Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | Getty Images | Rawpixel

Table of Contents:

• The Challenge

• A Call to Action

• Resources and Links

• Conclusion

• Link to Shareable PDF

The Challenge:

The pillars of America’s leadership in environmental protection are its federal statutes – the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and others. Those statutes, with extraordinary bipartisan support, rest on the foundation of science. A regulation now proposed by the Trump administration would fracture that foundation and hobble or prevent future research. Furthermore, this regulation would pertain to all federal grants, not just to those regarding science.

As the journal Nature reports, in 2025 alone “More than 7,800 research grants terminated or frozen. Some 25,000 scientists and personnel gone from agencies that oversee research. Proposed budget cuts of 35% — amounting to US$32 billion.” After this 18-month war on science, the Trump administration now launches its coup de grâce: redefining the very nature of science and research in the United States in the context of federal financial support.

On May 29 the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and 42 other federal agencies submitted a proposed rule that would upend the time-tested process and criteria for awarding all federal grants. Decisions for awarding grants would be subject to ideological positions and the president’s political “priorities.” Political appointees, not scientific experts in relevant fields, would be empowered to make final grant decisions.

Graphic from the American Institute for Medical and Biological Engineering

In summary, OMB proposes to:

1. Replace scientific peer review of proposed research with decision-making by political appointees.

2. Judge the merit of federally supported research based on the President's as of yet /resources/Pictures/Buckets%20of%20Interest/Environment/Memos/Research_paper_rejection.jpg "gold standard science"

3. Allow active federal grants to be terminated at any time with minimal justification and no course of appeal.

4. Restrict scientific conference attendance and publication costs.

5. Restrict or prohibit international research collaborations.

6. Ban entire categories of scientific research, especially projects promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion.

The Trump Administration proposes that every federal grant – including grants for basic and applied scientific research – be subject to approval by political appointees executing judgments based on the “President’s policy priorities,” which go unstated. Grants can be canceled midstream without warning of rationale. There can be prohibitions on publishing any findings of research.

We of the ClassACT HR73 Environment and Climate Change Working Group urge you to consider what these radical changes will mean for the possibility of future scientific breakthroughs, for the survival of American universities and research institutions, and for the health of people around the globe. Use the Resource Guide below to understand the broad implications of this proposal. Then let the OMB know of your concerns by submitting comments on this proposal to the Federal Register site by July 13.

A Call to Action:

• Share this Alert widely, especially with your allied professional associations.

• Submit a comment on this proposed regulation in the Federal Register on or before the July 13 deadline. While it is likely that your opposition will have minimal impact on decisions by OMB to proceed with finalizing this rule, overwhelming public opposition to the proposal will significantly contribute to Congressional action and to success in the courts.

• Write to or call your representatives in Congress urging them to oppose this rule change by (1) holding public hearings to reveal the impact and alleged justification for it, and (2) enacting a “resolution of disapproval” if it is finalized, which will effectively rescind the rule under the Congressional Review Act. Here are links to your House members and Senators:

•Link to find the members of Congress who represent you and their contact information. 

• Write a letter or opinion piece for your local newspaper or an online news outlet.

• Here are some helpful tips from Jim Engell's Learn at Lunch session on writing Op-Eds from this past spring.

• Donate financial support to organizations which, as plaintiffs or as legal counsel, ultimately file suit challenging the final regulation.

Resources and Links

American Association of Universities, “Resources on Proposed Revisions to OMB Uniform Guidance,” June 8, 2026 (news and opinions). "The Office of Management and Budget published a proposal to revise the Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance (commonly known as the Uniform Guidance) which covers government-wide policies and requirements related to the management of grants and other forms of federal financial assistance."

Union of Concerned Scientists, “Trump Administration Proposes Giving Political Appointees Final Say on Research Funding,” May 29, 2026. “Federal research funding has relied on merit review, transparency and scientific judgement. [The] proposed rule would limit federal funding to research aligned with the ‘President’s policy priorities,’ render peer review merely ‘advisory,’ and enable political appointees – which could include the President himself – to make all final funding decisions. It also allows agencies to consider an applicant’s history, essentially creating a political litmus test to receive grant funding.”

Nature, “White House proposes vast overhaul of US science funding: what you need to know,” June 3, 2026. “The proposed rules would put political appointees in control of all federal grants; de-emphasize peer review . . . limit collaborations between federally funded US scientists and overseas colleagues; and restrict federal financial support for the publication of US scientists’ results in scientific journals.”

Science/AAAS, H. Holden Thorp, Editor in Chief, “Another Red Alert for American Science,” June 2, 2026, “The time to act is now. The scientific community needs to flood OMB with responses during the public comment period, open until 13 July. Universities and associations must speak out as a united front to mobilize Congress and be ready to file lawsuits once the regulations are finalized.... The red light is now flashing. All hands, report to stations.”

Forbes, "How The OMB Rule Could Hurt You and Your Town," June 24, 2026. “It’s essential to understand that every federal grant will be subject to review by a political appointee rather than undergoing standard peer review by others with experience in the field. The goal is to ensure that the grants are not . . . contrary to Trump’s desires.” Also, “the OMB proposal notes in § 200.340 that they can terminate existing awards if they are no longer aligned with ‘Federal agency priorities.’”

Harvard Law School Environment & Energy Law Program, “OMB Proposed Rule to Ensure Federal Financial Awards Align with Administration Priorities,” May 29, 2026. “The rule also proposed to prohibit awards ‘to fund, promote, encourage, subsidize, or facilitate: ‘Diversity, equity, and inclusion’ (DEI) or ‘diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility’ (DEIA) policies, principles, or practices, that violate any applicable Federal anti-discrimination laws.”

Your Local Epidemiologist, Elizabeth Marnik, “New OMB rule could break science in the United States,” June 10, 2026. “Three provisions stand out . . . 1. Political appointees would decide which science gets funded, and peer review would be explicitly sidelined or ignored . . . 2. Grants could be canceled at any point, without warning, in the middle of ongoing work . . . 3. Researchers would have a harder time communicating their findings without pre-approval from the federal government.”

Arnold & Porter, New Rulebook for Federal Grantmaking: An Analysis of OMB’s Proposed “Uniform Grants Regulation” | Major Questions: An Administrative Law and Regulatory Blog.

Conclusion:

Photo from Nature 

Rachel Carson, in her acceptance speech for the National Book Award for Nonfiction in 1952, stated, “The aim of science is to discover and illuminate the truth.” All of us, not just the scientists among us, should defend truth and apolitical grant funding. This attempt to unlawfully divert hundreds of billions of dollars of federal funding to research projects simply favored by the current Administration is unacceptable. Please oppose this proposal by OMB.

The ClassACT HR73 Environment & Climate Change Working Group plans to release announcements about critical issues and opportunities for anyone concerned to support scientific integrity and environmental protection. We hope to organize an open meeting soon to discuss our role in addressing the environment, biodiversity loss, and climate change. If you are a member of HR73 and want to join our efforts, please email us at classacthr73@gmail.com.