Democrats in Congress are raising questions about a draft rule proposed by the Trump administration that would change how grants such as those awarded by the National Institutes of Health are administered. The photo shows the lab jacket of a research associate in the NIH Division of Pediatric Oncology, with the NIH logo embroidered on it. (Image courtesy of NIH)
WASHINGTON – Democrats in Congress are opposing a proposed Trump administration rule introduced by the Office of Management and Budget that would fundamentally change how it reviews and distributes federal grants.
Over the past few weeks, several groups of lawmakers have written public comment letters to Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought expressing sturdy opposition to the fresh recipe designwhich, among other things, would give political appointees the power to decide which institutions receive grant funding.
The rule’s summary quotes the Biden administration as explaining why it is needed. “During those years, federal awards were often used to promote a ‘woke’ political agenda that did not reflect the values held by the vast majority of the American public,” the report says, pointing to diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, policies.
Democrats said the proposal would exceed the office’s authority, make it harder for grant recipients to meet financial priorities set by Congress and turn federal subsidies into a tool through which President Donald Trump could “unilaterally advance his partisan agenda and punish political rivals.”
The draft rule would allow Trump “to terminate or suspend any grant at any time, for any reason, and without notice,” they said.
“Ultimately, these changes will make it more difficult for grant recipients to apply for and manage federal funds, undermining public safety, public health, economic competitiveness and the government’s ability to address rising costs,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York and the entire Senate Democratic Caucus wrote in their letter. Letter from July 1 to Vought.
Maryland Democrats in Congress and members Congressional Community Safety Caucusled by Reps. Summer Lee of Pennsylvania, LaMonica McIver of New Jersey, and Gabe Amo of Rhode Island also wrote letters calling on OMB to rescind the proposed fresh rule.
Hundreds of billions worth of funds affected
The over 100-page draft recipereleased May 29 in cooperation with 41 other federal grant-making agencies and titled “Regulation on Federal Financial Assistance,” it would change the framework used to evaluate grant applications as well as cost-sharing guidelines.
This would potentially impact hundreds of billions of dollars in federal funding at U.S. universities, nonprofits and other institutions, according to SciLine, an independent nonprofit service for journalists and scientists of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Under the proposed rule, federal grants cannot be used to “finance, promote, encourage, subsidize, or facilitate” DEI initiatives.
Awards would also have to “clearly advance the President’s policy priorities” in many cases, and agencies would have the ability to cancel funding that is “no longer effective in achieving the program objectives or priorities of the federal agency” or “is no longer in the interest of the federal government.”
“The overarching goal of OMB’s proposed changes is to improve transparency, accountability and oversight of how federal taxpayer dollars are used in the context of awarding federal grants,” he says executive summary rules.
OMB officials say they could implement the fresh draft rule as early as October 1.
Community violence intervention programs
During public comment on the draft rule, which ran from May 29 to July 13, congressional Democrats sharply criticized its vague language and the implications it would have for many institutions that rely on federal funds.
Maryland senators and Democratic representatives condemned the rule to change a process traditionally based on merit in their July 10 letter to Vought. “The federal grant process includes significant, apolitical guardrails that this rule seeks to eviscerate,” they wrote.
They also said the proposed rule contains a host of fresh, undefined standards for grants, including a requirement to follow a “scientific gold standard” and must not reflect “anti-American values” that grantees may not be able to understand or be able to follow.
Maryland institutions, often known as centers of scientific research and innovation, were hit tough by funding cuts from the National Institutes of Health and massive layoffs at the federal level since Trump’s second term began in 2025. Local governments and schools that receive federal funds also he took the hitsas does the state’s overall economy.
In their July 13 letter, members of the Congressional Social Safety Caucus raised concerns about how the draft rule could specifically impact community violence intervention programs.
Local violence intervention programs, which have been linked to declines in violent crime rates in cities across the country, rely on federal grants for “state and local government investments, hospital partnerships, philanthropy and research support,” according to the lawmakers’ letter.
They wrote that the fresh draft rule would threaten the operation of these programs by allowing Trump administration officials to “pause, suspend, or terminate grants or change conditions during implementation, forcing recipients to operate in a turbulent environment.”
The administration has already made cuts to some Bureau of Justice programs, further limiting funding available for community violence intervention programs.
Other answers
While opposition to the proposed rule comes mainly from Democratic lawmakers, there is some bipartisan criticism about the rule’s broad scope and quick timeline.
Senator Susan Collins, Republican from Maine, July 6 he asked He favored extending the public comment period on the proposal by at least 90 days and “withdrawing parts of the provision that would potentially harm small and rural communities and scientific and biomedical research.”
“While I agree that these rules should guide the administration and oversight of federal funds, this rule would impose new, burdensome requirements on award recipients… and would be inconsistent with Congressional control over the federal funding process,” she wrote.
OMB did not respond to States Newsroom’s request for comment on lawmakers’ opposition to the proposed rule. But Vought agreed social media last month to express his views on the opposition.
“The taxpayer-subsidized left’s impression of OMB updating its federal grant rules shows how important it is that the bureaucracy does not leak spending that is woke, wasteful, and contrary to Trump administration policy through non-governmental organizations,” he wrote.
