Washington, D.C. — A sweeping Trump administration proposal to rewrite the rules governing more than $1 trillion in annual federal funding would inject politics into grantmaking, weaken independent scientific research, and threaten American innovation and economic growth, according to a new analysis from the Center for American Progress.
The Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) proposed rule would give political appointees greater authority over federal grant decisions, including requiring senior appointees to assess whether awards advance the president’s policy priorities and treating scientific peer review as merely “advisory.” CAP’s analysis warns that the changes would replace independent, expert-driven decision-making with political considerations across federal grantmaking.
“For decades, independent federal research has helped power American innovation, create jobs, develop lifesaving treatments, and keep the United States at the forefront of scientific discovery,” said Ryan Mulholland, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress and co-author of the analysis. “Politicizing science will make America less healthy, less prosperous, and less innovative.”
“Cutting grants for health, environmental, biotechnology, and basic science research would stall innovation, delay treatments for diseases such as cancer, shrink the economy, and threaten jobs for young scientists,” said Jill Rosenthal, director of public health policy at the Center for American Progress and co-author of the analysis.
Among the analysis’s key findings:
- The rule would politicize more than $1 trillion in annual federal funding. The proposal would subject grants, cooperative agreements, and other federal financial assistance across the government to new, politically driven requirements.
- Political appointees could override independent scientific review. The proposal would require senior appointees to review whether grant awards advance the president’s priorities while reducing the role of long-standing peer-review processes that rely on scientific expertise.
- The changes could weaken a major engine of U.S. economic growth. Federal research and development has historically generated estimated returns of 140 to 210 percent and helped spur technologies ranging from the internet and smartphones to advanced batteries and lifesaving medicines.
- Federal health research supports hundreds of thousands of jobs. National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding supported more than 410,000 jobs and nearly $93 billion in economic activity in fiscal year 2023. One estimate found that cuts to NIH funding could ultimately result in $8 trillion in lost health benefits.
- The proposal would create new barriers to scientific collaboration and communication. Researchers could face additional restrictions on international partnerships, conference participation, scientific organizations, publication costs, and the communication of findings to the public.
- The proposed rule would have a chilling effect on diversity of intellectual thought and research, gutting research that supports opportunities to improve health and well-being for all Americans.
- The proposal has faced overwhelming opposition. Nearly 500,000 comments were submitted during the 45-day public comment period, and an analysis of more than 50,000 publicly submitted comments found that approximately 94 percent opposed the changes. Forty-seven senators also warned that the proposal exceeds OMB’s legal authority and infringes on Congress’ spending powers.
Read the analysis, “The Trump Administration’s Plan To Politicize Federal Grants Would Harm American Growth and Innovation” by Jill Rosenthal, Sara Partridge, Devon Ombres, Haley Norris, Mariam Rashid, and Ryan Mulholland
For more information or to speak with an expert, please contact Christian Unkenholz at [email protected].