Key facts
- Top U.S. universities and research advocates are urging the withdrawal of a proposed rule on federal grants.
- Critics contend the rule would allow agencies to unilaterally modify or terminate awards based on policy priorities and eliminate appeals processes.
- The proposed changes, issued by the Office of Management and Budget, would revise the government's guidance for federal financial assistance.
- Institutions like Johns Hopkins University and Georgetown University oppose the changes, citing risks to merit-based systems and international collaboration.
- The American Association for Cancer Research warned the proposals could severely set back medical science.
- The Trump administration claims the revisions are intended to enhance transparency, accountability, and oversight.
Top U.S. universities and research advocates have called on the Trump administration to withdraw a proposed rule concerning federal grants, asserting that it would inject politics into the grant distribution and administration process. Critics, including Johns Hopkins University and Georgetown University, argue that the proposed changes, outlined in a May 29 notice from the White House's Office of Management and Budget, would undermine the merit-based system that has established U.S. research as a global standard.
The proposals would reportedly allow agencies to modify or terminate awards based on shifting policy priorities or national interest determinations, while also removing existing appeals processes. The American Association for Cancer Research warned that these changes could significantly hinder the nation's medical science progress and delay crucial treatments. The National Council of Nonprofits and the American Council on Education also expressed concerns that the proposals would shift grant decisions from merit to political considerations, with political appointees making funding choices. The Trump administration, however, maintains that the revisions are aimed at improving transparency, accountability, and oversight for federal grants, and has previously used the threat of funding suspensions against institutions over various policy issues.