A quiet rule change from the White House Office of Management and Budget has scientists panicking, and for good reason. If implemented, it would give political appointees direct oversight over more than a trillion dollars in federal grants across 42 agencies.
The proposal, published May 29th in the Federal Register, runs 412 pages. The language mixes attacks on diversity programs and so-called “woke” policies with dry regulatory phrasing. Buried under clauses about “providing further clarification on the regulatory status of the OMB requirements” is a fundamental shift: political appointees could veto any federal grant, for any reason, at any time.
What does that actually mean on the ground? Scientists couldn’t attend conferences without preapproval. International collaborations in certain countries would be blocked. Agencies covering everything from Education to NASA to Health and Human Services would fall under the same rules. No grants mentioning “DEI” or “gender ideology” would move forward. Scientists who don’t want to play along are told to find funding elsewhere.
“Science in the US will stop,” says Colette Delawalla, founder of Stand Up for Science. She isn’t mincing words.
The damage isn’t theoretical. Under the Trump administration, grants have already been cancelled or delayed. Graduate enrollment at top schools is shrinking. And yet peer review funding decisions still generally came from scientists reviewing other scientists’ work. That structure would be gutted under this rule.
There’s still time to fight it. OMB must respond to all substantive public comments, and the comment window is open through July 13th. Congress could also object and block implementation entirely.
The choice is straightforward: political control over science funding, or letting researchers actually do research.
