Most Americans don’t read the rules that govern the federal grants funding science. Those rules, called the Uniform Guidance, shape how cancer research is funded, graduate students are trained, clinical trials are sustained, universities stock their labs and discoveries from those labs move into broader society.

When the Trump administration announced on May 29, 2026, its intentions to revise these rules, many researchers were alarmed.

The Office of Management and Budget – the White House agency tasked with implementing the president’s policies across the executive branch – proposed requiring political appointees to review grant decisions for whether research projects advance the president’s policy priorities. These political officials would also have greater authority to override the decisions of the research agencies managing the grants.

The proposal was open for public comment until July 13, 2026, and received nearly 500,000 comments. Scientists have warned that these changes could allow political considerations to displace objective assessments, undermining merit-based federal research funding.

The OMB said these changes are intended to improve transparency and oversight of federal funds. However, scientists worry that several of these revisions could make research less predictable, harder to share and more expensive to do.

Beyond concerns about political influence over funding decisions, there are also more practical issues: What happens when the federal grant system becomes less stable for the people involved in the work of research?

Deprioritizing scientific merit

The first issue is peer review. Federal science agencies already use peer-review systems to assess which research projects will receive federal funding.

These systems generally involve scientists and other specialists with expertise relevant to the proposed work. Grant proposals typically undergo several rounds of review, one involving external experts and one involving agency officials. I am a scientist who has served for many years on federal grant review panels, including within the National Institutes of Health.

Reviewers like me assess the scientific merit of a research proposal through several factors. These include the rigor and feasibility of the work – that is, whether the study design can appropriately answer the research question. We consider whether the investigators have the expertise and institutional support to conduct the work. We also assess the overall impact of the project, examining whether the research could meaningfully advance the field and benefit science and society.

VIDEO

The Trump administration seeks to overhaul science in the United States.

Peer review is designed to test whether a proposal is scientifically strong enough to merit public investment. This process is not perfect, but it is central to the credibility of federal research funding. By having a panel of experts identify conflicts of interest and methodological weaknesses, and by comparing competing proposals, peer review helps reduce the likelihood that a consequential funding decision rests on one person’s preferences or an applicant’s prestige.

If the scientific merit of a project becomes less important, as it would under the Office of Management and Budget’s proposal, researchers, institutions and the general public will have less confidence that the strongest science is being funded and producing reliable evidence rather than preferred political outcomes. Over time, that loss of confidence could discourage investment in ambitious proposals that advance science.

Research needs stability to thrive

The second issue is stability. Federal grants are often multiyear commitments. Many individual grants are structured for approximately three to five years, while complex clinical trials and research infrastructure projects may take longer with renewals, follow-on phases or related grants. A project may require years of work before meaningful results emerge.

The Trump administration’s proposed revisions to funding rules would expand the circumstances under which agencies could suspend or terminate awarded grants at will, even for research projects that are being conducted under their approved scope. The proposed grounds for termination include no longer advancing current agency priorities or public interest.

A grant supports the staff, supplies, data systems and compliance programs essential to a research project. If an ongoing award can be terminated because of a shift in political priorities, students may lose support, clinical trials may be disrupted, and lab facilities may be unable to maintain fragile equipment.

Science also depends on long-term planning. A laboratory cannot easily recruit and hire staff, order custom materials or launch a study if funding decisions become unpredictable. Research institutions make many of these commitments months or years in advance. Specialized employees cannot always be reassigned immediately, and studies involving patients or animals carry ethical and regulatory responsibilities that continue even when funding is interrupted.

Cutting short an ongoing project that has been receiving federal grants is also a waste of taxpayer dollars.

Sharing is critical to science

The third issue is dissemination. The Trump administration’s proposal would not allow grants to cover many publication costs, including article processing charges and open-access fees. More precisely, the proposed changes would require the federal agency overseeing the grant to approve publications in advance.

Researchers would be forbidden from using grants to cover subscriptions to professional, academic and technical journals. They would also be restricted from using grants to pay for conferences and professional memberships unless expressly approved by the federal agency.

The proposal states that these expenses aren’t necessary to carry out the objectives of a grant. But sharing findings is critical to research.

Sharing and discussing findings with other researchers is critical to science.
Kevin Sullivan/Digital First Media/Orange County Register via Getty Images

Publication is how federally funded research becomes part of the scientific record. Open-access publishing helps physicians, patients, policymakers, companies, teachers and researchers read study findings without a paywall. These goals are consistent with federal policies emphasizing public access to taxpayer-funded research.

Conferences are also part of research. They are where scientists scrutinize data, train young researchers and learn new methods. My own career has been shaped by this ecosystem. Conferences have allowed me to present my findings, receive critical feedback and meet new collaborators across disciplines. Many research partnerships begin with a question during a poster session or after a talk. A conversation can lead to researchers combining their expertise to solve a problem they couldn’t address alone.

Restricting the ability of grants to cover these essential parts of research shifts the cost elsewhere, often to universities, departments, investigators or trainees. Researchers who lack federal or institutional support, especially trainees and early career scientists, are often unable to share their work and access professional development opportunities.

If access to scientific exchange depends more heavily on an individual’s or an institution’s financial resources, the result will likely be restrictions on who gets to participate in science.

Protecting research without isolating researchers

The fourth issue is collaboration. The Trump administration’s proposal would establish a governmentwide prohibition on using federal funds to support research and related activities involving specific foreign countries or entities, particularly China. Exceptions may be possible with the approval of an agency head, though all research with international components would be required to prioritize domestic interests first.

Addressing foreign influence and protecting intellectual property is important to maintaining national security. But many scientific problems are inherently international: Infectious diseases, cancer, climate, food security, space science and rare diseases do not stop at national borders.

Broad restrictions may discourage valuable collaborations even when the risks can be managed. International partnerships can provide access to unique patient populations, scientific expertise and data, facilities and environmental conditions that are not available in the United States.

Science is a collaborative enterprise.
Thomas Barwick/DigitalVision via Getty Images

Heightened risk-based oversight is appropriate in certain cases, such as when research projects involve particularly sensitive information or technology, or when an international partner has a record of noncompliance. But the administration’s proposal does not distinguish between identifiable security risks and transparent scientific relationships that strengthen American research.

Effective oversight is calibrated to the nature, scale and demonstrated risk of each collaboration. Applied too broadly, safeguards against abuse can increase administrative burden without improving scientific accountability.

Accountability without impeding research

The rules governing federal grants may seem technical. But these guidelines determine whether scientific discoveries are funded, completed, shared and translated into benefits for society.

Federal oversight that is transparent, predictable and proportionate to identifiable risks can help keep scientific merit and productive use of public funds at the center of grant decisions. Accountability works best when it helps researchers deliver reliable results, not when it disrupts sound work because of changing political preferences or blanket restrictions.

If the goal is better stewardship of taxpayer dollars, then clear, risk-based safeguards can help address misconduct, waste and genuine security threats without weakening the conditions that allow research to succeed.

Accountability can be strengthened without undermining the stability and collaboration that makes federally funded research successful.