Researchers, Patient Groups Oppose NIH Grant Rule After 275,000 Comments
Updated
Updated · POLITICO · Jul 13
Researchers, Patient Groups Oppose NIH Grant Rule After 275,000 Comments
3 articles · Updated · POLITICO · Jul 13
Summary
More than 275,000 comments hit the White House proposal by Monday’s deadline, with researchers, drugmakers and patient groups urging OMB not to finalize the NIH grant overhaul.
The May rule would require senior political appointees to review discretionary grants before issuance, let agencies terminate awards that clash with presidential priorities, and restrict international research collaboration.
Fifty-seven patient groups, led by United for Cures, warned Congress the policy could abruptly end clinical trials, waste millions in federal funding and cut off treatment for patients already benefiting from experimental care.
Opposition has spread beyond advocacy groups: Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins asked OMB to extend the comment period and withdraw parts of the rule, while Senate Democrats and 15 Democratic governors said it exceeds OMB’s authority and threatens public health research.
How could changes to the NIH grant review process impact the development timeline for new medical treatments?
What does the legal fight over gender-affirming care signal for the future of medical practice guidelines?
How can surprise billing laws be enforced fairly for doctors without increasing patients' insurance premiums?
OMB’s Controversial Grant Rule Sparks Historic 80,000-Comment Outcry and Fears of Politicized U.S. Science
Overview
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has proposed a sweeping rule that would change how all federal grants are managed, aiming to create a single set of requirements for awards starting in fiscal year 2027. The public comment period for this proposal ends on July 13, 2026. Critics warn that these changes could make the grant process much more unpredictable and difficult for recipients, introducing instability and making it harder to secure funding. This has led to an unprecedented backlash, with many stakeholders expressing concern about the potential negative impact on research, innovation, and the ability to address national challenges.