On August 7, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order titled “Improving Oversight of Federal Grantmaking” that dramatically reshapes how the federal government awards billions of dollars in research grants. For decades, career scientists and subject-matter experts have evaluated proposals based on merit, feasibility, and potential impact. Now, under the new directive, presidentially appointed officials will wield unprecedented power to decide which projects receive funding—and which are denied.
Shifting Power from Experts to Appointees
The order requires each federal agency to designate a senior presidential appointee responsible for reviewing all funding announcements and discretionary grant awards. These appointees are directed to apply “independent judgment” and ensure projects demonstrably advance the administration’s policy priorities. While peer review by experts is not formally eliminated, recommendations from scientific review panels will now be treated as advisory only—not binding.
The implications are significant. Areas of research that have historically been politically sensitive—such as climate change, reproductive health, pandemic preparedness, or social determinants of health—may now face an additional ideological filter before receiving support. The order even explicitly prohibits federal funding for projects that address gender diversity, racial equity initiatives, or immigration-related services.
A New Era of Politicized Science
Beyond project selection, the order gives agencies sweeping new authority to cancel existing grants if they are deemed no longer aligned with “agency priorities or the national interest”. This could disrupt multi-year biomedical research programs, global health security collaborations, or long-term clinical studies that require stability to generate meaningful results.
Additionally, the order limits the use of grant funds for indirect costs, mandates additional justifications for fund disbursement, and prioritizes institutions with lower overhead rates—changes that could disproportionately affect major research universities.
What Could Go Wrong: Public Health at Risk Under Politicized Grantmaking
The shift of grantmaking authority to political appointees opens the door to scenarios that could have profound consequences for biomedical progress and public health security. Recent rollbacks of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in universities and state-funded programs show just how quickly political agendas can derail vital scientific work.
- Denial of Vaccine Research Funding: If political appointees deem vaccine research “unnecessary” or misaligned with administration priorities, proposals for next-generation mRNA vaccines, universal flu vaccines, or HIV prevention may never be funded. This has already played out for mRNA vaccines, given the recent actions of the anti-vaccine director of U.S. Health and Human Services.
- Termination of Emerging Pathogen Studies: International collaborations are especially vulnerable. Studies on coronaviruses, influenza, or novel hemorrhagic fevers often involve overseas labs, which can draw political scrutiny. Federal support could be abruptly terminated, disrupting early-warning systems that are critical for pandemic prevention.
- Curtailment of Antimicrobial Resistance Programs: Because antimicrobial resistance doesn’t yield quick political “wins,” stewardship programs and new antibiotic pipelines could lose support. Federal neglect of this slow-moving but catastrophic threat would hasten the rise of “superbugs,” endangering millions worldwide.
- Suppression of Public Health Research on Sensitive Topics: Anti-DEI movements provide a preview of how political intervention can chill science. In several states, restrictions on DEI programs have already forced universities to close health equity centers, discontinue research on racial health disparities, and dismantle recruitment pipelines that bring underrepresented students into STEM fields. Extending this logic federally would jeopardize studies on maternal mortality, environmental justice, or mental health in marginalized populations—areas where data already show striking disparities.
- Disruption of Preparedness and Distribution Programs: Beyond research, federally funded trials in vaccine logistics—cold-chain systems, equitable distribution strategies, and community engagement models—may be deemed unnecessary if they explicitly prioritize equity. Eliminating these programs risks leaving the U.S. unprepared to protect vulnerable populations in the next crisis.
Together, these examples show how politicized grantmaking could not only silence controversial or inconvenient science but also replicate the chilling effects already visible in anti-DEI restrictions. Biomedical research and public health infrastructure depend on continuity, diversity of perspectives, and expert judgment. Eroding those pillars leaves the nation more vulnerable to the very crises federal science funding is meant to prevent.
What Comes Next
Legal challenges are expected, with advocacy organizations, universities, and scientific societies raising alarms about the chilling effects of political oversight on research freedom. Meanwhile, federal agencies are under pressure to rapidly implement the new procedures, halting new funding announcements until compliance is ensured.
The United States has long relied on a model where independent experts evaluate scientific merit, ensuring that taxpayer dollars support the most promising and impactful research. By placing grantmaking under direct political control, the new executive order threatens to erode that foundation. For professionals in public health, biosecurity, and biomedical research, the coming months will be pivotal in determining whether scientific independence—and the public trust it secures—can withstand this unprecedented shift.
Sources & Further Reading
The White House: Executive Order on Improving Oversight Of Federal Grantmaking
ARS Technica: New executive order puts all grants under political control
AP: Trump executive order gives politicians control over all federal grants, alarming researchers
American Association of Immunologists: President Trump issues sweeping executive order giving political appointees oversight of federal grantmaking
STAT: Trump executive order seeks to centralize control of grantmaking under political appointees
Global Biodefense: ACIP overhaul raises alarm among health experts