Science News & Analysis

'The purpose of the rule is fascism': scientists fight back against planned Trump research cuts (June 19, 2026)

The Guardian reports on the campaign mounted by Stand Up for Science against a proposed Office of Management and Budget rule that would place all federal research and other grants under the control of political appointees rather than scientific and subject-matter experts. Proposed by OMB director Russ Vought on May 29 and running to 411 pages, the rule would bar anything that "promote[s] anti-American values" and would require discretionary awards to demonstrably advance the president's policy priorities — language quoted by former National Institutes of Health program official Elizabeth Ginexi, who resigned last year after 22 years at the agency when DOGE dismissals made her work impossible. Colette Delawalla, the group's founder, characterized the result as a $1.5 trillion discretionary fund under presidential control, and said the rule would dismantle not only the U.S. science ecosystem but the entire structure of federal discretionary grants. Ginexi called it an assault on multiple fronts without precedent in her lifetime, and credited Delawalla's organization with filling a gap, since scientists as a group rarely engage in politics. Delawalla's own explanation for that gap is that non-scientists have never been instructed to remain apolitical, and so are easier to mobilize.

Delawalla, 32, is a clinical psychologist and researcher at Emory University in Atlanta who founded the organization last year in response to ideologically driven attacks on research; Scientific American this week named her one of five young scientists making waves, crediting her with showing younger researchers how to participate in democracy. Her recent three-day visit to Capitol Hill involved individual meetings with more than 30 members of Congress, and left her flustered: only one — Maryland Democratic senator Chris Van Hollen — was fully conversant with the proposal's contents. One veteran House Democrat, whom she declined to name, dismissed the group as protesters and said the executive branch ought to be able to cancel grants. The organization's approach has been to tailor its case to each audience. For some members she cites satellite operations, noting that U.S. and Chinese satellites experience near-collisions roughly 75 times a day and that offices in both countries coordinate to prevent them — coordination the rule would render illegal, with collisions following within hours. For others the argument is domestic and concrete: wheelchairs, veterans' housing and small business funding all flow from federal grants and could be disallowed.

The clearest illustration is clinical research. Stand Up for Science analyzed roughly 10,000 NIH-funded trials and estimated conservatively that nearly half could be discontinued under the rule — some for containing prohibited words such as equity, others simply for involving international collaboration. By the group's count that would encompass more than 1,000 cancer-related trials, hundreds of pediatric studies, and hundreds each examining veterans, suicide, heart disease and diabetes. Delawalla described reviewing that list of likely casualties at Reagan National Airport and stopping at one entry: a trial addressing parents who become suicidal following an infant death, which would likely become illegal because of its international collaboration. As the mother of a two-and-a-half-year-old, she said, she broke down. The organization is urging the public to file comments before the federal deadline of July 13, and has posted guidance on doing so; nearly 31,000 comments had been submitted to OMB as of Thursday morning. It is also preparing possible legal responses, and Delawalla convened some 50 attorneys from across the country to discuss strategy. Her broader framing is that the fight is about democratic governance: a country that forbids the study of certain subjects with federal money is not a free one.