Trump Administration Proposes Rule Giving Political Appointees Final Authority Over Federal Research Grants

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released a 412-page draft that would require senior political appointees at agencies such as the NIH and NSF to approve all discretionary research awards and to terminate grants deemed misaligned with President Donald Trump’s priorities. The rule, rooted in an August executive order that ordered agencies to curb “woke” programs, targets billions of dollars in federal research funding.

Inside Higher Ed

OMB, led by Russell Vought, drafted the regulation; senior appointees become final sign-off authorities. The American Council on Education (ACE), represented by Sarah Spreitzer, and research universities are key stakeholders.

Inside Higher Ed

The proposal covers billions in discretionary awards and bans grants supporting “disparate impact liability theories,” DEI, gender ideology, child-sex-mutilation, voter-registration and issue-advocacy. It removes “Green New Scam” requirements, favors institutions with lower indirect-cost rates, and restricts publication and conference funding to case-by-case approval. It does not cap indirect-cost rates at 15 %.

Inside Higher Ed

OMB argues the rule restores accountability, citing “lack of transparency, oversight and ‘woke’ programs” that “wasted taxpayer resources and harmed public trust.” The draft requires agencies to conduct pre-issuance reviews to ensure compliance with law, agency priorities and the national interest.

Inside Higher Ed

Advocacy groups say the rule “replaces merit with loyalty,” creating a “political control apparatus” that could silence inconvenient research. Critics include Jules Barbati-Dajches (Union of Concerned Scientists), Elizabeth Ginexi (former NIH official) and Human Rights Campaign’s Laurel Powell. The administration frames the rule as an accountability measure; critics view it as politicization. OMB says overhead rates are unchanged, yet the rule favors lower indirect-cost institutions, creating ambiguity. The 45-day comment window is unusually brief.

Scientific American

• “Withholding public grants from programs that depend on them because you refuse to acknowledge the humanity of certain communities is not good government - it’s fascism,” — Laurel Powell, spokesperson, Human Rights Campaign

Associated Press

• “It replaces expertise with political appointees, globally decouples the U.S. and completely guts our scientific ecosystem.” — Colette Delawalla, founder, Stand Up for Science

Scientific American

• “It replaces scientific merit with a political loyalty test and could be used to silence research that is politically inconvenient to the administration.” — Jules Barbati-Dajches, Center for Science and Democracy, Union of Concerned Scientists

Scientific American

• “What OMB is proposing is not a reform of grants management. It is a complete political control apparatus layered over every stage of the federal science funding lifecycle,” — Elizabeth Ginexi, former NIH program official

Scientific American

• “The public has 45 days to comment on the proposed regulations—an unusually short time period for such wide-ranging changes, says Matt Owens, president of the Council on Government Relations, an organization that represents more than 150 research universities.” — Matt Owens, president, Council on Government Relations

Scientific American

The draft is open for public comment until mid-July. OMB and agencies will review input before a possible summer finalization, which could reshape federal grantmaking for research institutions, industry partners and collaborators.

Associated Press