Trump Administration Proposes Rule to Increase Political Control Over Science Funding

The Trump administration is pursuing a bureaucratic rule change that could allow for greater political influence over billions of dollars in federal research grants. The proposed rule, published in the Federal Register on May 29, would give political appointees more decision-making power over research grants, potentially affecting fields including public health, vaccine testing, biotechnology, social and behavioral science, and climate science.

Critics argue that the change would undermine the peer-review system, which has been the gold standard for evaluating research proposals since the post-World War II era. Under the new rule, political appointees—who may not be scientists—would be required to review grants before awards are made, effectively giving them veto power over projects that have passed scientific peer review.

"This would be the end of American science as we know it," said Cole Donovan, a policy analyst from the group Stand Up for Science, which has been organizing protests against the change. Historian Tim Snyder, who studies the former Soviet Union, compared the proposal to "late Stalinism," while the Infectious Diseases Society of America stated that the rule would "replace scientific merit with McCarthy era politics."

The rule change was proposed by the White House's Office of Management and Budget (OMB), led by Director Russell Vought. An OMB spokesperson argued that it would "improve the ability of agencies to identify and respond to waste, fraud, and abuse." However, critics say there is no evidence that the existing peer-review system needs such sweeping changes.

In addition to increasing political authority, the proposed rule would ban research on diversity, equity, and inclusion or gender as grant conditions, and place broad prohibitions on international scientific collaborations. The rule is open for public comment until July 13, after which OMB will decide whether to issue a final version.

Donovan anticipates it will "almost certainly" be challenged in court.