WASHINGTON — U.S. universities, medical schools and scientific organizations have intensified opposition to a Trump administration proposal to overhaul federal grant rules, arguing the changes would inject political considerations into research funding and weaken the long-standing system of expert peer review.
The proposed regulation from the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) would revise government-wide rules governing federal financial assistance, including research grants awarded by agencies such as the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation. Administration officials have said the proposal is intended to improve transparency, accountability and oversight of federal funding.
Researchers and academic institutions contend the changes would allow political appointees greater authority over grant decisions, increase uncertainty for federally funded projects and discourage international scientific collaboration. They also argue the proposal could undermine merit-based review, which has long been a cornerstone of U.S. research funding.
Boston University, Georgetown University and the Association of American Medical Colleges were among institutions submitting formal comments urging the OMB to withdraw the proposal. In its filing, Boston University said the rule would "limit scientific discovery by injecting uncertainty into the conduct of research" and jeopardize the merit-based review process. Georgetown said it supported responsible stewardship of public funds but warned the revisions would harm research infrastructure and the university's academic mission.
Medical organizations also voiced concern over potential effects on health research. The American Society of Hematology said the proposal would weaken research integrity, create additional administrative burdens and threaten public health by altering the management of federal research grants.
The proposal has drawn criticism from bipartisan lawmakers and scientific advocacy groups, some of whom argue it could enable political preferences to override independent scientific evaluation. Several organizations have also warned the rule could face legal challenges if finalized.
The administration has defended the proposed revisions as part of a broader effort to strengthen oversight of federal financial assistance and ensure grants are administered consistently across agencies. Critics, however, argue the existing peer-review framework already provides rigorous scientific evaluation while limiting political influence.
The public comment period on the proposed regulation closed on July 13. As of Tuesday, the OMB had not announced whether it would modify or withdraw the proposal following the extensive feedback submitted by universities, research organizations and other stakeholders.
