Trump Administration Proposes Giving Political Appointees Final Say on Research Funding

"The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) proposed rule is an escalation of the administration's relentless attacks on independent science. It replaces scientific merit with a political loyalty test and could be used to silence research that is politically inconvenient to the administration.

"For decades, federal research funding has relied on merit review, transparency and scientific judgement.

"If enacted, Thursday's proposed rule would limit federal funding to research aligned with the 'President's policy priorities,' render peer review merely 'advisory,' and enable political appointees - which could include the President himself - to make all final funding decisions. It also allows agencies to consider an applicant's history, essentially creating a political litmus test to receive grant funding.

"Handing political appointees the power to override or shape research funding decisions risks skewing taxpayer-funded science toward ideology instead of evidence and threatens the independence of scientific research.

"If the rule is enacted, the administration could deny applications that propose research related to the administration's targeted words or topics, including climate science, LGBTQ+ health and vaccine safety. This would threaten innovation and hamper society's ability to better understand issues critical to public and environmental health. It could also give politically connected industries a functional veto over research that might reveal risks associated with products and practices. The proposal would have downstream effects on the future of these areas of research and scholarship, by deterring scientists from pursuing topics they fear the administration might deem unsavory.

"Congress must move swiftly to advance the Scientific Integrity Act. The bill would establish stronger safeguards to protect federal scientists from political interference, require agencies to maintain scientific integrity policies and ensure government decisions are informed by evidence rather than political agendas. At a moment when independent science is under immense and increasing pressure, it is lawmakers' duty to strengthen available guardrails."

Additional resources:

• Blog post by Dr. Jules Barbati-Dajches on Executive Order 14332, which required grant funding to be approved by political officials.
• Blog post by Joseph Reed on the Scientific Integrity Act.
• Collection of blog posts by Dr. Jules Barbati-Dajches highlighting attacks on science under the Trump administration.
• Report on six months of Trump administration attacks on science.
• Blog post by Dr. Jennifer Jones on connections between attacks on science and authoritarianism.