Currently, the public’s health and welfare are under siege with threats to the safety of the food supply, accessing accurate health information, providing health care in rural areas and adequate medical management of individuals with chronic disease or substance problems, and coordinating effective responses to the spread of infectious diseases. The government’s imminent plans to further tighten the noose on research activity and funding will exacerbate this unfortunate development as the information gleaned from research provides the foundation for public health strategies to promote a safe environment, disease prevention, and best practices in clinical medicine.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH), including the National Cancer Institute and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute among several others, has historically benefited from uncontroversial, bipartisan investment because of the positive economic impact of research and development and likely because, well, everyone gets sick. Congressional support has led to establishing the global leadership of NIH in medical research. Last year, however, DOGE (the Orwellian Department of Government Efficiency) devastated the infrastructure and morale of the NIH, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and other government agencies. DOGE fired 10,000 employees at NIH alone (https://www.science.org/content/article/) and in the first six months of this administration, the Department of Veterans Affairs lost 17,000 employees, many of whom were involved in patient care and outreach. Hemorrhaging of government staff has, for the most part, ceased but attacks continue mounting on how science is conducted.
On May 29, 2026, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), which oversees the work of the U.S. government, proposed major changes to the funding and administration of research in the United States (OMB-2026-0034). Ostensibly to increase transparency and fairness in government sponsored research, if enacted, the upshot will be to replace autonomy to fund research ideas according to scientific merit and peer review with presidential oversight of whether research is in line with partisan policy priorities. It is difficult to overstate how these changes would adversely reshape government research.
Most medical research in the United States is conducted by universities and hospitals using grant money from the NIH. With the new rule, instead of independent expert committees, political appointees will award grants to universities using criteria that “demonstrably advance the President’s policy priorities.” Political appointees can cancel multi-year funded grants at any point without cause or explanation, potentially harming patients as well as substantially wasting limited time and money. Conduct of any research, even if it is not federally funded, on banned topics like gender transition or DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion), can result in termination of any of a university’s grants. Grantees may be denied awards based on “anti-American activity” which appears to include, among other undertakings, participating in public health advocacy. The new rule includes a widespread ban on international collaborations with covered foreign countries, currently denoting not only countries that could pose threats to U.S. interests, but those that the President merely dislikes. Agency heads can arbitrarily decide to forgo publicizing grant opportunities if they are not in the, undefined, “national interest.”
The rule prohibits funding for many necessary and routine research activities. Conference attendance, where scientists exchange ideas and form collaborations, will plummet due to funding limits that will also prevent subscriptions to scientific journals and memberships in professional societies. Government scientists are laudably mandated to share research findings with the public; however, the rule prohibits the use of federal funds to pay for manuscript publication (for which, oddly, authors are responsible). Moreover, research cannot be published without the approval of political appointees. Funding for public relations – how research is communicated to the public – will be prohibited.
This is a short summary of a very long document and while placed in the context of public health, the rule applies to biotechnology, social and behavioral science, energy and climate science, agriculture; essentially, all areas of government research.
This rule represents an attempt to gain political dominion over science. Fortunately, public comments on the rule can be made at www.regulations.gov or by contacting your federal representatives (https://www.commoncause.org/find-your-representative/). Comments are due on or before July 13, 2026.
Rebecca Troisi, ScD, MA is an epidemiologist and editor of Women and Health. She lives in Brookfield, Vt.
