$150 billion a year at stake as Trump targets independent science funding | The latest National and International News - upday News
The Trump administration has proposed transferring control over nearly $1 trillion in federal research grants from independent scientific experts to political appointees. The more than 400-page plan from the Office of Management and Budget would fundamentally reshape how the U. S. government funds scientific research, affecting everything from cancer studies to climate science. | The latest National and International News - upday News
The Trump administration has proposed transferring control over nearly $1 trillion in federal research grants from independent scientific experts to political appointees. The more than 400-page plan from the Office of Management and Budget would fundamentally reshape how the U. S. government funds scientific research, affecting everything from cancer studies to climate science. The proposal has triggered unprecedented opposition. Nearly 500,000 public comments have flooded in, with analyses showing roughly 95% opposed to the changes. Twenty-two state attorneys general are expected to file a lawsuit challenging the rule's constitutionality. The changes would affect approximately $150 billion typically invested in science and technology annually, including the National Institutes of Health's $47 billion budget — the world's largest public funder of biomedical research. Projects would be evaluated based on alignment with presidential priorities and rejection of diversity, equity and inclusion programs, transgender identities, or perceived "anti-American" ideas. Scientists describe funding chaosHarvard School of Public Health professor Nancy Krieger experienced the disruption firsthand when her nearly $1 million NIH grant studying discrimination's effect on population health was abruptly canceled. «I'm like, what? What does this mean? I don't understand? My grant has another year in it. I immediately reached out to the office that helps with grants to find out what was going on, and it led to a flurry of emails over the weekend - just trying to even find out what was happening,» Krieger said. Her cancellation was among the first attributed to efforts aimed at ending research on gender, race and equity. The Atlantic reported that the administration suspended and canceled nearly 8,000 scientific grants in 2025. Sara Rosenbaum, professor emerita of health law and policy at George Washington University's Milken Institute School of Public Health, warned the proposal affects the entirety of the federal grant-making process, extending far beyond research to healthcare, education, social services and environmental protections. Bipartisan criticism mountsSenator Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin stated that President Donald Trump and OMB director Russell Vought are endangering Americans' health and safety by wielding taxpayer dollars as a political weapon. California attorney general Rob Bonta urged the OMB to withdraw the proposal, saying it aims to undermine practically every industry and public service supported by federal funding. Representative Rosa DeLauro told The Hill the plan represents cancel culture for cancer research. DeLauro noted the rule could enable the White House to reject or halt funding mid-project if an institution «uses the word 'diversity' in their mission statement» or if a researcher publicly opposes administration vaccine policies. DeLauro further characterized it as arbitrary political control that is ripe for abuse, allowing grant denials for «any reason -- or no reason at all. »Supporters defend political oversightMichael S. Kochin, writing for The American Mind, argued that Americans who «believe in democracy and democratic accountability» should welcome the change. He contended that political appointees are «accountable to the president and to Congress» and that projects should only proceed if their «political masters» «believe them to serve the national interest. »Kochin criticized the current peer review system for «enforcing consensus rather than discovering truth» and stated federal grants should fund research that will «actually make us healthier, richer, and freer. » The Heritage Foundation, which authored Project 2025, supports the rule. OMB director Russell Vought characterized criticism as a "freakout by those on the left. "Concerns over U. S. scientific leadershipCritics predict the rule will weaken American scientific supremacy. Carlo Ratti from MIT acknowledged researchers are «not immune to herd behavior» but argued that «ideological pressures» are not the correct solution, as they encourage scientists to withdraw proposals that «could be cancelled when the political weather turns. »Sudip Parikh, CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, warned U. S. researchers "are not going to be able to cure disease, and you're not going to be able to grow the economy. "The administration allowed only 45 days for public comments, shorter than the typical 60 to 90 days. The comment period closes this week. Legal experts anticipate lawsuits once the rule is finalized and grants are denied, though the timeline for challenges remains uncertain. Note: This article was created with Artificial Intelligence (AI).