PUBLIC COMMENT BY JULY 13, 2026! 'This is actually taking a page out of the Communist Party playbook': New White House proposal could deny scientists funding based on their political opinions (June 9, 2026 )
The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has proposed a sweeping new rule — "Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance," published May 28, 2026 — that would hand political appointees final authority over federal scientific research grants, effectively subordinating peer review to partisan loyalty tests. If finalized, the rule takes effect October 1, 2026, and would apply government-wide across NIH, NSF, NASA, the Department of Energy, the Department of Defense, and every other federal agency that funds science.
Under current practice, career scientists and civil servants manage the grant process, with funding decisions made through rigorous merit-based peer review. The proposed rule explicitly states that peer review "remains advisory and does not replace agency discretion" — meaning a political appointee with no scientific background could override the unanimous recommendation of a scientist's peers.
The rule goes further. It would authorize agencies to consider scientists' social media posts and personal associations when making funding decisions. As Casey Dreier, Chief of Space Policy at The Planetary Society, explained: "If you are part of a peaceful protest, if you post something on social media saying you disagree with the policy of the administration, that can be actually used against you — [they can] just quietly deny you, your graduate students, [or] your staff access to scientific research money that you otherwise would have earned by merit."
The rule builds on a 2025 executive order directing federal agencies to award grants that "advance the President's policy priorities." It also codifies bans on funding research related to DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) or "gender ideology," restricts international scientific collaboration, limits funding for open-access journal publication, and bars scientists from participating in professional societies deemed to engage in "issue advocacy."
The practical consequences for space science are illustrative. A NASA scientist whose career expertise is Venus research could be denied funding — regardless of peer review scores — simply because, as Dreier put it, "the President doesn't care about Venus anymore, he only cares about the moon." Critically, political appointees could override these funding decisions even when Congress has specifically appropriated money for that research. "This is a way to functionally impound resources," Dreier said.
The proposed rule would also block satellite operators from contacting Chinese counterparts in the event of collision risk — a potentially catastrophic provision, given that dozens of emergency collision-avoidance notifications between U.S. and Chinese satellites are generated every day.
The administration's stated justification for the rule is a claimed lack of "transparency, accountability, and proper oversight" in U.S. science between 2021 and 2024, and an allegation that federal awards were used to "promote a 'woke' policy agenda."
The scientific community's response has been swift and nearly unanimous. Within four days of posting, the proposed rule had drawn more than 3,500 public comments, almost all critical. The president of the National Academy of Sciences, Marcia McNutt, warned that "politicians will decide what research to fund, what meetings scientists are allowed to attend, and whether and where the results can be published." Colette Delawalla, founder of Stand Up for Science, stated: "It replaces expertise with political appointees, globally decouples the U.S. and completely guts our scientific ecosystem."
Dreier drew a direct and pointed comparison: "For an administration that says it wants to compete with China, this is actually taking a page out of the Communist Party playbook and saying, 'what if we actually impose a partisan political test on these things?'"
He also warned that the danger is not limited to scientists who oppose the current administration. By centralizing control over science funding in political appointees, the rule would hand any future administration — of either party — the same power to impose ideological tests on research. "You are giving and centralizing control... you are opening up for a future Democratic administration to impose their partisan tests on what gets funded and not."
The Planetary Society framed the stakes in stark terms: "The United States cannot be first in space if it is second in science. And the nation cannot lead the world in science if the systems are driven by politics rather than merit. The U.S. would cede the next generation of discoveries in space to other nations — including the potential detection of biosignatures or even life beyond Earth — if these rules are implemented."
The proposed rule is open for public comment until July 13, 2026. [See below] The government is legally obligated to accept comments and to respond to them before any rule can be finalized.
Comments on this proposed rule are due July 13, 2026. OMB is legally required under the Administrative Procedure Act to accept public comments and to respond to substantive comments before any rule can be finalized. Anyone — scientists, universities, scientific societies, advocacy organizations, state and local governments, and members of the general public — has standing to comment.
To submit a comment (this is the only guaranteed way for it to be accepted):
- Go to regulations.gov docket OMB-2026-0034
- Click "Comment"
- If your comment references specific sections of the proposed regulation, begin each point with the relevant section number in brackets — e.g., [200.414] — as OMB has requested
- Do not include confidential business information or personal privacy information, as all comments become part of the public record
- You can type in your comments or [we suggest] submit a document in a number of different common formats.
Late comments will be considered "only to the extent practicable," so filing before the deadline is strongly encouraged. Given the scope of what is proposed, breadth and volume of opposition entered in the formal record should matter both legally and politically. Comments that cite specific regulatory sections and articulate concrete harms carry more legal weight in any subsequent challenge than general objections — so even a sentence or two keyed to a specific provision strengthens the record.