The Blank Spaces in the Grant File
Before this new rule, science funding in the United States operated like a peer-reviewed journal. A researcher submitted a proposal. Experts in the same field—peer reviewers—judged its scientific merit and feasibility. Subject-matter experts inside the funding agency used those ratings to decide which grants received money. The process was merit-based and expert-driven. The government’s role was to provide the money and then step back.
The new rule from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) modifies the grant review process by allowing political appointees to have final decision-making authority, as stated in the OMB’s 2025 guidance. The rule instructs appointees not to ‘routinely defer’ to expert peer reviewers and permits agencies to cancel grants deemed not in the ‘national interest,’ a term defined broadly in the Federal Register notice “routinely defer” to the experts. It also allows any federal agency to cancel any active grant at any time if it is deemed not in the “national interest.” That phrase is vague. It could mean anything.
The toolkit now contains new tools. You can ban grants on culture war topics like DEI or “gender ideology.” You can limit international collaborations with countries under U.S. sanctions. You can block spending on publishing papers or attending conferences. You can require pre-approval for every payment request, with a written justification for each one. You can even exempt agencies from publicly advertising grant competitions if it is “in the national interest.”
What this makes possible is a shift from science as a public good to science as a political instrument. The rule codifies an executive order from last August that ordered agencies to award grants that “advance the President’s policy priorities.” The OMB states the changes address concerns about ‘transparency, accountability, and proper oversight’ during 2021-2024, citing issues such as ‘unlawful DEI practices’ and ‘non-replicable studies,’ according to the OMB’s rulemaking document” [1] The rule is now in the formal federal rulemaking process, which means public feedback is open until July 13, 2026. [1]
Parallels exist. The Department of Labor already runs a “Defend the Spend” initiative that requires similar justifications for payments. School districts that receive federal formula funds are already reporting additional administrative burdens. The rule would extend that same logic to all federal grants.
The bridge connects this rule to a broader pattern. The administration has lost many court cases because executive orders cannot circumvent legal requirements. To avoid that, the OMB merged the order with other priorities and sent it through formal rulemaking. This is how you make a policy change stick.
This policy shift may alter the perception of scientific autonomy for future researchers, who could experience increased administrative oversight on grant activities, such as conference attendance and payment approvals, as outlined in the OMB rule.