Science Is Under Attack. But Scientists Are Speaking Up

On May 29, 2026, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) at the White House introduced a proposed revision to the Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance, often referred to as “the OMB rule.” This proposal aims to place significant aspects of scientific research in the United States under the influence of the Trump administration. It seeks to achieve this by granting political appointees unprecedented authority over the allocation of billions of dollars in federal research funding. If implemented, this rule would revolutionize the scientific grant-making process, sidelining peer review and basing funding decisions on alignment with the White House’s political priorities. Such a shift would prioritize political loyalty over merit, jeopardizing the independence of federal science.

The OMB rule would also entail:

• Denial of grants that do not align with the administration’s beliefs
• Termination of grants if their results prove politically inconvenient
• Creation of barriers to international scientific collaboration
• Funding decisions based on applicants’ history and organizational “affiliations”
• Mandatory pre-approval for scientific conferences, society memberships, and publications

According to Alexa Dietrich, research director for the Center for Science and Democracy, the OMB rule would fundamentally alter U.S. science. Political appointees lacking specific expertise or experience would have significant influence over funding decisions for initiatives like vaccine development, water quality research, assessments of air pollution impacts, or advancing healthcare for LGBTQ+ populations. Additionally, the bureaucratic requirements in this rule would impose stringent constraints on the scientific community and institutions. Moreover, the rule’s impact extends beyond research funding to encompass all discretionary federal funding, including natural disaster relief programs.

We took a stand

The Union of Concerned Scientists strongly opposes these restrictions and the politicization of federal research funding. We have articulated our opposition to this damaging rule in a public comment letter.

We argue that this policy threatens scientific discovery and the entire scientific research infrastructure, extending beyond the federal government. Through various agencies and programs, the U.S. distributes billions of dollars annually, and these funding decisions significantly influence the trajectory of science nationally and globally.

• Under this rule, current peer review panels, equipped with specific expertise, conflict of interest rules, and a mission to advance science, would be relegated to an advisory role for decisions made by political appointees. These appointees primarily aim to support an administration’s policies. The rule mandates funding restrictions based on ideological standards lacking scientific grounding. While the administration intends to evaluate funding based on a binary gender concept, we detail how this restriction contradicts scientific evidence. Additionally, the administration has made clear its intention to exclude science addressing diversity, equity, and inclusion, disregarding clear facts and degrading evidence-based policy in the United States to the detriment of all Americans.
• The proposed rule contradicts its stated goals of transparency and efficiency, imposing subjective limitations and hurdles that create uncertainty for the scientific community. The administration’s misleadingly named “Gold Standard Science” guidelines grant political appointees broad authority to reject research on weak pretexts. The rule not only represents poor policy but also violates the constitutional separation of powers by transferring spending and policymaking authority from the Legislative Branch to the Executive Branch, encroaching on Congress’s power of the purse. An administration is meant to implement the law, not create it.
• Finally, the proposed rule would infringe on the First Amendment by conditioning funding on alignment with the President’s views, creating a chilling effect within the scientific community. Good science is driven by curiosity and the desire to understand the real world, not by allegiance to a political leader’s whims.

In conclusion, we and our partners agree: “the proposed rule would violate the Administrative Procedure Act because it infringes on constitutional rights, exceeds OMB’s statutory authority, and is substantively arbitrary and capricious.”

The scientific community spoke up

After the OMB published this rule, it was posted in the Federal Register, allowing 45 days for public comment. At UCS, we have been mobilizing our supporters to oppose this rule, including disseminating a public comment guide to assist people in advocating against it.

We are not alone in our concerns about how the proposed OMB rule affects science.

By the end of the public comment period, the rule had received nearly half a million public comments (public docket, OMB-2026-0034), with almost unanimous opposition to the proposal. The AAAS and numerous scientific and research organizations from fields such as physics, chemistry, biology, and aerospace have voiced their opposition through comments, guides, or blogs. Comments have also come from associations of cancer researchers, pharmacologists, and from social scientists to mathematicians and astronomers. We have seen concerns from historians to researchers studying marine mammals. We also observe concern and participation from wildlife health providers and scientists, as well as human health experts, including those studying the eyes, heart, brain, and lungs. The flood of public comments shows “overwhelming and lopsided” opposition to this proposal from individuals who understand science best. Reviewing these comments from a diverse group of scientific organizations and associations reminds me why I pursued a career in science and continue to seek knowledge and publish findings. Science is about discovery and learning, not merely knowing. Losing the ability to test hypotheses that may not align with a political agenda or present results that may be politically inconvenient would blind us to the real world and hinder our ability to solve both current and future problems. If this rule were enacted, the administration could reject research grant applications on crucial issues like vaccine safety, climate science, and LGBTQ+ health, all of which have faced criticism from President Trump and his allies.

Keep advocating for independent science

Many members of the U.S. Congress are also questioning and opposing the OMB rule, as it could represent further centralization of power in the President’s hands, violating democratic principles in the Constitution. Just as science should be informed by diverse perspectives, government decision-making should be democratic, participatory, and accountable to the people.

Many individuals have engaged and pushed back against the OMB rule, but it is crucial to continue resisting this administration’s numerous attacks on science. It is essential to prevent further harm and pursue long-term solutions.

This is why we at UCS support the Scientific Integrity Act. Recently reintroduced in the U.S. Senate, this bill aims to establish stronger safeguards to protect federal scientists from political interference, mandate scientific integrity policies for agencies, and ensure that government decisions are based on evidence rather than political agendas.

At a time when independent science is under significant and growing pressure, Congress must act swiftly to advance the Scientific Integrity Act and reinforce all available protections. This legislation provides watchdogs, courts, and the public with the tools to combat the politicization of federal science. Please show your support for the Scientific Integrity Act. You can use this link to contact your Representatives in the House, and this link to contact your Senators.