White House Plans New Rules for Political Control Over Research Grants
TL/DR –
The White House has proposed new regulations that would give political appointees final approval on federal research grants, a move that would centralize control of government funding within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The proposed rules target the federal grant review process, potentially making it opaque, and replace the expertise of scientific review committees with political appointees. Critics argue the proposal, which is open for public comment for 45 days, undermines the scientific system and the scientific merit of grant proposals.
White House Proposes New Rules Granting Political Appointees Control Over Research Grants
Published on May 28, 2026 | 2 min read Add Us On Google 
The White House has proposed new rules granting political appointees final approval on federal research grants. If enacted, these regulations, drafted by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), will render the federal research grant review process less transparent. By Dan Vergano, edited by Claire Cameron.
The 412-page proposal, set to be published officially in the Federal Register, would consolidate OMB control over government funds, including scientific research grants. The OMB, led by Russell Vought, was integral to the formulation of the Trump administration’s Project 2025 plan. The new rules would obligate political appointees within scientific agencies to approve all research awards in accordance with presidential priorities, including those related to race and gender.
The proposed regulations indicate that “senior appointees must conduct these reviews,” which is a departure from previous practice where apolitical expert committees approved grants. Colette Delawalla, founder of the science advocacy group Stand Up for Science, criticizes this as a form of government overreach, replacing expertise with political appointees and disconnecting the U.S. from global scientific endeavors.
The proposal follows an executive order released by the White House calling for such changes, which alarmed lawmakers and scientists last year. Some experts raised concerns that political appointees, such as those at the NIH, may not be adequately capable of judging the scientific merit of grant proposals. The new rules would give these appointees the discretion to terminate grants based on agency judgment.
The proposed changes won’t affect the overhead cost rates for research grants, which the administration unsuccessfully tried to cap at 15 percent last year. However, institutions with lower indirect cost rates would be favored. The public is given 45 days to comment on the proposal, a timeframe that some, like Matt Owens, president of the Council on Governmental Relations, see as unusually short for such sweeping changes.
Support our award-winning journalism by subscribing. You can help ensure our continued coverage of impactful stories about world-shaping discoveries and ideas.
##### It’s Time to Stand Up for Science
If this article has piqued your interest, consider subscribing to Scientific American. As an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, your support helps uphold our commitment to meaningful research and discovery. The value of science must not go unrecognized, especially now. Subscribing will provide essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can’t-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world’s best writing and reporting. Make a difference today!
—
Read More US Political News