The Trump administration’s proposed overhaul of federal grantmaking has drawn nearly 99,000 public comments, with the July 13 deadline to submit comments now days away.
The Office of Management and Budget’s proposal, published in the Federal Register on May 29, would update how the federal government awards and manages grants across more than 40 agencies, including HHS, the National Institutes of Health and National Science Foundation. The proposal includes more than 320 changes to the government’s existing grant guidance, according to the Association of American Universities.
Where things stand:
1. Under the proposal, political appointees would conduct “pre-issuance reviews” of discretionary grant awards, with scientific peer review treated as advisory rather than binding. The rule would also expand agencies’ authority to suspend or terminate grants mid-project if the work no longer aligns with “federal agency priorities or the national interest,” and would restrict funding for publication costs, professional society memberships and international research collaboration.
2. OMB said the revisions aim to improve transparency, accountability and oversight of federal awards to ensure tax dollars are funding activities consistent with law and policy.
3. However, numerous healthcare research, public health and advocacy organizations have staunchly pushed back on the proposal and encouraged members to file public comments. As of July 9, the proposed rule had logged more than 98,900 public comments.
4. The American Association for Cancer Research called the proposed regulations “reckless” and a “major threat” to the National Institutes of Health and its cancer research work in a June 30 statement. The association claims the changes would actually magnify administrative complexity, create uncertainty for grant recipients and limit transparency in funding decisions. One Voice Against Cancer — a coalition of more than 50 public health organizations — shared similar concerns, while the American Association for the Advancement of Science called the proposal a “brazen power grab” by the OMB in a June 2 statement.
5. Lawmakers are also weighing in, and not strictly along party lines. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, sent a July 6 letter asking OMB to withdraw provisions she said would undermine the objective that federal grants be awarded based on scientific merit and value, rather than political ideology. Her letter followed a July 1 letter from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and 46 other Democratic senators who separately sent a letter to the OMB, opposing the changes.
6. Biotech investors and researchers have also mobilized against the rule. A public statement shared July 6 by the advocacy group No Patient Left Behind warned the proposal would introduce unpredictability into biomedical research funding and reduce private investment in early-stage drug discovery.
7. If finalized as proposed, the rule would take effect Oct. 1, applying to new awards and incremental funding actions issued after that date.
At the Becker's 11th Annual IT + Revenue Cycle Conference: The Future of AI & Digital Health, taking place September 14–17 in Chicago, healthcare executives and digital leaders from across the country will come together to explore how AI, interoperability, cybersecurity, and revenue cycle innovation are transforming care delivery, strengthening financial performance, and driving the next era of digital health. Apply for complimentary registration now.