Scientists Flood OMB Research Rule With 100,000 Comments as Critics Warn of Politicized Grants
Updated
Updated · The New York Times · Jul 9
Scientists Flood OMB Research Rule With 100,000 Comments as Critics Warn of Politicized Grants
3 articles · Updated · The New York Times · Jul 9
Summary
Nearly 100,000 comments hit the Office of Management and Budget’s proposed research-funding rule before a July 13 deadline, with most of the 50,000 publicly posted comments criticizing it, according to a New York Times AI-assisted analysis.
The late-May proposal would steer federal funding to advance the president’s policy priorities, expand political control over scientific grants, weaken peer review and curb researchers’ ability to publish findings and collaborate internationally.
Scientists, doctors and biomedical groups have called the plan catastrophic, devastating and stupid, while journals, professional societies and patient advocates have mobilized opposition and urged members to submit comments.
A central complaint is that the rule would shift oversight from scientific experts to political appointees, raising broader fears that medical research funding decisions could become driven by ideology rather than evidence.
How might new rules prioritizing politics over peer review reshape global scientific progress?
With political appointees overseeing grants, what safeguards can protect long-term scientific research?
Could new federal grant oversight actually improve accountability and research replication as claimed?
OMB’s 2026 Rule Change: Political Appointees to Decide Federal Research Grants, Sparking National Backlash
Overview
On May 29, the Administration introduced a proposed rule from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), with revisions authored by OMB Director Russell Vought, a key figure in Project 2025. This rule is designed to advance the Trump administration’s federal research objectives since President Trump’s second term began in January 2025. The proposal aims to redefine federal research funding by shifting decision-making power from career scientists to political appointees, marking a sharp break from decades of bipartisan support for keeping science free from political interference. Many see this as a significant threat to American science and innovation.