OMB Rule Threatens Peer Review, Centralizes Grant Power

The Office of Management and Budget has proposed formal federal rules that would centralize grantmaking authority, reduce the role of peer review, and let political appointees cancel any federal research grant at any time if it’s not in the “national interest.” The rule would convert agency-specific guidance into binding regulations, restrict funding for certain topics, limit international collaborations, and block spending on activities like publishing and conference travel. Critics warn this shifts scientific funding decisions from expert reviewers to political actors, undermining the integrity and global competitiveness of U.S. research and risking legal challenges. The proposal advances administration priorities and would proceed through public comment before a final rule.

The Office of Management and Budget has proposed formal federal rules that would centralize grantmaking authority, downgrade peer review, and let political appointees cancel any federal research grant at any time on vague grounds like the “national interest.” The rule would convert OMB guidance into binding procedures, restrict funding for certain culture-war topics, limit international collaborations, and block common research expenses such as publishing and conference travel. Agencies that previously relied on expert staff and peer-review judgments would be required to align programs with administration priorities. Critics warn the changes could politicize funding decisions, undermine scientific quality, and severely damage U.S. research competitiveness.