Stand Up for Science Rallies 31,000 Comments Against 411-Page OMB Grants Rule
Updated
Updated · The Guardian · Jun 19
Stand Up for Science Rallies 31,000 Comments Against 411-Page OMB Grants Rule
3 articles · Updated · The Guardian · Jun 19
Summary
Nearly 31,000 public comments had been filed by Thursday against the Trump administration’s proposed OMB rule, as Stand Up for Science lobbied more than 30 lawmakers and prepared possible legal challenges before the 13 July deadline.
The 411-page proposal, issued on 29 May by OMB Director Russ Vought, would shift control of federal research and other discretionary grants to political appointees and require awards to advance the president’s policy priorities.
Stand Up for Science says its review of about 10,000 NIH-funded clinical trials found nearly half could be halted, including more than 1,000 cancer studies, because of banned terms or international collaboration.
Colette Delawalla, the group’s 32-year-old founder and an Emory researcher, says the fight has widened beyond science to grants affecting veterans’ housing, small businesses and medical devices, framing the rule as a broader threat to democratic governance.
If political priorities can halt active research, what safeguards remain for long-term scientific discovery in America?
With thousands of medical trials at risk, what does the future of American healthcare and innovation look like?
31,000 Comments and Counting: Widespread Backlash Against OMB’s 411-Page Rule Threatening U.S. Scientific Independence
Overview
As the urgent July 13, 2026 deadline for public comments on the OMB’s sweeping 411-page rule approaches, opposition is rapidly intensifying. Nearly 31,000 comments have already been submitted, showing widespread public concern and unprecedented mobilization from both the public and scientific communities. Groups like Stand Up for Science are leading efforts to organize and amplify these voices. Critics, such as Colette Delawalla, warn that the rule poses an existential threat, describing it as a '$1.5tn slush fund' and 'fascism.' This strong backlash highlights deep fears about the rule’s impact on scientific independence and democratic principles.