AAU and Others Warn Congress That Trump Is Changing Grant Rules

The proposed changes would give political appointees more influence over federal grant making. They could subject grants to additional political review and allow the administration to cancel funding for projects that do not align with the president’s priorities. The changes matter because grants support work by universities, nonprofits, governments, and other recipients.

The Office of Management and Budget first proposed the changes in May. The Education Department and National Science Foundation later proposed rules that mirror the OMB approach. NASA and the Agriculture, Energy, and Housing and Urban Development departments have also sought to incorporate parts of it into their grant policies.

The White House must wait until mid-December to finalize its sweeping rule. OMB must first review at least 164,000 public comments, many of them critical. The final rule is also likely to face a legal challenge, while organizations warn that similar agency actions create uncertainty.

More than 100 organizations signed a letter to Congress warning that agencies are making grant-rule changes similar to the delayed OMB regulations. The coalition includes the Association of American Universities and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. It also includes state and local governments, nonprofits, universities, and other organizations.

The Education Department and National Science Foundation have proposed rules that mirror the OMB regulations. Those rules would allow more political review and give the administration greater power to cancel projects that do not fit the president’s priorities. NASA and the Departments of Agriculture, Energy, and Housing and Urban Development have sought to incorporate parts of the OMB rules into their grant policies.

The organizations say these copycat actions create uncertainty for grant recipients. They also raise separation-of-powers concerns because agencies may be moving ahead despite bipartisan language Congress passed in September.

The Office of Management and Budget received at least 164,000 comments on its proposed grant-rule changes. Many comments criticized the proposal. OMB is supposed to review those comments and respond to them before finalizing the rule, making the public-comment process a major checkpoint.

The coalition questioning the changes is broad. More than 100 organizations signed its letter to Congress. Participants include the Association of American Universities, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, state and local governments, nonprofits, universities, and a range of other organizations.

This breadth shows that concerns extend beyond one sector. The signers share an interest in a federal grants system they describe as stable, lawful, and accountable to Congress. The large comment total and broad coalition may increase pressure for agencies to explain or reconsider the proposed approach.

If political appointees gain greater control over grants, recipients could face more political review before receiving or keeping funding. Projects that do not align with the president’s priorities could be canceled. That would make federal support less predictable for universities, nonprofits, state and local governments, and other grant recipients.

The proposed mechanism is direct administrative control. OMB’s rules would give the administration more power to review grants politically and cancel funding. Several agencies reportedly want to copy or incorporate parts of those rules, extending the possible effect beyond one central policy. The organizations’ letter calls these copycat actions a source of uncertainty.

The article does not describe specific grants being canceled or quantify financial losses. It does report that recipients could face an unstable grant system. The final OMB rule must address public comments and is likely to face a legal challenge, while Congress may continue examining agency compliance.

The organizations argue that agencies adopting OMB-style rules could circumvent instructions Congress included in a temporary funding measure. They say Congress passed bipartisan language in September that conflicts with the agencies’ proposed actions. The dispute therefore concerns who controls the conditions attached to federal spending.

Their key argument is institutional. Agencies are part of the executive branch, while Congress controls appropriations. If agencies use similar rules despite Congress’s direction, the letter says they could diminish Congress’s ability to control how federal funds are used. The signers describe that as a separation-of-powers concern.

The article does not quote the temporary law’s exact wording. It does report that the organizations view the agency actions as being “in direct contradiction” to bipartisan language. They warn that this issue applies regardless of which party controls the executive branch, making it broader than a partisan dispute.

Public comments are the first stated check. OMB received at least 164,000 comments, many critical, and must review and respond to them before finalizing its rule. That process could force the agency to explain its reasoning and address objections, although the article does not say whether OMB will change the proposal.

Congress can also exercise oversight by examining whether agencies follow the temporary funding measure. The organizations’ letter is itself an appeal to Congress. It argues that agencies should not use related grant policies to get around bipartisan language passed in September, preserving Congress’s role in directing federal funds.

Courts provide another possible limit. The article says the final OMB rule is likely to face a legal challenge. The White House must wait until mid-December before finalizing its rule, while agencies’ similar proposals remain a source of uncertainty. The article does not identify specific lawsuits or predict their outcomes.

Federal grants are government funds awarded to recipients such as universities, nonprofits, state and local governments, and other organizations. They support approved projects or activities. In this dispute, the central question is not simply who receives money, but who sets the rules for awarding, reviewing, and canceling it.

In the constitutional system, separation of powers divides government responsibilities among branches. Congress controls appropriations, meaning it directs how federal funds may be used. Executive agencies administer programs, but the organizations argue they cannot replace or evade Congress’s instructions through grant regulations. That is why agency rule changes can raise institutional concerns.

The article links this principle to bipartisan language in a September temporary funding measure. More than 100 organizations say agencies adopting OMB-style rules could diminish Congress’s control. The White House rule is delayed until mid-December, and the final regulation is likely to face a legal challenge.