By the authority granted to me as President under the Constitution and the laws of the United States, I hereby issue this order to refine the process of Federal grantmaking and put an end to the egregious squandering of taxpayer dollars:
Section 1. Purpose. Every dollar spent by the Government should serve to enhance the well-being of Americans or promote national interests. Unfortunately, this principle is often overlooked. Federal grants have been funneled into initiatives such as drag shows in Ecuador, the training of doctoral candidates in critical race theory, and the development of transgender sexual education programs. A 2024 study revealed that over 25% of new National Science Foundation (NSF) grants were allocated toward diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, alongside other far-left agendas. Shockingly, these grants have supported educators who promote Marxist ideologies, class struggle narratives, and other anti-American sentiments, all under the guise of rigorous academic inquiry.
The detrimental effects of misguided Federal grants extend beyond the promotion of questionable ideologies. For instance, a hazardous laboratory in Wuhan, China—widely believed to be the origin of the COVID-19 pandemic—received funding from the National Institutes of Health for gain-of-function research. Additionally, the NSF has poured millions into developing AI-driven social media censorship tools, which directly challenge free speech. Grants have also been awarded to NGOs providing services to illegal immigrants, exacerbating the border crisis and jeopardizing national safety, as well as to organizations acting against American interests internationally.
Even projects receiving Federal funding that appear beneficial often lack effective oversight. A significant number of outcomes from federally funded scientific research projects have proven irreproducible by external researchers. Even institutions like Harvard and Stanford, once bastions of American academia, have seen senior researchers resign amid allegations of data manipulation. Alarmingly, a large portion of Federal grants for university-led research is siphoned off to cover administrative expenses rather than advancing groundbreaking scientific endeavors.
The grant review process itself further undermines taxpayer interests. Crafting effective grant applications is notoriously convoluted, favoring applicants who can afford legal and technical experts, thereby perpetuating non-essential functions. Moreover, there is a glaring lack of interagency collaboration and expert review, leading to unnecessary duplication of efforts. Consequently, outstanding proposals are frequently overlooked, while unfocused research receives funding with little social utility.
In summary, there is a profound need to bolster oversight, coordination, and efficiency within agency grantmaking processes to rectify these issues, prevent their recurrence, and enhance accountability for public fund utilization. The Government acts as a steward of taxpayer revenue, and agencies must treat it with the respect it merits.
Sec. 2. Definitions. For the purposes of this order:
(a) The term “agency” refers to the definition provided in section 551 of title 5, United States Code, but specifically includes only those agencies with statutory authority to award, offer, or manage Federal grants, excluding the Executive Office of the President or any of its components.
(b) The term “agency head” designates the top-ranking official(s) of an agency, such as the Secretary, Administrator, Chairman, Director, Commissioners, or Board of Directors, unless otherwise specified in this order.
(c) The term “Director” refers to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
(d) The term “discretionary award” or “discretionary grant” refers to a grant as defined in 2 CFR 200.1. This excludes programs where the recipient has a statutory entitlement to funds, such as block grants or those awarded based on statutory formulas or disaster recovery grants.
(e) The term “funding opportunity announcement” signifies a “notice of funding opportunity” as defined in 2 CFR 200.1, relating to a discretionary award.
(f) The term “grant” encompasses any “grant agreement or grant” as defined in 2 CFR 200.1, “cooperative agreement” as defined in 2 CFR 200.1, or any similar financial assistance award, including foreign assistance awards.
(g) The term “regulation” signifies an agency statement of general or specific applicability intended to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy, or detail procedural or practice requirements of an agency, which includes regulations, interpretative rules, and policy statements.
(h) The term “senior appointee” refers to individuals appointed by the President, non-career members of the Senior Executive Service, or employees holding a Senior Level, Scientific and Professional, or Grade 15 position in Schedule C of the excepted service.
Sec. 3. Strengthening Accountability for Agency Grantmaking. (a) Each agency head shall promptly appoint a senior appointee responsible for establishing a process to review new funding opportunity announcements and discretionary grants to ensure they align with agency priorities and national interests. This review process will not guarantee any specific level of review or consideration for funding applicants, except as mandated by law. The review process shall, at a minimum, include:
(i) approval of agency funding opportunity announcements by one or more senior appointees or their designees;
(ii) continued coordination with OMB;
(iii) subject-matter expert review as identified by the agency head or their designee, as appropriate to the subject matter of the announcements;
(iv) review of funding opportunity announcements and related forms to ensure they contain only necessary requirements for adequate application evaluation, written in plain language to minimize the need for legal or technical expertise in application drafting;
(v) interagency coordination to assess whether the subject matter of a particular funding opportunity announcement has been previously addressed by another agency announcement, and if so, whether one should be modified or withdrawn to promote consistency and eliminate redundancy;
(vi) for scientific research discretionary grants, review by at least one subject-matter expert in the relevant field, who may be a member of the grant review panel, the program officer, or an external expert; and
(vii) pre-issuance review of discretionary awards to ensure compliance with applicable law, agency priorities, and national interests, which will involve in-person or virtual discussions of applications by grant review panels or program offices with a senior appointee or their designee.
