The quiet introduction of a 400-page overhaul in May 2026 by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has set off alarm bells among scientists, academics, and civil society organisations in the United States. The proposed changes aim to transfer an estimated $1tn in grant-making authority from federal agencies to political appointees by October this year, sparking widespread concern over the politicisation of critical research and public services.
Notably, this latest development follows a period marked by significant upheaval in federal funding, including instances of grant cancellations. Professor Nancy Krieger, a social epidemiologist at Harvard School of Public Health, recently experienced this first-hand when her nearly $1m grant to study the impact of discrimination on population health was abruptly cancelled. This, and other similar incidents, have been attributed to efforts to dismantle federal grant infrastructure under the banner of ending what some officials termed 'woke' research, targeting studies on gender, race, and equity.
The proposed OMB rule's far-reaching implications extend beyond scientific research, encompassing the entirety of the federal grant-making process. Sara Rosenbaum, professor emerita of health law and policy at the Milken Institute School of Public Health at George Washington University, highlighted the broad scope, stating it would affect healthcare, education, social services, and environmental protections. This unity of purpose among diverse groups has united astrophysicists with marine biologists in their opposition.
The proposal has generated an unprecedented volume of public feedback, with nearly half a million comments submitted. Analyses indicate that approximately 95% of these comments express strong opposition to the rule. Bipartisan criticism has also emerged, with figures like Democratic Senator Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin expressing concerns that the proposal endangers the health and safety of Americans by politicising taxpayer-funded research rather than focusing on breakthroughs and cures.
Of the potential $1tn in funding at stake, around $150bn is typically invested in science and technology. To put this into perspective, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the world's largest public funder of biomedical and behavioural research, has an annual budget of approximately $47bn. The proposed changes could therefore have a profound and lasting impact on the direction and independence of scientific discovery and public service provision across the United States.