In the world of scientific research, where groundbreaking discoveries and innovations are the lifeblood of progress, a dark cloud has loomed over the past few years. The Trump administration's relentless attack on federal grant-making has left scientists reeling, with a chilling effect on research and a chilling commentary on the state of American democracy. This is a story of shock, dismay, and the fight for the future of science.
The Harvard School of Public Health professor Nancy Krieger, a social epidemiologist, was one of the first to feel the brunt of this assault. Her nearly $1 million grant to study discrimination's impact on population health was canceled, leaving her in a state of shock and dismay. This was just the beginning of a chaotic year for Krieger, who had to juggle her academic responsibilities, legal battles, and the morale of her team.
The Trump administration's 'department of government efficiency' has been busy tearing apart federal grant-making infrastructure, targeting 'woke' research on gender, race, equity, and other sensitive topics. This has led to a wave of canceled and delayed grants, with scientists across the country feeling the impact. The list of affected grants is long and growing, and it's a chilling reminder of the fragility of scientific funding.
Now, the Trump administration is proposing a more than 400-page overhaul of the federal grant-making process, which would institutionalize much of the upheaval seen in federal funding. This proposal, informally referred to as 'the OMB rule', has attracted almost half a million public comments, with a staggering 95% opposing it. The rule would put nearly $1 trillion in grant-making into the hands of political appointees, and it's a proposal that has sparked outrage and consternation among scientists and scientific organizations.
The OMB rule would ban 'DEI' (diversity, equity, and inclusion) programs, prohibit undefined 'anti-American values', and discourage international collaboration between scientists. It would also allow the federal government to cancel awards that are no longer in its 'interest', a consideration that many researchers experienced first-hand in spring 2025. The rule is supported by the Heritage Foundation, a think tank that has been vocal in its opposition to 'woke' policies.
The impact of this proposal would be far-reaching, affecting healthcare, education, social services, and environmental protections. It would be a blow to scientific research, with $150 billion typically invested in science and technology. The National Institutes of Health (NIH), the world's largest public funder of biomedical and behavioral research, would be particularly affected.
The fight against the OMB rule is far from over. State attorneys general have come together to oppose the rule, and they are expecting to bring a suit. The Trump administration is attempting to weaponize essential federal funding to advance its policy priorities, and this time, it's almost all of them. The public comment period closed this week, but the battle is far from over.
The future of science is at stake, and the fight for federal grant-making is a battle for the soul of American democracy. The OMB rule is a proposal that must be opposed, and the scientists who have come together to fight it are a testament to the power of collective action. The outcome of this battle is uncertain, but the stakes are too high to ignore. The future of scientific research hangs in the balance, and the world is watching.
