I am deeply concerned by the new OMB proposal on federal research grants.
For decades, America’s economic growth, technological leadership, national security, and global influence have been driven by scientific progress. That progress did not come from political officials deciding which scientific ideas were acceptable. It came from researchers asking difficult questions, challenging established views, debating evidence, and competing through peer review.
This proposal does not formally abolish peer review, but it would significantly weaken it. It would allow political appointees to override scientific recommendations based on changing presidential priorities and broadly defined interpretations of the “national interest.” It could also allow active grants to be terminated even when researchers are fully compliant and meeting their scientific objectives.
This creates profound uncertainty for scientists, universities, startups, research institutes, and international partners. The United States risks losing some of its best researchers to countries where scientific funding is more stable and less vulnerable to political interference.
Astronomy would be particularly affected. The sky is global. No country can monitor the entire sky alone. Research on asteroids, supernovae, gravitational-wave events, satellites, meteors, and other transient phenomena requires observatories distributed across different continents and longitudes. International collaboration is not an optional benefit—it is often a scientific necessity.
A potentially hazardous asteroid does not stop at a border. A transient astronomical event cannot wait for administrative approval. A telescope survey designed to operate for ten years cannot be reorganized every time political priorities change.
Scientific progress is built through disagreement, controversy, replication, and open discussion. It must remain a bottom-up process led by experts, not a top-down process controlled by political priorities.
Strong oversight of public money is necessary. Political control of scientific judgment is not.
I have submitted a public comment opposing the most damaging provisions of this proposal and encouraging OMB to preserve independent peer review, protect active grants from arbitrary termination, and recognize the essential role of international scientific collaboration.
Scientists, engineers, educators, entrepreneurs, and members of the public should examine this proposal and submit their own substantive comments before July 13, 2026.
agu.quorum.us/campaign/16387…
Federal Register proposal:
federalregister.gov/document…