Massachusetts Scientists Fight Trump Grant Rule as 300,000 Comments Target October Plan
Updated
Updated · WBUR News · Jul 13
Massachusetts Scientists Fight Trump Grant Rule as 300,000 Comments Target October Plan
3 articles · Updated · WBUR News · Jul 13
Summary
Nearly 300,000 comments have been filed against a Trump administration proposal that would let political appointees overrule peer reviewers, cancel grants and police research for alignment with the “national interest.”
Massachusetts researchers and officials say the rule would inject politics into science, curb international collaboration and public communication, and threaten work on cancer, Alzheimer’s, climate and rare diseases.
Massachusetts could be hit especially hard because it leads the nation in NIH funding per capita; Gov. Maura Healey’s office says up to $2.6 billion in NIH and NSF grants have already been terminated, halting at least 18 clinical trials and affecting 13,000 patients.
Senate Democrats and the state’s congressional delegation are pressing OMB to rescind the rule, arguing it exceeds the office’s authority and could invite lawsuits if finalized.
Federal officials aim to finalize the regulation by October, while opponents hope the comment record and possible court challenges can delay or block it.
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.