Stand Up for Science: Oppose OMB’s Proposed Rule 6-17

Scientific research in the United States is at a critical inflection point. The Trump Administration is now targeting the scientific review process itself, proposing to replace expert-led merit review with political direction.

On May 27, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) proposed new rules affecting NSF's grant funding by increasing oversight, restricting funding in areas like diversity and health, and granting political appointees' broad authority to terminate awards that don't align with government goals. Save NSF opposes this rule.

Save NSF opposes the rule. We are concerned with OMB changing the grant-funding process, the politicalization of science, and more.

Dismantling Peer Review 

For decades, peer review has served as the primary mechanism for determining scientific merit, allowing experts to evaluate proposals based on evidence, methodology, and potential impact. OMB's proposal would replace that independence with political review, where awards must advance presidential priorities, and research deemed ideologically inconsistent could face rejection.

The discoveries that transformed medicine, communications, national security, and computing did not emerge from ideological screening, they came from empowering researchers to follow the evidence.

The Threat to Active Grants

The proposed rule would also expand the government's authority to terminate active grants at any time if deemed inconsistent with agency priorities — with no findings of fraud, misconduct, or misuse of funds required. A brief written explanation would suffice.

This misunderstands how research works. Scientists hire staff, train students, purchase equipment, and commit to multi-year plans based on awarded funding. Abrupt terminations waste taxpayer investments already made, disrupt partnerships, and derail careers. Research ecosystems cannot function when projects face sudden cancellation based on shifting political priorities.

A Chilling Effect on Discovery

When political considerations drive funding decisions, researchers may avoid entire topics — not because the science lacks merit, but out of fear. The result is a chilling effect on innovation that limits the bold, complex inquiry that leads to breakthroughs.

Time to Stand Up and Defend Science 

Save NSF isn’t alone in opposing OMB’s proposed rule. There are thousands of concerned scientists, organizations, leaders, and citizens concerned about the impact of scientific research and funding. To date, over 25,000 comments have been submitted. 

We are proud to stand alongside leaders such as Stand Up for Science, members of Congress, and thousands of others who are defending scientific research in America. To protect science now and for the future, we must ALL oppose OMB’s proposal.

Submit a comment to OMB rejecting this proposal and defending scientific progress.