White House proposes new rules giving political appointees final approval on research grants

The White House has unveiled draft regulations that, if enacted, would fundamentally reshape federal research funding by granting political appointees final authority over scientific grant approvals across government agencies. The 412-page proposal, slated for official publication in the Federal Register, centralises control within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), headed by Russell Vought, a key architect of the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 agenda. Under the new rules, senior political appointees would be mandated to review and approve all research grants, including those from scientific bodies such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF), replacing the long-standing system of expert peer review.

The proposal justifies these changes by criticising what it describes as a “‘woke’ policy agenda” under the Biden administration that allegedly favoured certain identity groups in grant allocations. It argues that political appointees must now ensure compliance with presidential priorities, including those related to race and gender, before any funding is released. The draft regulations explicitly state that while scientific peer review will remain “advisory,” final decisions will rest with appointed officials rather than independent expert committees. This represents a significant departure from established practice, where apolitical review panels have historically determined the scientific merit of grant proposals.

Critics warn that the move risks politicising scientific research and undermines the integrity of the peer-review process. Colette Delawalla, founder of the science advocacy group Stand Up for Science, described the proposal as “exact form of government overreach,” arguing it replaces expertise with political appointees and could destabilise the U.S. scientific ecosystem. The OMB’s plan follows a 2023 executive order by President Donald Trump, which had already drawn widespread concern from lawmakers and researchers. Many experts questioned whether political appointees possess the necessary scientific expertise to evaluate complex research proposals, particularly given the scale of funding involved—such as the NIH’s annual distribution of tens of thousands of grants.

The draft regulations also raise broader concerns about transparency and accountability in federal funding. By centralising approval authority within the OMB, the proposal could make the grant review process more opaque, with critics arguing that scientific merit may be sidelined in favour of ideological or political considerations. The public will have an opportunity to comment on the draft before any final rules are adopted, but the proposal’s sweeping scope has already intensified debate over the future of U.S. scientific research and the balance between political oversight and academic independence.