Cancel culture for cancer research: Proposed rule politicizes federal grantmaking

Skip to content

The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill

Last week, Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought testified before the House Appropriations Committee for the first time this year.

It was his first appearance before Congress since the office he oversees issued a 412-page proposed federal regulation that would replace the current merit-based, apolitical, expert-driven process for awarding federal grants with a partisan political one controlled by the White House.

Rather than making decisions based on the existing peer-review system, where scientists shielded from politics evaluate the merit of projects according to empirical evidence, funding determinations will be made based on whether or not a recipient promotes “anti-American values,” or “damage[s] the reputation” of the federal government.

Recipients cannot “deny the biological reality of sex or the sex binary in humans,” nor can they promote “theories of disparate impact liability.” And they must “demonstrably advance the president’s policy priorities,” in order to be eligible for federal grant funding.

This is a seismic shift in how federal grantmaking works. What advances the president’s policy priorities, damages the reputation of the government, or promotes anti-American values is subjective. You cannot apply a rigorous standard to what embarrasses the president or not. This change would allow political appointees in the Trump administration to deny or terminate virtually any grant at any time for any reason —or no reason at all.

Imagine a prestigious research institution that applies for a federal grant to develop a new treatment for glioblastoma. Their application, when evaluated through the peer-review process by apolitical experts, scores in the top 1 percent. Based on the evidence, this project appears more promising than 99 percent of applications.

Now imagine this funding request is flatly rejected by a political appointee in the Trump administration, because the university that hosts the research institution uses the word “diversity” in their mission statement.

Consider a research project into a new Alzheimer’s treatment that is in the third year of a five-year grant. So far, the treatment is showing incredible promise in slowing the progression of the disease. Suddenly, a political appointee in the Trump administration terminates the grant. All work stops. Researchers are laid off overnight. Three years of progress — gone. Not because of any defect in the research. Not because of fraud or foul play, but because the lead researcher on the project gave a speech at a conference hosted by an organization that opposes the Trump administration policy on Measles vaccines. That is the level of arbitrary political control proposed by this new rule.

I will be the first to admit federal grants are not a hot topic. This is an obscure issue. Most people are too busy living their lives to recognize the impacts of federal grants all around them.

For many, these effects come to us in the form of a headline about a new breakthrough treatment for a debilitating disease. Or when they finally re-pave that road that shook your dashboard every time you drove down it. Or when you take your child to the park and find they have installed a brand new playground.

There are countless projects throughout our communities that are the result of federal grants, so much so that we do not even notice. But if this rule is allowed to take effect on Oct. 1, we will.

The injection of politics into grant funding will have a cascading effect. Small businesses that rely on state contracts for substantial portions of their revenue will be unable to formulate any kind of business plan, since their projects — and income —could be cut off at any time depending on what side of the bed the president woke up on.

Imposing a political test on grant awards is also ripe for abuse. It hands the Trump administration’s political appointees leverage to force grant recipients to award contracts to the administration’s favored businesses. If you’re a mayor who needs a new bridge in your town, it better be built by a friend of the Trump administration, otherwise it won’t be built at all.

Vought did not give satisfactory answers to any of the questions I asked him during the hearing. He dissembled on many of the most basic inquiries. He would not even commit to spending the money Congress approves in accordance with the laws we write — his most basic responsibility, and one he is required by the Constitution to carry out.

The public comment period for this proposed power-grab ends on Monday, July 13. Anyone can submit a public comment online through the Federal Register. The federal government is an institution that responds to pressure. You are that pressure.

Rosa L. DeLauro is ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee.

Tags

Donald Trump

Political appointees

Russell Vought

Russell Vought

Copyright 2026 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.