Top American universities and research advocates are pressing the administration to withdraw a proposed rulemaking on federal grants that critics say would introduce politicized decision-making into how awards are granted, managed and ended.
The change was presented in a May 29 notice of proposed rulemaking issued by the White House’s Office of Management and Budget. The notice would revise longstanding government guidance for federal financial assistance, commonly known as the "Uniform Guidance." According to critics, the proposal would significantly alter the process by which federal grants are administered.
One central concern cited by the American Hospital Association is that the proposals would authorize federal agencies to unilaterally modify or terminate awards based on shifting policy priorities or national-interest determinations, while eliminating existing appeals processes.
Leaders at Johns Hopkins University made their objection explicit in a letter to the White House. "Many of the proposed changes would weaken the merit-based, expert-driven system that has made U.S. research the global standard," wrote Interim Provost Lainie Rutkow and Vice Provost for Research Denis Wirtz. They added that the proposals would "destabilize the nation’s innovation ecosystem."
Georgetown University also registered opposition, saying it opposed proposed White House changes affecting expert peer review, research outcomes and restrictions on international collaboration and partnerships.
The American Association for Cancer Research warned that the revisions would "severely set back our nation’s medical science enterprise and delay the groundbreaking treatments pivotal to improving patient outcomes and saving lives."
In contrast, the administration has framed the revisions as a measure to improve transparency, accountability and oversight of federal grants.
Several national nonprofit and higher education organizations expressed similar concerns. The National Council of Nonprofits, the American Council on Education and dozens of education associations said the proposed rule would shift grant decisions from merit to politics by requiring political appointees to decide which grants receive funding.
The debate over the proposed rule arrives against a backdrop in which the president has previously threatened to suspend federal funding to universities and research institutions over a range of issues. Those include pro-Palestinian protests related to Israel’s assault on Gaza, institutional diversity initiatives, transgender policies and climate programs.
Supporters of the proposed revisions say the changes are intended to strengthen oversight of federal financial assistance programs. Opponents warn the consequence would be a narrowing of peer review authority and the insertion of policy priorities into technical funding decisions that have traditionally been guided by merit and expert evaluation.
Summary
Universities, cancer research groups, hospital associations and nonprofit education organizations are urging the administration to withdraw a proposed revision to the Uniform Guidance on federal grants. Critics say the rule would permit agencies to change or end awards based on shifting policy priorities or national-interest criteria, remove appeals processes, and allow political appointees to override merit-based decisions. The administration contends the revisions would improve transparency, accountability and oversight.
Key points
- The May 29 notice from the Office of Management and Budget would revise the government’s Uniform Guidance for federal financial assistance.
- Proposed changes would allow agencies to unilaterally modify or terminate awards based on policy shifts or national-interest determinations and would eliminate existing appeals processes, according to the American Hospital Association.
- Major universities and research organizations contend the rule would weaken expert peer review and could hinder medical and scientific progress.
Risks and uncertainties
- Potential politicization of grant decisions - impacts higher education, research institutions and nonprofit grant recipients.
- Possible disruptions to medical research and delays in developing treatments - impacts biomedical research and health-care sectors.
- Uncertainty for institutions that rely on federal funding as agencies could change or terminate awards without current appeal mechanisms - impacts university research budgets and related industries.