Federal support of scientific research, under a merit system, has made the United States the world’s leader in medical breakthroughs and technology. That leadership is now under threat. A new federal policy would give political appointees authority to decide which research gets funded — based on ideology rather than scientific merit — and would constrain scientists’ ability to publish and share their findings. The proposed rules will limit the scope and quality of U.S. science and diminish its capacity to improve all our lives.
Most scientific research in the U.S. is supported by grants from federal agencies such as the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, NASA and others. Those grants flow largely to nonfederal organizations — universities, research institutes and local agencies. The University of Washington, for example, received $1.52 billion in federal grants in fiscal year 2023. The system for selecting grant recipients has been in place for decades and is grounded in peer review, a principle that puts funding decisions in the hands of practicing scientists and supports the most rigorous and impactful research.
A new federal policy proposed by the administration, however, would give political appointees power to make final decisions on grant awards. Under the proposed rules, grants would go to projects that “demonstrably advance the President’s policy priorities” — as determined by administration officials. The changes are spelled out in a 412-page memo from the Office of Management and Budget, “Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance” (OMB-2026-0034). The document contains rules that would profoundly undermine the quality and quantity of scientific discovery in the U.S.
The most consequential provision, Rule 200.205, would shift final grant-funding decisions to political actors. Under the current system, agencies convene peer review panels to evaluate applications and score them on merit. Reviewers are top experts drawn from academia and the private sector. These experts know the science; they understand the research costs, the common pitfalls, the specialized equipment needs, the ethical requirements for animal and human studies and the applicant’s qualifications. The reviewers are subject to strict conflict-of-interest rules and undergo training to avoid bias or favoritism. The result of peer review is a ranking of grants by expected impact: Will the research advance healthcare, environmental stewardship, public safety or other areas of the common good? This system has guaranteed the quality of U.S. scientific research for generations.
The new OMB rules would not eliminate peer review, but they would reduce it to an advisory function. Applications that don’t align with the current administration’s priorities could be denied without explanation — a provision that would drive away scientists on the verge of major discoveries. Nearly as damaging, Rule 200.206 would allow grant applicants to be denied funding based on their institution’s affiliations. Rule 200.461 eliminates routine grant funding for publication expenses, the standard mechanism for disseminating scientific findings. Additional provisions would require prior approval for presenting data at scientific conferences and impose broad restrictions on international scientific collaboration (Rule 200.220).
As an NIH-supported researcher at the University of Washington School of Medicine, I worry that these changes will harm my research on infectious diseases. Will my next grant application be rejected because my research focuses on diseases of poverty? Will my colleagues’ research on vaccine development be rejected for unexplained reasons? How do I counsel trainees who aspire to careers in medical research? Can they navigate a path to success when the existing merit system is co-opted by a political agenda? Can they develop careers when it becomes hard to publish manuscripts, attend scientific meetings, or collaborate with the best scientists in the world?
The proposed rules threaten to impose political and ideological shackles on U.S. science that could do profound and lasting damage. They should be rejected. The OMB rules don’t go in effect until October. Public comment is being accepted until July 13 at st.news/omb
