Political Control of Research Funding Threatens Sound Science
Decades of federal research funding have led to breakthroughs in medicine, technology, and environmental science. A new OMB proposal aims to derail all of this through political interference.
A Stand Up for Science rally held at Washington Square Park in New York City, March 7, 2025
Coauthored by Glenda Valdez, climate legal fellow, Climate & Energy program, NRDC, and Thoin Begum, science technology policy fellow, Science Office, NRDC
For decades, the United States has maintained global leadership in science by investing in research that seeks to answer questions of greatest concern to our health and well-being, as well as to answer our curiosity about the world around us. Federal science funding has powered breakthroughs that shape our daily lives, from GPS navigation to medical innovations and clean energy solutions. These advances often begin with long-term research investments that can take decades to deliver real-world impact.
Learn More
But a new proposed rule by the Trump administration’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) puts American scientific progress and leadership at risk. It would put the choice of what topics to study, what methods of research to use, and which researchers will be funded in the hands of a thin layer of political appointees in the funding agencies. The result would be a stilted research agenda that wobbles unstably with changes in party control of the presidency. That’s not how evidence-based medical, engineering, or environmental scientific research should be conducted.
This is a grave threat to scientific integrity and to stable funding for inherently long-term research endeavors. Studies into complex biological, ecological, economic, and other topics necessarily unfold over years or decades, not four-year political cycles. Political disruption puts at risk the work that communities and ecosystems depend on, from clean water and energy to public health and education. Some of the communities most vulnerable to poor health and harmful environmental impacts may be most adversely affected by the disruption of critical scientific research.
Political control of American science is unprecedented
At the highest level, Congress sets our national research priorities through legislation and appropriations. It has long set broad priorities, delegating the task of selecting detailed research agendas to expert science agencies such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the U.S. National Science Foundation, and other agencies. Within the congressional priorities, agencies’ grant-making decisions have traditionally been made through a merit-based review process, where independent experts evaluate proposals and recommend the strongest projects for funding.
To be sure, in a merit-based process, there can be differences of view on what to fund and why. But the new OMB proposal would create problems that currently do not exist. It would inject overtly political, partisan review into decisions about individual grants, which have traditionally been insulated from that kind of politics.
This proposal is a departure from long-standing norms. It raises concerns under the Administrative Procedure Act by proposing to convert guidance into binding regulatory requirements, constraining agency expertise and discretion. Under the proposed rule, a political appointee could override the experts’ recommendations, filtering out top-ranked projects that do not align with the administration’s priorities, regardless of their scientific merit. Political officials could terminate existing grants midway with a vague, easily abused determination that the award "no longer effectuates program goals, agency priorities, or the national interest.”
This is not idle speculation. We’ve already seen it happen dozens of times in this administration, from the cancellation of hundreds of climate and environmental justice grants from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the clawback of billions in clean energy funding to the termination of hundreds of NIH research grants that disrupted hundreds of clinical trials and displaced tens of thousands of participants.
Why this matters for people and the planet
When the federal science system works as it should, guided by expertise and sustained investment, it delivers real, tangible benefits that improve people’s lives every day. Decades of federal research funding have led to breakthroughs in medicine, technology, and public systems, from innovations in organ transplant matching that save thousands of lives each year to advanced life-saving insulin therapies and foundational work that helped launch modern biotechnology.
The same is true for science that protects our environment. Federal research funding supports efforts that help communities prepare for and respond to climate change: improving hurricane forecasting, strengthening wildfire response, and advancing clean energy solutions. We’ve already seen efforts to cancel satellites and ocean monitors, which are critical to knowing what is happening to a changing climate. NRDC’s work to protect the health of people, communities, and the planet depends on strong scientific evidence; much of it made possible by sustained federal investment in research.
Even programs focused on implementation rely on a strong foundation of scientific research to guide decisions, measure impact, and improve outcomes. For example, the EPA funds environmental grants such as community clean drinking water grants. The U.S. Department of Energy supports grants for clean energy, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services funds programs for rural hospitals. These investments touch communities across the country and underpin solutions to environmental and public health challenges. This research helps identify and address health-harming exposures—such as PFAS, microplastics, and toxic pesticides—in our air, water, soil, and food. Without independent, science-based research, it becomes much harder to detect these risks and protect communities.
A politicized funding system puts that progress at risk. When grants can be redirected or canceled based on shifting political priorities, critical research may never begin or may be halted before it delivers results. Over time, this weakens our ability to address major challenges like mitigating climate change, protecting public health, and assuring safe guardrails for emerging technologies.
The result is not just slower progress; it is a loss of continuity in the scientific work needed to solve long-term problems. Disrupting that investment risks setting back innovation, weakening U.S. leadership, and delaying the solutions that communities urgently need.
Submit a public comment today
This proposal is currently open for public comment until July 13, 2026. Comments addressing the real impacts of this rule and the importance of consistently funded science are important to further demonstrate to the Trump administration that this proposal is outlandish, inserts politics where they do not belong, and threatens American competitiveness.
Science should be left to scientific experts, not politicians
An OMB proposal would jeopardize $1 trillion in federal funding for life-saving environmental and public health research. Tell the OMB to stop this catastrophic plan now!
Science should be left to scientific experts, not politicians
The Trump administration’s OMB announced a disastrous proposal, that would jeopardize $1 trillion in federal funding for life-saving environmental and public health research—and give would Trump’s hand-chosen officials immense power over the grants process. The administration is accepting public comments about their catastrophic plan—but only until July 13.
This NRDC.org blog is available for online republication by news media outlets or nonprofits under these conditions: The writer(s) must be credited with a byline; you must note prominently that the blog was originally published by NRDC.org and link to the original; the blog cannot be edited (beyond simple things such as grammar); you can’t resell the blog in any form or grant republishing rights to other outlets; you can’t republish our material wholesale or automatically—you need to select blogs individually; you can’t republish the photos or graphics on our site without specific permission; you should drop us a note to let us know when you’ve used one of our blogs.
RELATED CONTENT
Offshore Wind Can Power the Future (If We Just Let It)
The AI Boom Is Stressing the Grid—but It Doesn’t Have to Be This Way
