Senators introduce resolution to block OMB's grant-making rule

Senate appropriators have moved the fight over the White House’s proposed grantmaking overhaul into a must-pass funding bill, setting up a clash over how federal research money is awarded. The bipartisan stopgap measure released on August 2 would bar the Office of Management and Budget, for the life of that funding patch, from finalizing a rule that critics say would give political appointees more control over grant decisions. Senate leaders scheduled an initial procedural vote for the week of August 3 as they pushed to clear the bill before the chamber’s August recess. The dispute centers on an OMB proposal published on May 29 that would rewrite the federal “Uniform Guidance,” the rules that govern grants across agencies. Scientific groups, universities and patient advocates have focused on what the proposal would do to National Institutes of Health awards, because it would require senior political appointees to review discretionary grants and would make peer review recommendations advisory rather than effectively controlling. (politico.com) ### Why are senators trying to stop this through a funding bill? Susan Collins, the Republican chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, backed language to delay the rule after pressing White House budget director Russell Vought to drop parts of the proposal and extend the comment period, according to Politico. Patty Murray, the panel’s top Democrat, said Republicans rejected a permanent block but agreed to a temporary one in the stopgap bill. (apsnet.org) The Senate plan would fund agencies through December 11 at current levels, with exceptions, while broader spending talks continue. That makes the grant-rule fight part of a larger negotiation over avoiding a government shutdown before the fiscal year ends on September 30. (politico.com) ### What would the OMB rule change in practice? The May 29 proposal would make alignment with presidential policy priorities an explicit grant criterion across federal programs, according to the American Phytopathological Society’s summary of the rule. It would also expand agencies’ authority to terminate or suspend active awards and require political review before discretionary grants are issued. (politico.com) Senate Democrats said in a July 13 letter that the proposal would let the president “weaponize federal grants for political purposes.” Their letter said the changes would make it harder for recipients to apply for and manage federal funds and would require political appointees to make funding decisions without deferring to expert peer review. (apsnet.org) ### How much opposition did the proposal draw? STAT reported that 496,769 public comments were submitted before the July 13 deadline. An analysis by researchers at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, working with STAT, found about 95% of the posted comments opposed the proposal and about 1% supported it. (bennet.senate.gov) Sudip Parikh, chief executive of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, told STAT that frequent shifts in funding priorities from one administration to the next would make it harder to “cure disease” and “grow the economy.” Politico separately reported that scientists, drug companies and patient groups were among those warning the rule could put biomedical research at risk. (statnews.com) ### Why has NIH become the focal point? NIH has become the focal point because its grant system relies heavily on expert peer review and multi-year awards that universities and labs use to hire staff and plan experiments. Precision Medicine Online reported that universities and research organizations argued the proposal would politicize the federal research grant process, with particular concern around biomedical funding. (statnews.com) The proposed rule applies government-wide, not only to NIH. But the biomedical research community has been among the most vocal opponents, and congressional critics have framed the issue as a threat to how scientific merit is judged and how ongoing projects are protected from political turnover. (precisionmedicineonline.com) ### What happens next in Congress? Senate leaders said they wanted to pass the stopgap bill before lawmakers left Washington for a five-week recess, according to Politico. If the Senate clears it, House Republican leaders would then decide whether to take up a funding patch that includes the temporary prohibition on finalizing the grant rule. (bennet.senate.gov) December 11 is the key date in the current Senate plan. The temporary block in the funding bill would last only for the duration of that stopgap measure, leaving the fate of the OMB rule tied to the next round of spending negotiations unless Congress adopts a broader prohibition or the administration changes course. (politico.com)