached $919 billion, with the Federal government contributing nearly two-thirds, or $594 billion.
The majority of Medicaid funding supports the elderly and disabled. It also funds over 40% of births nationwide, especially in rural areas. Pregnancy-related mortality for Black women is over three times higher than for White women, and women of color often receive less prenatal care and face poorer birth outcomes. DOGE reduced grants affecting women by at least $3 billion, including research on racial disparities in pregnancy outcomes. Further cuts are probable if the OMB proposal is approved, as grants will need to align more closely with the administration’s agenda.
Is allocating additional resources for the impoverished and disadvantaged a matter of DEI, or is it a wise investment in our future?
Mental Health And Drug Crisis Interventions
According to Ginexi, this OMB rule will create an “impossible conflict” for some organizations, as the populations they serve are those equity-focused programs aim to support. A drug crisis grant to a county in Maine highlighted that the geography, economic barriers, and social support systems are isolating for youth in large generational fishing families. The county also has a significant number of LGBTQ youth. Would this grant be renewed under the new rules?
Likewise, mental health programs targeting homeless individuals or people of color who need additional support due to systemic disparities could be denied under political appointees’ reviews.
Health Disparities
Beyond pregnancy outcomes and mental health needs, many illnesses have racial or economic disparities. These include asthma and lung diseases linked to pollution in low-income, Black neighborhoods, climate change effects, and sexually transmitted diseases like HIV.
The OMB proposal’s section 200.218 prohibits funding for research supporting “Disparate-Impact Liability.” Nancy Krieger, a social epidemiologist at Harvard, summed up the proposal as “empowering the belief that power, not evidence, should determine which scientific research is deemed worthy of funding.” She also observed that cutting grants poses a threat to the economic health of entire communities impacted by the research.
Other Health Effects
This OMB proposal also affects funding for public health, housing, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) Nutrition. All these cuts will impact people’s health and care costs, putting rural hospitals at risk of closure.
Other OMB Targets
The OMB proposal targets grants for schools, local governments, workforce programs, broadband, transportation, road construction and repair, and community nonprofits. Section § 200.321 subjects minority-, women-, and veteran-owned businesses to DEI-related scrutiny.
It’s alarming how extensive the OMB’s reach is and the lack of media coverage. For instance, flooding last year severely impacted Westernport in Allegany County and nearby Garrett County, Maryland. FEMA estimated $33.7 million in damages. Despite these counties’ strong support for Trump (Trump won Allegany by 40 points), a disaster declaration was denied, and FEMA called the relief request “unwarranted.” Meanwhile, FEMA approved $11.7 million in aid for two West Virginia counties soon after. Some speculate the denial resulted from tensions between Trump and Maryland Gov. Wes Moore over National Guard deployments in Baltimore. Ultimately, under Section § 200.340, any grant can be terminated by a political appointee.
What Can You Do?
If you have concerns, consider submitting a comment here to the Federal Register before July 13. Your comment need not be elaborate. Explain how these changes will affect you or your community. If possible, cite specific provisions (listed in the Federal Register’s table of contents), such as:
§200.340 — Discretionary Termination, because a political appointee decides to do so.
§200.202 — Program Goals Must Align with Administration Priorities
§200.206 — Denial Based on Organizational Affiliations, or “un-American” views
§200.300 — DEI and Related Prohibitions
§200.218 — Disparate Impact Research and Programming
§200.450 — Issue Advocacy Prohibition
Do NOT cut and paste. Your comment must be unique or will be cut by AI.
State what you want the OMB to do—be it retract a specific provision or not finalize the rule.
