New Trump administration rules on federal science funding could make American research slower, costlier and harder to share
Skip to content
Political appointees may soon oversee scientific research in America.<br>Maria Korneeva/Moment via Getty Images
https://theconversation.com/new-trump-administration-rules-on-federal-science-funding-could-make-american-research-slower-costlier-and-harder-to-share-286430
https://theconversation.com/new-trump-administration-rules-on-federal-science-funding-could-make-american-research-slower-costlier-and-harder-to-share-286430
Link copied
Share article
Share article
Kopier Link
Blauer Himmel
Messenger
X (Twitter)
Print article
Most Americans don’t read the rules that govern the federal grants funding science. Those rules, called the Uniform Guidance, shape how cancer research is funded, graduate students are trained, clinical trials are sustained, universities stock their labs and discoveries from those labs move into broader society.
When the Trump administration announced on May 29, 2026, its intentions to revise these rules, many researchers were alarmed.
The Office of Management and Budget – the White House agency tasked with implementing the president’s policies across the executive branch – proposed requiring political appointees to review grant decisions for whether research projects advance the president’s policy priorities. These political officials would also have greater authority to override the decisions of the research agencies managing the grants.
The proposal was open for public comment until July 13, 2026, and received nearly 500,000 comments. Scientists have warned that these changes could allow political considerations to displace objective assessments, undermining merit-based federal research funding.
The OMB said these changes are intended to improve transparency and oversight of federal funds. However, scientists worry that several of these revisions could make research less predictable, harder to share and more expensive to do.
Beyond concerns about political influence over funding decisions, there are also more practical issues: What happens when the federal grant system becomes less stable for the people involved in the work of research?
Deprioritizing scientific merit
The first issue is peer review. Federal science agencies already use peer-review systems to assess which research projects will receive federal funding.
These systems generally involve scientists and other specialists with expertise relevant to the proposed work. Grant proposals typically undergo several rounds of review, one involving external experts and one involving agency officials. I am a scientist who has served for many years on federal grant review panels, including within the National Institutes of Health.
Reviewers like me assess the scientific merit of a research proposal through several factors. These include the rigor and feasibility of the work – that is, whether the study design can appropriately answer the research question. We consider whether the investigators have the expertise and institutional support to conduct the work. We also assess the overall impact of the project, examining whether the research could meaningfully advance the field and benefit science and society.
The Trump administration seeks to overhaul science in the United States.
Peer review is designed to test whether a proposal is scientifically strong enough to merit public investment. This process is not perfect, but it is central to the credibility of federal research funding. By having a panel of experts identify conflicts of interest and methodological weaknesses, and by comparing competing proposals, peer review helps reduce the likelihood that a consequential funding decision rests on one person’s preferences or an applicant’s prestige.
If the scientific merit of a project becomes less important, as it would under the Office of Management and Budget’s proposal, researchers, institutions and the general public will have less confidence that the strongest science is being funded and producing reliable evidence rather than preferred political outcomes. Over time, that loss of confidence could discourage investment in ambitious proposals that advance science.
Research needs stability to thrive
The second issue is stability. Federal grants are often multiyear commitments. Many individual grants are structured for approximately three to five years, while complex clinical trials and research infrastructure projects may take longer with renewals, follow-on phases or related grants. A project may require years of work before meaningful results emerge.
The Trump administration’s proposed revisions to funding rules would expand the circumstances under which agencies could suspend or terminate awarded grants at will, even for research projects that are being conducted under their approved scope. The proposed grounds for termination include...