White House proposal to “dramatically weaken” US research, experts warn

The proposed rule, published by the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on May 29, would overhaul federal grantmaking across agencies, sidelining peer review while elevating political power in funding decisions.  

The plans have sparked widespread concern across higher education and beyond, attracting roughly 99,000 public comments to date, with the window to respond ending on July 13.  

Among other things, the OMB’s 412-page proposal would shift grantmaking from an advisory peer review board to political appointees – something sector leaders have called “deeply concerning”.  

“For decades, the United States has led the world in research because experts in the relevant fields – not political officials – have evaluated proposals for their quality, originality, and potential impact,” President of the American Association of Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) Lynn Pasquerella told The PIE News.  

“When the government substitutes political or ideological judgments for independent scientific review, it risks distorting research priorities, discouraging innovative work, and undermining confidence in the integrity of the federal research enterprise,” she added. 

If passed, the rule would allow agencies to cancel any grant at any time if they are deemed inconsistent with “evolving national interests” – something critics say could result in a colossal waste of taxpayer money and create immense uncertainty for researchers embarking on long-term projects.  

While acknowledging that funding decisions should reflect national priorities, Pasquerella said the rule risked “treating international scientific collaboration as a liability rather than as one of America’s greatest strengths”. 

“Our research enterprise has flourished because it attracts exceptional talent from around the world,” she said, warning that additional barriers for international researchers “may undermine those strengths without meaningfully improving national security”. 

“The conversation should not be framed as a choice between national security and scientific excellence. We can and should do both.” 

Underpinning the rule is the proposal to change the current guidance governing federal financial assistance into regulatory policy, something the American Council on Education (ACE) has said would have “historic negative consequences and establish a precedent that would last far beyond the administration”. 

The conversation should not be framed as a choice between national security and scientific excellence. We can and should do both.

Lynn Pasquerella, AAC&U

In its comment letter to OMB director Russel Vought, ACE said the government’s partnership with higher education had been built upon “long-term financial investments and merit-based decision making, paired with a clear respect for institutional autonomy and freedom of inquiry”. 

It argues that the new rule would “dramatically weaken” the foundation of this partnership and “stifle scientific progress and the pace of discovery”, as well as transforming legal requirements into “instruments for partisan purposes”. 

What’s more, experts have raised concerns about the “excessive administrative burden” associated with the planned rule, greatly increasing regulatory red tape for scientists and institutions receiving federal grants.  

Beyond the sector, the rule would apply to states, localities and other federally funded non-profit organisations working on public services from health to transport, and education to farming. The sum of federal grants across agencies totals approximately $1.1 trillion.  

Research collaborations between US institutions and international partners have already come under intense scrutiny from the Trump administration, with several leading colleges winding down partnerships in China.  

The proposals would take these measures further by expanding the “Wolf Amendment” at NASA to university researchers receiving federal funding, greatly hampering their ability to collaborate and co-author studies with scientists outside the US.  

What’s more, researchers would no longer receive fixed awards, but funding would be decided on a cost-reimbursement basis, requiring substantial paperwork and increasing administrative costs, say commentators.  

The proposals come as prospective international students, faculty and researchers are expressing greater uncertainty about the US, with some scientists actively leaving the country in favour of freer research environments in Europe.  

Commentators say this trend will likely be accelerated if the rule is passed, with Pasquerella highlighting that America’s world-leading position in science rests on its culture of academic freedom and its investment in research.  

“If the US becomes less attractive to top researchers, competing nations will benefit from talent and discoveries that might otherwise have occurred here. That is both an economic and a national security concern,” she said.