OMB Rule Could Let Appointees Control Science Grants
20 Jul 2026
What's happening
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has proposed a rule that would give political appointees unprecedented control over how federal science research grants are awarded and maintained. The proposal affects a wide range of federally funded science, including space research such as the search for organic compounds on Mars and the discovery of early galaxies.
The Planetary Society has publicly criticized the proposal, warning it could destabilize research programs that depend on stable, merit-based funding.
Key provisions and risks
According to the report, the proposed rule would:
- Restrict use of grant funding for open-access publication, making federally funded science data harder for the public to access.
- Allow grants to be terminated based on the political leanings or associations of scientists, rather than scientific merit.
- Permit grants to be revoked at any time, for any reason, if deemed against the interests of the president's whims — with presidential discretion cited as the standard.
Critics argue this shifts grant decision-making away from scientific review and toward political control, with no clear cause required for revocation.
Pushback is substantial
The proposal has drawn significant public attention: over 500,000 public comments have been submitted. A group of 24 governors and attorneys general have filed legal challenges arguing the rule is unconstitutional.
Sources do not specify the current status or timeline for finalizing or blocking the rule, nor do they detail how the administration has responded to the volume of public comments or the legal challenges. The report also does not specify which federal agencies beyond NASA-related research would be affected, or the exact mechanism by which appointees would gain decision-making authority over grants.
Why founders should care
For founders in space tech, deep science, or other federally-grant-dependent sectors, this proposal introduces a layer of funding uncertainty that is likely to persist while legal challenges play out. If the rule takes effect, grant continuity could become more likely to hinge on political alignment than technical merit — a risk founders should probably factor into any funding roadmap that assumes stable federal grant support.
Startups that rely on open-access research outputs for R&D — for example, using publicly funded datasets or published findings to inform product development — may face reduced access to that data if the rule's publication restrictions are implemented. This could plausibly slow R&D timelines for companies building on federally funded science.
The scale of public engagement (500,000+ comments) and the involvement of 24 governors and attorneys general suggest there's meaningful organized opposition, which could increase the odds that the rule is modified or blocked before implementation. Still, given the unresolved legal and procedural timeline, founders with exposure to federal science funding should likely treat this as an active risk to monitor rather than a settled outcome, and consider contingency plans that reduce dependency on any single federal funding stream.
Bottom line
The OMB proposal represents a potential structural shift in how federal science grants are governed — moving some authority toward political appointees and away from merit-based review. With legal challenges and a large volume of public comments still working through the process, the ultimate shape of the rule remains unresolved. Founders in grant-dependent sectors should watch for updates on the legal challenges and any agency response to public comments, as these will likely determine whether current funding structures hold or shift materially in the coming months.