Chelsea Bartram is an Associate Scientist at SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory. Lucy Erin O’Brien and Lauren Tompkins are associate professors of molecular and cellular physiology and physics, respectively, at Stanford.
On May 29, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) quietly published a set of proposed rule changes to “improve government-wide policies and requirements related to the management of grants, cooperative agreements and other forms of assistance.” This stated intent appears well-meaning, but buried within the 412-page, technocratic tome is an existential threat to the federal funding that drives American science. If implemented, OMB’s rule changes will transform the current system of taxpayer-supported research funding based on scientific merit into one based on partisan ideology, giving political appointees authority to bestow billions on the favored or withhold funds from the disfavored. Ultimately, this will destroy the U.S. research engine that benefits all Americans and has been the envy of the world for decades.
We are Stanford science faculty who use federal research funding to study things as fundamental as the basic makeup of our universe and as crucial as how our gut keeps us healthy throughout our lifetimes. Our colleagues use federal funding to devise circuits for next-generation communication networks or to improve health outcomes for cancer patients. We know that good science is, and has always been, essential for solving global problems and improving our collective well-being.
We, like many Stanford faculty, also serve as peer reviewers for grant applications. Federal agencies such as the National Institute of Health, Department of Energy and National Science Foundation rely on peer review to decide which projects to support. Peer review involves panels of independent experts, typically university professors also researching that topic area, who apply defined criteria to evaluate each proposed project’s merits.
This system emerged in the 1970s in response to Congressional concerns about how research funds were allocated. It has since become the global norm for allocating competitive grants. Why? Because scientists can readily distinguish rigorous, transformative ideas from the merely fanciful — or the factually incorrect. We know from experience that grant review is serious, demanding work. Each application requires hours of thoughtful and critical reading and a written evaluation against the defined criteria; selection for funding comes only after hours of discussion and deliberation amongst peer reviewers, agency scientists and others who represent the public interest.
The peer review process demands tremendous effort and attention, but its successful outcomes are undeniable. Since peer review was implemented, U.S.-based scientists have won over 50% of the Nobel Prizes in physics, chemistry and physiology or medicine for discoveries that were, in large part, made possible by sustained public investment in the form of research grants selected by peer review. Peer review is not perfect, but it is structured, evidence-based and expert-driven. At its best, it helps ensure that taxpayers’ investment in science will continue to generate important new knowledge and lay the foundation for future technologies, diagnoses and cures.
OMB’s newly proposed rule changes will upend this proven process. Although peer review panels may still meet, their expert evaluations will no longer be a required factor in funding decisions. Instead, political appointees will have sweeping power to award and withhold federal grants at will. Revealingly, officials must certify that funded projects “demonstrably advance the President’s policy priorities.” The proposed rules will also allow political operatives to reject grants that they judge as upholding “anti-American values,” a vague standard that could be used to shut down research on gender identity, climate change or any topic unpopular with the party in power. Even after a grant is awarded, political officials can revoke it at any time if they feel it no longer serves “program goals, federal agency priorities or the national interest.” Taken together, these rule changes would transform research funding from a merit-based process into an instrument of ideological reward and punishment.
Make no mistake, these newly proposed policies are the latest salvo in the Trump administration’s war against academic institutions. They began with a flurry of executive orders that targeted individual institutions, cancelled nearly 8,000 grants in 2025 alone and threatened to withhold funding unless universities accepted government oversight of their educational policies and governance.
Courts have repeatedly blocked the administration’s executive orders against universities. OMB is now trying to achieve the same end through the Federal Register, forcing universities to submit to the administration’s ideological agenda through a bureaucratic backchannel.
The OMB’s proposed rules paint a bleak future for American science and society. Just as we would not expect politicians without medical training to determine the best cancer treatments, we should not expect political operatives without scientific training to determine whether scientific projects are worthy of taxpayer support. Supplanting peer review with political review will not “improve” American science but imperil it.
As dire as this seems, concerned individuals can make a difference now. The proposed changes are not yet policy, and public comments are accepted until July 13. Before OMB can enact the rule changes, it must address all substantive public comments opposing them. Through formal public comments, complaints to congressional representatives and open discourse, we can stop this brazen attempt to commandeer American science for partisan goals.
Finally, while we focus on science funding here, the OMB’s proposed changes apply to most forms of federal funding — from FEMA disaster relief to food assistance, from HeadStart to workforce training, from transportation to Medicaid. All these grants will be subject to the same political trials. Virtually no aspect of American life will escape unscathed. We urge the Stanford community to voice opposition to these proposed changes before they are codified. The stakes extend beyond our research labs and universities to schools, non-profits and communities across the country. We cannot let political fealty become the price of federal support.