A new proposal from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) would overhaul the federal grant-making process, placing nearly $1 trillion in grant funding under the control of political appointees by October. The plan has sparked widespread outrage among scientists and organizations, who warn it could disrupt research across fields from healthcare to environmental protection.
Harvard professor's grant canceled amid chaos
Nancy Krieger, a social epidemiologist at the Harvard School of Public Health, received an email on a Friday afternoon informing her that her nearly $1 million NIH grant to study how discrimination affects population health was canceled. 'It was complete shock and dismay,' she said. The cancellation forced her to juggle teaching, litigation, and managing the morale of her team. Krieger's experience was one of the first under the Trump administration's push to end what it calls 'woke' research on gender, race, and equity.
Scope of the OMB proposal
The proposed rule, which has attracted nearly half a million public comments—95% in opposition—would affect grants across healthcare, education, social services, and environmental protections. 'It's way, way beyond just research,' said Sara Rosenbaum, professor emerita at George Washington University. Of the $1 trillion affected, $150 billion typically goes to science and technology. The NIH, the world's largest public funder of biomedical research, has a budget of $47 billion.
Bipartisan and legal opposition
Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) criticized the rule, stating, 'President Trump and Russell Vought are not only breaking the law, but they are also once again endangering the health and safety of Americans.' California Attorney General Rob Bonta urged the OMB to withdraw the proposal, calling it an attempt to 'weaponize essential federal funding.' Twenty-two state attorneys general have united against the rule, and lawsuits are expected.
Details of the rule
The proposal criticizes 'woke' policies, bans DEI programs, prohibits undefined 'anti-American values,' discourages international collaboration, and allows the government to consider applicants' affiliations with organizations deemed to violate federal law. It also permits cancellation of awards not in the federal government's 'interest,' a provision many researchers experienced firsthand in spring 2025 when grants on disparate impacts were canceled.
Administration's stance and public comment
OMB Director Russell Vought dismissed criticism as a 'freakout by those on the left,' while the White House fraud taskforce claimed the rule ensures taxpayers 'will no longer be forced to fund woke NGOs.' The Heritage Foundation supports the rule. The public comment period closed after just 45 days, shorter than the typical 60-90 days. Lawrence Gostin, a Georgetown Law professor, called the process 'a subterfuge for moving ahead.'
Future legal battles
If enacted, the rule will likely face court challenges. Gostin noted that a grant denial may be needed for standing, after which state attorneys general, institutions, or individuals could sue. 'It's not a 100% slam-dunk,' he said, but district court judges may issue injunctions. However, outcomes in conservative appeals courts and the Supreme Court remain uncertain.
