How would peer review change?

Peer review—the process by which independent experts rank competing proposals—would survive, but in a diminished form. Recommendations from reviewers would be "advisory" rather than "de facto binding."

Elizabeth Ginexi, a former National Institutes of Health program officer for 22 years, called the change far more significant than a procedural update. "What OMB is proposing is not a reform of grants management," Ginexi wrote on Substack. "It is a complete political control apparatus layered over every stage of the federal science funding lifecycle."

Agencies would also gain explicit authority to cancel grants after they are awarded, including if work becomes "inconsistent with program goals" or "no longer in the Federal Government's interest."

Why are scientists worried?

Researchers say the rule would politicize decisions historically driven by expert judgment. Liz Borkowski, a researcher at George Washington University, said there has long been "a general bipartisan recognition" that field experts set research priorities best. "This rule seems to be envisioning science as a tool for advancing political priorities rather than for answering important questions," Borkowski told POLITICO's E&E News.

Jules Barbati-Dajches, an analyst with the Union for Concerned Scientists' Center for Science and Democracy, said the change could shift who controls research portfolios. "Instead of applications being awarded on merit, political appointees loyal to the administration could decide who receives funding," she said.

Critics point to actions already taken. Hundreds of scientists and engineers have left the Environmental Protection Agency over the past year. The agency dissolved its Office of Research and Development, transferring remaining research staff elsewhere. In April, the administration fired every member of the National Science Board, which oversees the National Science Foundation.

What happens next?

OMB plans for the rule to take effect Oct. 1, citing the need for "government-wide uniformity and transparency" in fiscal 2027 awards.

Opposition is already forming. Colette Delawalla, founder and CEO of Stand Up for Science, said her group was "actively mobilizing" against the rule. "The passage of [OMB Director Russ] Vought's 'Uniform Guidance' would be nothing short of catastrophic for American science," Delawalla said in a statement. "This rule would funnel decision power about what science is done, by whom, for whom, with whom, and effectively isolate scientists from the rest of the world."

On Capitol Hill, Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, called the proposal "dystopian." "The Trump administration has spent a year and a half undermining merit-based decision-making at federal science agencies," Lofgren said. "This newest dystopian move would destroy what remains of merit-based review, dealing a crippling blow to science."

The comment window closes July 13, leaving roughly 11 weeks for researchers and institutions to weigh in before the Oct. 1 effective date.