Federal grant management handed over to politicians, leaving researchers apprehensive due to potential impact.

The Associated Press (AP) recently reported on an executive order signed by President Donald Trump, which significantly alters federal grant funding. The order, titled "Improving Oversight Of Federal Grantmaking," grants political appointees the power to review and approve all new funding opportunity announcements and discretionary grants, prioritising alignment with agency priorities and the "national interest" over purely scientific merit.

Key provisions of the order include the ability for agencies to terminate existing and future grants at any time if they no longer align with the Administration's goals. This introduces "termination for convenience" clauses into both new and existing discretionary grants. Agencies are also prohibited from drawing down general grant funds for specific projects without explicit agency authorization, and must provide written justification for each drawdown request to increase financial oversight.

The order has raised concerns among scientists and experts, who fear the politicization of scientific funding. This could potentially lead to decisions based on political considerations over scientific merit, threatening U.S. leadership in research and development. For instance, scientists have expressed alarm that political appointees, not experts, will determine grant awards, and the ability to terminate grants at will could disrupt ongoing research projects.

At the National Institutes of Health (NIH), increased political oversight has resulted in delayed fund disbursement, stalled projects, and frustration among scientists who rely on stable, expert-reviewed funding to conduct essential research. The reforms introduce substantial uncertainty and risk into grant management, with broad implications for how federal research funding is allocated and administered.

President Trump's order could potentially impact a wide range of federal programs, including emergency relief, public safety, and public health initiatives. For example, the order's implications extend to emergency relief grants from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), public safety initiatives funded by the Department of Justice, and public health efforts supported by the Centers for Disease Control.

The Association of American Medical Colleges believes that the changes will delay grant review and approval, slowing progress for cures and treatments that patients and families urgently need. The order's implementation may face legal challenges, adding uncertainty to the future of federal grantmaking processes.

Joseph Bak-Coleman, a scientist studying group decision-making at the University of Washington, stated that the order is taking political control of a once politically neutral mechanism for funding science in the U.S. Experts predict that the order is likely to face legal challenges in court.

Agencies cannot announce new funding opportunities until the new protocols are in place, according to the order. The Trump administration claims these changes are meant to strengthen oversight and streamline agency grantmaking. However, the Association of American Medical Colleges continues to express concerns about the potential impact of the changes on grant review and approval processes.

The administration has already terminated thousands of research grants at agencies like the National Science Foundation (NSF) and NIH, covering topics such as transgender health, vaccine hesitancy, misinformation, and diversity, equity, and inclusion. Scientists argue that the order will place control over federal research funds in the hands of people who are influenced by politics and lack relevant expertise.

Federal grant management handed over to politicians, leaving researchers apprehensive due to potential impact.