The American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) is profoundly concerned by the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) proposed rule to revise federal financial assistance regulations. If finalized in its current form, this proposed rule would represent one of the most sweeping and consequential changes to the federal research grants system in decades—with implications that extend well beyond grant administration and into the independence, stability, and long-term vitality of American science.
The proposed rule would, among many other changes, authorize federal agencies to terminate active research awards when administration priorities shift; insert political appointees into the final step of the grant selection process, giving them authority to override the judgment of independent scientific peer reviewers; make publication costs and open access fees unallowable by default, in direct conflict with existing federal open access requirements; and restrict a wide range of routine research activities—from professional society memberships and journal subscriptions to conference attendance—through new approval requirements and cost prohibitions. The criteria that would govern these decisions, including what constitutes administration priorities or the national interest, are left undefined in the proposed rule, offering grantees little basis to anticipate, understand, or respond to adverse decisions.
Science does not run on a four-year clock. Clinical trials, long-term ecological studies, and other multi-year research programs require sustained commitment to produce results—and the patients, communities, industries, and scientific fields that depend on them cannot absorb the disruption of a politically motivated midstream termination. Beyond the immediate harm, a grants system redesigned to be easily redirected with each change in administration would be a death trap for American scientific innovation and leadership. The mechanisms this proposed rule would put in place could be used by any administration to substantially reshape the research enterprise on the basis of political preference rather than subject matter expertise used to assess independent scientific merit. Merit-based scientific peer review is a cornerstone of research integrity that has driven the world’s leading scientific endeavors for decades. Threatening it is a risk no administration should create. At a time when the United States faces intensifying global competition in science and technology, and when other nations are investing heavily in stable, long-term research programs, the U.S. cannot afford to undermine the reliability of its own research funding environment.
AIBS will submit formal comments opposing this proposed rule and will work in coalition with peer scientific societies, research universities, and other stakeholders to mount a coordinated response from the scientific community. We call on the research community, our member societies and organizations, and all those who depend on a strong scientific enterprise to add their full-throated voices. Comments are due on or before July 13, 2026, and may be submitted at regulations.gov, docket OMB-2026-0034.
Stay current on the latest science policy news. Subscribe to our bi-weekly AIBS Public Policy Report.