A new White House rule would shift grant decisions from peer reviewers to political appointees. Scientists fear this could curb research on climate, health, and equality.
In the White House, a regulatory initiative has been unveiled that effectively expands the powers of political appointees in deciding federal funding for scientific research. The new order is expected to reduce the role of traditional peer review in grant allocation and cast doubt on topics related to diversity and gender aspects.
Critics warn that such regulation could deal a blow to the U.S. scientific funding system, which has produced world-changing breakthroughs in cancer treatment, HIV and rare diseases, as well as in climate research and AI development. The changes could affect which topics receive funding first.
One of the main losses, according to preliminary estimates, would be the long-standing mechanism of peer review for grant applications. Peer review by colleagues after crisis periods was based on evaluations by specific experts, not political criteria.
The regulation also envisions a ban on research topics related to diversity, equity and inclusion, and gender topics, and could extend to international scientific partnerships and other categories of federal grants.
“This proposal concerns not only funding for scientific research, it also concerns other federal awards in various contexts.”
– Lisa Larrimore Ouellette
Reaction from the expert community
“One of the reasons the United States has historically been such a scientific superpower is that we had a merit-based system for funding science, by which research was funded by the government based on evaluations by other scientists,” said Lisa Larrimore Ouellette.
“One of the reasons the United States has historically been such a scientific superpower is that we had a merit-based system of funding science, by which research was funded by the federal government based on evaluations by other scientists.”
– Lisa Larrimore Ouellette
Climate scientist Kate Marvel, who recently left NASA due to political influence in climate research, noted that peer review has been the key to the United States’ leadership in science.
“Among the reasons the United States has historically been such a scientific superpower is the merit-based system of funding science, where the government funds research according to evaluations by other scientists.”
– Kate Marvel
“The system wasn’t perfect, but not senseless. With its leadership in the hands of unaccountable political puppets, we are acting against reason,” added Marvel.
A spokesperson for the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) stressed that the regulation “will improve transparency in the grant-making process and ensure the prudent use of taxpayers’ funds”.
“Make the grant-making process transparent and ensure the prudent use of taxpayers’ funds.”
– OMB spokesperson
According to the spokesperson, federal grants are already being politicized to advance a particular political line – “this ends now”.
“Federal grants have already been politicized to advance a very leftist agenda. This ends now.”
– OMB spokesperson
Expert Elizabeth Ginexi, a former senior program official at NIH, noted that many people can submit feedback, but the law requires responding to each comment:
“They are legally required to read every comment and respond to each of them.”
– Elizabeth Ginexi
According to Ginexi, after more than two decades at the NIH, she worried about how Elon Musk heads the Office of Government Efficiency and how this changes funding for programs across the country.
“When we are seeking new clinical trials for a new drug for a rare cancer, we want scientists to lead, not politicians.”
– Elizabeth Ginexi
Experts warn that regulation could constrain research in climate and weather forecasting, curb innovation, and put the United States in a less favorable competitive position compared with other countries, notably China.
“The proposal to base funding decisions on alignment with the government’s agenda poses a particularly acute threat to climate and meteorology research that protect our infrastructure, economy and security.”
– Kim Cobb
In previous years, President Donald Trump repeatedly challenged the role of the human factor in climate change and considered budgets that would reduce funding for climate research. Although Congress tried to halt such initiatives, the new regulation is seen as a way to sidestep lawmakers by granting broader authority to the executive branch.
“President Donald Trump falsely described human impact on climate as an ‘hoax’ and repeatedly proposed budgets that would cut climate research. Congress opposed these cuts, but the new regulation is seen as an end-run around lawmakers.”
– Rick Spinrod
The Director of the White House Institute also points to the experience of other countries, including the former Soviet Union, where political decisions influenced funding for scientific research and had serious consequences. Whether the regulation will shift the scientific system depends on public reaction and congressional review.
Ultimately, expert assessments emphasize the risks: changing funding approaches could undermine the principles of scientific integrity and reduce the United States’ competitiveness in critically important fields, particularly climate research and health. The proposal is under consideration, and the scientific community calls to preserve the independence of science from politics and to focus on the country’s overall well-being.
Researchers say this new Trump rule could destroy American science as we know it. They’re fighting back