OMB proposal grants political appointees control over federal science grants, sparking legal and public backlash
Despite over 54,000 negative public comments and constitutional challenges from 24 governors, the OMB has not withdrawn a proposal that allows grant termination based on political associations.
The Trump administration’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has proposed new regulations that would grant political appointees significant control over federal science grant funding. The Planetary Society has warned that this move threatens the integrity of space research by undermining peer review, restricting funding for open-access publication, and allowing grants to be terminated based on scientists’ political associations. The proposal distinguishes between data collection, such as operating Mars rovers, and the scientific analysis of that data, with the latter now subject to political oversight.
The proposal has attracted over 54,000 public comments, the vast majority of which are negative. This volume stands in stark contrast to typical OMB rules, which usually garner fewer than 100 comments. Casey Dreier, chief of space policy at The Planetary Society, described the changes as a "surgical, scalpel-like attack on the actual process of science," noting that nearly every aspect of the rule changes carries deleterious consequences for the practice of science.
A central component of the proposal is the restriction on funding for open-access publication, which has been the standard method for making space science papers freely available to the public for over a decade. Dreier argued that forbidding grant funding for this purpose makes science data more difficult for the public to access, suggesting the move serves as a means of control over scientists rather than a legitimate policy adjustment.
The rules also remove peer review protections, allowing grants to be revoked at any time for any reason if deemed against the president’s interests. This introduces what critics call "capriciousness" and "opacity" into the decision-making process. Under the new framework, a scientist’s funding could be terminated based on their political associations or past social media activity, regardless of whether they have violated any existing rules.
The regulatory shift creates a distinction between NASA’s contracts for building spacecraft and the grants used for scientific analysis. While data collection activities remain protected, the grants supporting the interpretation and modelling of that data are now vulnerable. Dreier emphasised that the science occurs when experts analyse the data, and removing support for this process undermines the value of the data collected.
The OMB has not withdrawn the rule despite the significant public pushback. During a recent Senate hearing, OMB director Russell Vought faced criticism from Democratic senators, who described the effects of the rule as "absurdity" and "bias." The administration appears unwilling to back down, anticipating a series of legal challenges rather than a policy reversal.
Legal challenges are being mounted by a group of 24 governors and attorneys general, who argue that the rule is unconstitutional and violates the separation of powers. The long-term impact on international scientific collaborations remains a concern, as scientists may hesitate to engage with partners in countries such as China, Russia, or Canada due to the risk of their funding being revoked based on shifting political interests.
