A new kind of institutional vandalism appeared last month in the form of a 412-page Trump administration regulatory proposal and a comment period. If the proposal passes, it will damage one of the most rigorous, productive and valuable scientific enterprises in the world.
The Office of Management and Budget has called for a rule change that would impose restrictions on the kinds of research that can be funded and give political appointees the final authority to deny federal funding for research deemed inconsistent with presidential priorities. Such a revision is necessary, the agency said, because there is a “lack of transparency, accountability and proper oversight” in the way federal funds are dispersed. That led to the waste and misuse of federal funds to “promote a ‘woke’ policy agenda,” according to the agency, particularly the diversity, equity and inclusion programs of the Biden years.
O.M.B.’s solution is to weaken the very process that already ensures a strong degree of accountability: The proposal demotes peer review where expert scientists, working inside and outside the agencies, evaluate research based on the scientific merits and strengths of the underlying evidence. Instead of being “routinely deferred to,” peer review would now be only “advisory.” That upends the longstanding compact between the federal government and the scientific community, where Congress appropriates funds, agencies administer them and scientists (through peer review) determine which proposals represent the best science.
Right now, the political appointees who lead agencies such as the Department of Health Human Services have broad authority to administer their agencies’ programs and set new priorities. But they didn’t typically do political evaluations of scientific research proposals. The new rules expand their power over which grants get approved based on whether the projects align with political ideology. The incentive to prioritize loyalty to a political leader over quality and America’s needs would be strong.
Scientists are not infallible. This is why we have checks and balances — enforced by our peers — built into the grant review and publication process. From the outside, it may look inefficient, and it certainly is not perfect. But it’s the best, most transparent and externally verifiable process we have. The proposed rules would take us in a different direction, corrupting the conditions under which rigorous science operates for the public good.
Let’s say the administration doesn’t like the scientific justification for a grant proposal on climate change, vaccines or the health disparities that women of color experience. A political appointee would have the power to deny funding relating to these topics. Appointees could also terminate an active grant project if they decide it is politically or ideologically inconvenient. As written, the proposed rules would govern virtually every grant from every federal agency, including housing, disaster recovery, transportation and Medicaid. Such sweeping power would affect billions in grant funding paid for by taxpayers.
Who would benefit from the proposed rules? For one, politically connected industries — including those that may want to obscure scientific links between their products and harmful health effects. Other beneficiaries of the proposed rules might include partisan think tanks, pseudoscientists or even government agencies that may shirk their legal obligations to protect the public.
Other knock-on effects would be profound. Scientists and graduate students would learn quickly which topics are unlikely to be approved. Entire fields could wither without funding not because the science is weak or unimportant, but because it is unwelcome. One day, American taxpayers might wake up and demand to know why we fund research on baseless conspiracy theories rather than investing in our collective future.
An alternative path to the proposed rules exists: the Scientific Integrity Act, a bill with bipartisan support that was reintroduced in the House in 2025. It would protect federal agencies and scientists from political interference by requiring that every federal agency that funds, conducts or oversees scientific research establish and maintain clear scientific integrity standards. It would also help ensure that policy decisions are based on independent, evidence-based science. If the bill were to become law, scientific integrity would become a robust and permanent requirement rather than something vulnerable to executive branch interference.
The O.M.B. proposal is open for public comment until July 13. Congress has a bill on the table. We should defend and improve upon the system by which we rigorously and transparently establish facts. It is how we advance the health and prosperity of all Americans.
Melissa L. Finucane is a professor of social and behavioral science and a chair at Stony Brook University. She was previously the vice president of science and innovation at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.
Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Bluesky, WhatsApp and Threads.
