The White House has quietly rolled out a sweeping overhaul of the federal grant system that would place political appointees in control of vetting every dollar sent to universities and nonprofits, sparking urgent warnings from researchers and scientific leaders.
A 400-page proposal published Friday by the Office of Management and Budget would require all federal grants to "demonstrably advance the president's policy priorities" under criteria defined by Donald Trump. The document claims Biden-era grants promoted a "woke policy agenda" that "wasted a great amount of taxpayer resources" and damaged public trust in government.
The proposal was published without fanfare or press release, but by Tuesday afternoon, more than 3,000 public comments had flooded in, nearly all expressing alarm at the shift.
Scientists and academics describe the plan as a fundamental threat to how research funding works. Andy McCammon, a chemistry professor at UC San Diego and member of the editorial board of the National Academy of Sciences, called it "a devastating blow to American science" that would bypass peer review in favor of political oversight and allow grants to be terminated "at any time, for any reason."
McCammon warned that the move could push talented researchers to other countries like China, undermining American scientific leadership at a critical moment.
The new rules would codify executive orders from Trump's second term that bar funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion activities and programs related to LGBTQ+ issues. Political appointees would gain power to cancel any grant they deem not "in the national interest." The changes would also explicitly prohibit federal funds from supporting disparate-impact studies or litigation that examines whether policies harm people of color or other protected groups.
Amy Sharma, executive director of Science for Georgia, described how grant terminations have already begun under what she called informal enforcement. "Some underpaid intern did Ctrl-F on every single grant" from the National Institutes of Health, she said, searching for words like "equality," "diversity," and "gender identity," then yanking those grants.
While some recipients with political connections managed to recover funds, Sharma said most researchers have retreated into silence. "No one is talking about it because people like to be employed," she said.
The practical consequences for research could be severe. Barbara Nikolajczyk, a University of Kentucky professor studying obesity and diabetes, pointed out that the proposal requires researchers to list every conference they plan to attend over a five-year grant period. "If you're really doing the same science that you put in a grant application six years ago for a five-year grant, you're not moving forward quickly enough," she said. The requirement that grants meet original specifications would stifle innovation and flexibility, she argued, adding layers of bureaucratic approval that slow scientific progress.
The proposal also restricts collaboration with foreign researchers and institutions, a change that has already begun driving some American scientists to seek opportunities abroad, according to Nikolajczyk.
Currently, federal grants go through a merit-based process where panels of PhD-level subject matter experts evaluate applications against published criteria. Under the new system, political officials appointed by the president would override scientific judgment entirely. The rules would operate as binding regulations rather than guidance, centralizing grant administration under OMB Director Russell Vought. The formal rule-making process began Friday with publication in the federal register and the changes are scheduled to take effect in October.
Sharma, who previously served on National Science Foundation grant panels, likened the shift to ideological censorship. "It's like, well, Stalin doesn't believe in this, so we're not going to give money for this anymore," she said. "It's killing academic freedom."
The White House deferred questions about the proposal to the OMB, which did not immediately respond.
Author James Rodriguez: "Handing grant decisions to political appointees doesn't fix waste, it weaponizes science."
Comments