A Five-Alarm Fire

There’s a five-alarm fire smoldering in the U.S. Federal Register. The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) seeks to overhaul the rules whereby federal grants for scientific research are given. Among the changes, the proposed rule requires a “pre-issuance review” of grant awards by political appointees, superseding industry relevance and scientific merit reviews and undoubtedly slowing the administration of monies awarded. It also prohibits the use of grant funding to cover the costs of journal submissions or speaking engagements, limiting the mechanisms by which scientists learn about potential collaborators and industry hears about innovations and the people bringing them to life. It gives the government full reign to terminate grants without cause, which creates uncertainty for scientists—especially vulnerable post-docs, graduate students and lab technicians—who risk losing valuable income and experience when their topics of study or academic institutions come under scrutiny by the Administration. In the words of many of the nearly 70,000 people who have commented on the rule so far, “This is insanity.”

Those who’ve shared their thoughts also note that the 45-day comment period is too short for a good-faith effort at generating public input. And they remark that the effective date of the final rule—October 1, 2026, less than three months from the close of the comment period on July 13—is too short a runway to make such sweeping changes, both within government funding agencies and at non-federal grant-seeking entities. As one commenter writes, “Rather than enforcing an arbitrary start date of October 1, OMB should delay implementation by at least one full fiscal year. This would allow institutions to transition smoothly without risking the continuity of critical public programs. The better idea would be to drop the proposed rule change entirely.”

As multiple media have observed, the proposed rule is an end-around for the Administration’s previously unsuccessful attempts to limit or halt federal funding for scientific research and academic independence. These changes endanger the American scientific enterprise and threaten our ability to generate new knowledge to advance the industries—like grape-growing and wine- and juice-making—that fuel the U.S. economy.

History tells us that science is the engine of our nation’s cultural advancement and economic prosperity. And recent events have shown that suspicions of government fraud and waste have been disastrously overblown. It is likely that there are efficiencies to be gained in federal processes and that grant dollars could be stretched further and do more good if thoughtfully applied. But what is there to be gained by second-guessing scientists, prioritizing “solutions” that fit political narratives and short-changing rule-making purported to benefit us all?

NGRA strongly opposes this incendiary rule. The damage these changes could ignite could take decades to burn out. We will submit our opposition online and urge you to weigh in, too. Comment here by July 13, 2026.

Donnell Brown
President