Public Backlash Mounts Against OMB Proposal to Politicize $1.1 Trillion in Federal Grants
As the July 13, 2026, public comment deadline closes, the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) faces a historic wave of public opposition to its sweeping proposal to alter how federal grants are signed off. The proposed rule, titled "Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance," represents a massive power grab designed to replace the traditional merit-based, peer-reviewed grant process overseen by civil servants with a system of direct political control by presidential appointees.
The proposed changes would affect hundreds of billions of dollars in funding disbursed by agencies ranging from the National Science Foundation (NSF) to the Transportation Department. Under the rule, senior Administration officials would gain the authority to review and deny any discretionary awards on the grounds that they do not align with the President's agenda1, as well as terminate active grants at any time.
The scale of the opposition has neared 100,000 public comments, driven by deep alarm from scientific, educational, and municipal leaders who warn that the rule will defund critical research and destabilize local budgets. Critics contend that federal grants represent an average of 36 cents of every dollar a state spends, meaning the entire financial partnership between the federal government and the states would be placed under partisan control without an act of Congress.
Key Developments as Comment Deadline Closes
- Massive Public Backlash: The comment period ending July 13, 2026, has drawn unprecedented attention, with organizations across the country mobilizing to register their opposition.
- Scientific Defunding Concerns: Sudip Parikh, head of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, warned that the rule "will make future discoveries less likely." The rule would also prohibit federal funds from supporting collaborations between U.S. researchers and colleagues in several foreign countries, which leaders warn would effectively block the U.S. from participating in international projects like the International Space Station or global pandemic monitoring.
- Subversion of Congressional Appropriations: Opponents point out that the Trump administration is already bypassing Congress by refusing to disburse funds. For example, the NSF is on track to make its lowest number of grants in over half a century (roughly 1,700) after the administration refused to release funds, despite Congress rejecting Trump's proposal2 to slash the agency's budget by more than half.
"Instead, the final say would go to political appointees. All discretionary awards from the federal government would have to be assessed by senior Administration officials, who could deny them on the ground that they didn’t fit the President’s agenda. Grants could also be terminated at any time for the same reason." — The New Yorker, July 20, 2026
"This latest move is a brazen power grab by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to buck the will of Congress and the American people and will make future discoveries less likely." — Sudip Parikh, AAAS, quoted in The New Yorker, July 20, 2026
-
An instance of Unitary executive controls convert merit-based federal grants into tools of partisan compliance. — The proposed OMB rule shifts the federal award system from merit-based, nonpartisan peer reviews to direct political vetoes by presidential appointees. ↩︎
-
An instance of Bipartisan legislative coalitions and federal courts block the executive use of administrative funding freezes to bypass Congress. — The administration's attempts to bypass Congress by withholding scientific grants triggered swift public backlash and warnings of a constitutional power grab. ↩︎