(b) Agency heads shall designate one or more senior appointees to conduct an annual review of discretionary awards for alignment with agency priorities and substantial progress. This review will incorporate an accountability mechanism for officials involved in selection and awarding.
(c) Until the process specified in subsection (a) is established, agencies are prohibited from issuing new funding opportunity announcements without the prior approval of the designated senior appointee, barring legal requirements.
Sec. 4. Considerations for Discretionary Awards. (a) Senior appointees and their designees must exercise independent judgment when reviewing funding opportunity announcements or discretionary awards, rather than merely ratifying or deferring to others’ recommendations.
(b) In reviewing and approving funding opportunity announcements and discretionary awards, and in formulating the review process outlined in section 3(a), senior appointees and their designees shall, where applicable and consistent with the law, apply the following principles, including in any scoring rubrics used to evaluate grant proposals:
(i) Discretionary awards must demonstrably advance the President’s policy priorities where applicable.
(ii) Discretionary awards will not fund or promote:
(A) racial preferences or discrimination by the grant recipient, including activities where race or proxies for race are used as selection criteria for employment or program participation;
(B) denial of the biological sex binary or the notion that sex is a fluid characteristic;
(C) illegal immigration; or
(D) initiatives that compromise public safety or promote anti-American values.
(iii) Awards should prioritize institutions with lower indirect cost rates, all else being equal.
(iv) Discretionary grants should be awarded to a diverse array of recipients rather than a select group of repeat applicants. Research grants should balance immediate, demonstrable outcomes with potential for long-term breakthroughs, per the funding opportunity announcement.
(v) Applicants must commit to adhering to administration policies and procedures regarding Gold Standard Science.
(vi) Discretionary awards must include clear success and progress benchmarks, with a commitment to achieving Gold Standard Science for relevant scientific research awards.
(vii) If institutional affiliation is considered, agencies should prioritize a commitment to rigorous, reproducible scholarship over historical reputation or perceived prestige, especially for science grants.
(c) Nothing in this order shall dissuade or hinder the use of peer review methods to evaluate proposals for discretionary awards or to inform agency decision-making, provided that peer review recommendations remain advisory and are not routinely ratified or treated as binding by senior appointees or their designees. Furthermore, nothing in this order shall be interpreted as creating rights to any specific level of review or consideration for funding applicants, except as consistent with applicable law.
Sec. 5. Revisions to the Uniform Guidance. (a) The Director shall revise the Uniform Guidance and other relevant guidelines to streamline application requirements and to clarify that all discretionary grants must allow for termination for convenience, particularly when an award no longer aligns with agency priorities or national interests, subject to appropriate exceptions for agreements related to international trade or certain acts like the CHIPS Act of 2022.
(b) The Director will further revise the Uniform Guidance to appropriately limit the use of discretionary grant funds for facility and administrative costs.
Sec. 6. Implementation and Termination Clauses. (a) Within 30 days of this order, each agency head shall review their standard grant terms and conditions and report to the Director detailing:
(i) whether the agency’s standard terms for discretionary awards permit termination for convenience and include provisions allowing the agency to terminate an award if it no longer meets program goals or agency priorities;
(ii) whether the agency’s standard terms for discretionary foreign assistance awards permit termination based on national interest; and
(iii) the approximate number of active discretionary awards at the agency and the percentage of funding obligated under those awards that includes termination provisions as described in subsection (i).
(b) Each agency head must, within legal limits and in accordance with relevant Executive Orders or Presidential directives, revise existing discretionary grant terms to permit immediate termination for convenience, or clarify that such termination is allowed if an award no longer advances agency priorities or national interests. This will be included in all future discretionary grants, and agency heads will take steps to amend all applicable regulations to require such terms.
(c) To the extent practicable and consistent with applicable law, agency heads should include terms in future discretionary grant agreements that:
(i) prohibit recipients from directly accessing general grant funds for specific projects without agency authorization;
(ii) require grantees to provide detailed written explanations for each drawdown request.
Sec. 7. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to limit or otherwise impact:
(i) the authority granted by law to any executive department or agency, or its head; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget regarding budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented in accordance with applicable law and subject to available appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to create any substantive or procedural rights enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its agencies, officers, employees, or agents, or any other individuals.
(d) Should any provision of this order, or its application to any person or circumstance, be deemed invalid, the remainder of this order and its provisions will not be affected.
(e) The costs associated with the publication of this order will be covered by the Office of Management and Budget.
DONALD J. TRUMP
THE WHITE HOUSE,
August 7, 2025.
