White House proposes new rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants
These proposed Office of Management and Budget regulations would render the federal research grant review process opaque
White House Office of Management and Budget director Russell Vought.
Andrew Harnik/Getty Images
On Thursday, the White House unveiled draft regulations that could grant political appointees the ultimate authority over federal research grants and funding across various government agencies.
Set to be officially published in the Federal Register on Friday, this 412-page proposal seeks to centralize control of government fund allocations, including scientific research grants, under the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Russell Vought, who spearheaded the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 for the Trump administration, leads the OMB.
The proposal’s “Background” section claims, “Recent years have provided evidence of the need for meaningful reform in Federal grants administration,” while criticizing a perceived “woke” policy agenda under the Biden administration that purportedly favored certain identity groups. The new regulations would require political appointees at scientific agencies to approve research awards for alignment with presidential priorities, including those related to race and gender.
On supporting science journalism
If you’re enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
The proposal specifies that “senior appointees must conduct these reviews and apply specific principles when evaluating proposals,” marking a shift from the previous norm where apolitical expert review committees approved research grants.
According to the proposal, scientific peer review of research proposals, a longstanding standard for grant approval at institutions such as the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation, will remain advisory and not replace agency discretion.
Colette Delawalla, founder of the science advocacy group Stand Up for Science, states, “We warned of this exact form of government overreach in science a year ago. It replaces expertise with political appointees, globally decouples the U.S. and completely guts our scientific ecosystem.”
The OMB’s plan follows a previous executive order issued by the White House, which raised alarms among lawmakers and scientists last year. Experts expressed concerns that political appointees at agencies like the NIH, which awards tens of thousands of research grants annually, may lack the ability to assess grant proposals based on scientific merit. The executive order was perceived as a response to court rulings that declared the administration’s abrupt termination of thousands of grants illegal in its first year. The new rules would allow political appointees to terminate grants based on agency discretion, according to the proposal.
The proposed changes to federal grant rules do not affect the overhead cost rates for research grants, which the administration previously attempted to cap at 15 percent last year—an effort that Congress rejected. However, the proposal suggests favoring institutions with lower indirect cost rates.
The public has a 45-day window to comment on the proposed regulations, which Matt Owens, president of the Council on Government Relations, describes as unusually short for such extensive changes. His organization represents over 150 research universities.
Editor’s Note (5/28/26): This story is in development and may be updated.
It’s Time to Stand Up for Science
If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.
I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.
If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.
In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can’t-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world’s best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.
There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.
