Scientists Rally Against OMB Proposal to Politicize Federal Grant Decisions

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has drafted a rule that would replace peer-review panels with political appointees in agencies that award federal research grants. The draft, released in May 2025, is justified by OMB Director Russell Vought—identified as the architect of the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025—as a response to what he describes as “woke” spending under the Biden administration. The public comment period closes at midnight on July 13, 2025, after a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing on June 25, 2025, in the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Scientific American

An analysis of roughly 300,000 comments shows 94 % oppose the change. Hundreds of thousands of scientists, including Nobel laureates, have warned that the rule would “politicize which studies get funded and would profoundly harm American science.” Prominent organizations such as the American Meteorological Society and the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) argue the proposal would restrict communication, limit international collaboration, and jeopardize public-health advances. The AACR notes that the current grant-review system has helped reduce the U.S. cancer death rate by 35 % since 1991, saving more than 4.8 million lives.

Scientific American

OMB officials contend that recent federal awards have been used to advance a “woke” agenda, implying that a politically guided review would align research funding with administration priorities. The rule is presented as a cost-saving measure within the Trump administration’s broader effort to trim government spending.

Scientific American

• “destroy the leadership of the U.S. in fundamental science.” — Wolfgang Ketterle, Nobel-Prize-winning physicist, MIT

Scientific American

• “Having grants pass a political litmus test will destroy science.” — Nobel laureate, unnamed in source

Scientific American

• “terrifies me.” — Elizabeth Jacobs, professor emerita, University of Arizona, Defend Public Health

Scientific American

• “ Martin Chalfie, a 2008 laureate in chemistry, said in his own comment that the American scientific bureaucratic infrastructure in place since World War II “increased lifespan and healthspan, and has enabled discoveries that will continue to benefit the country.” — Martin Chalfie, Nobel laureate in chemistry

Scientific American

These statements underscore the scientific community’s view that the proposed OMB rule threatens the independence and effectiveness of U.S. research.

Scientific American