Mark Sykes Urges Withdrawal of OMB Grant Rule Changes After 45 Years in Federal Science
Updated
Updated · NASA Watch · Jun 10
Mark Sykes Urges Withdrawal of OMB Grant Rule Changes After 45 Years in Federal Science
1 articles · Updated · NASA Watch · Jun 10
Summary
Mark Sykes, a planetary scientist and former Planetary Science Institute CEO, said OMB’s proposed federal grant-rule overhaul should be rejected in its entirety, calling it politically driven and potentially devastating to U.S. science.
After 45 years working on federally funded research, he argued the changes would shift awards away from scientific merit toward presidential priorities, weaken peer review, and give political appointees excessive control over grant decisions.
He said several provisions would also burden multi-year NASA and NSF grants by tightening conference approvals, broadening grant termination powers, and restricting publication, journal subscriptions, and communication with the public.
Sykes warned vague limits on foreign collaboration, DEI-related work, and public messaging could disrupt international partnerships, reduce transparency, and expose researchers to arbitrary enforcement with long-lasting damage to American science.
If scientific merit is no longer the top priority, what new criteria will decide which research gets billions in federal funding?
With research funding tied to shifting political priorities, could a 'brain drain' of top scientific talent from the U.S. be imminent?
How will new restrictions on global partnerships affect America's leadership in tackling challenges like pandemics and climate change?
Trump Administration’s 2026 OMB Grant Rule: Scientific Community Warns of Unprecedented Political Control Over $200 Billion in Federal Research Funding
Overview
In June 2026, the scientific community responded with alarm to a proposed rule from the White House Office of Management and Budget that would give political appointees unprecedented control over federal research funding. The rule allows these appointees to review, approve, or terminate grants based on political priorities, bypassing the traditional expert peer review process. This move embeds political considerations directly into scientific decision-making, sparking fierce controversy and urgent calls from science advocacy groups for public comments. The proposal is widely seen as a threat to the independence and integrity of scientific research in the United States.