A dangerous proposal now sitting before the federal government could fundamentally change how scientific research is funded in the United States. If adopted, it would give political appointees unprecedented authority over federal grants, weaken independent peer review, allow ideological litmus tests to determine which research receives support, and permit the termination of ongoing research projects simply because they no longer align with the priorities of the administration in power.
This is not a hypothetical threat. It is happening right now.
The proposal comes from the Office of Management and Budget under Director Russell Vought, a principal architect of Project 2025 and a longtime advocate of Christian nationalist politics. The rule is currently open for public comment until July 13. If enough scientists, educators, students, healthcare professionals, and concerned citizens speak out, it can still be stopped. That is why this moment is so urgent.
Stand Up for Science, a national grassroots movement defending scientific integrity, has called this proposal a “five-alarm fire.” During a June 2 mobilization event, Nobel Prize-winning chemist Carolyn Bertozzi warned that scientists must make their voices heard immediately through public comments and by contacting members of Congress. She argued that science must remain grounded in evidence, expertise, and peer review rather than political ideology.
What Would This Rule Do?
The most alarming provision would require senior political appointees—not career scientists or expert reviewers—to conduct a mandatory review of discretionary grants before they are awarded. These political officials would be instructed not to simply defer to peer review recommendations and would instead evaluate proposals based in part on whether they advance the President’s priorities.
The proposal would also:
-
Allow political appointees to override peer review recommendations.
-
Create an undefined “Gold Standard Science” requirement that could be interpreted according to political preference rather than scientific criteria.
-
Permit agencies to terminate active grants simply because they are no longer consistent with agency priorities, even when researchers have already built multi-year projects around those grants.
-
Restrict research involving diversity, equity, gender, and related subjects through government-wide grant conditions.
-
Impose sweeping restrictions on international scientific collaboration.
-
Require agency approval for routine conference attendance, making it easier to isolate researchers from their professional communities.
-
Make journal subscriptions, publication costs, and open-access fees far more difficult or impossible to fund through federal grants.
Taken together, these changes would replace a system that rewards scientific merit with one increasingly vulnerable to political loyalty tests.
As Congressman Eugene Vindman Walkinshaw explained during the Stand Up for Science event, for generations American research funding has operated on a simple principle: the best ideas should win. This proposal would move authority away from independent experts and toward political appointees whose primary responsibility is advancing a president’s agenda.
The Human Cost
Much of the public’s understanding of this proposal comes from Dr. Elizabeth Ginexi, whose detailed analysis helped bring national attention to the dangers buried in the rule.
Dr. Ginexi is exactly the kind of public servant Americans should celebrate. She spent her career serving the public through scientific and research administration. Yet she is also one of countless dedicated federal employees whose careers have been disrupted, discarded, or driven out under the current administration’s assault on the civil service.
Her story deserves attention because it illustrates something many Americans rarely see: behind every federal agency are real people who have devoted their professional lives to advancing knowledge, protecting public health, and serving the common good.
About a year ago I wrote about this issue in my article for The Separationist, “Service to America.“ There I argued that our government depends on highly skilled, deeply committed public servants whose work often goes unnoticed but whose contributions save lives and improve society every day. I highlighted the story of Coast Guard oceanographer Art Allen, whose scientific work revolutionized maritime search and rescue and has helped save countless lives. Allen is an exemplar of a simple fact: government works because talented people dedicate themselves to public service.
Dr. Ginexi represents that same tradition. She is precisely the kind of scientist and civil servant I had in mind when I wrote that article.
If you have not yet read her analysis of the OMB proposal, I strongly encourage you to do so. Her article provides a clear explanation of what is at stake. You can read it here:
And while you are there, consider subscribing to her Substack:
Why SHL Members Matter
Our community includes scientists, engineers, healthcare professionals, educators, researchers, students, and science enthusiasts. Even those who do not work in science often personally know people who do, so mobilizing our community could have an outsized impact on stopping this rule from taking effect.
That means we need to mobilize to spread awareness far beyond our own membership.
If you know someone working in academia, medicine, biotechnology, environmental science, engineering, public health, or any research field, please share this information with them.
The scientific community must respond loudly and collectively. Public comments matter. Congressional offices pay attention when constituents contact them. The administration can be forced to retreat if enough people take action.
What You Can Do Right Now
-
Submit a public comment before the July 13 deadline.
-
Contact your U.S. Representative and Senators and urge them to oppose the rule.
-
Share information about this proposal with colleagues, friends, family members, and especially anyone working in scientific research or higher education.
-
Read and share Dr. Ginexi’s analysis.
-
Join Stand Up for Science and support their efforts to defend evidence-based policymaking and scientific independence.
The United States became the world’s scientific leader because research funding was based on expertise, evidence, and merit. The proposed OMB rule threatens that foundation.
This is not merely a dispute about bureaucracy. It is a fight over whether science will remain independent of political ideology.
The comment period is open now. The deadline is approaching. There is still time to stop this proposal—but only if people act.
Please make your voice heard.