Proposed Federal Rule Threatens to Politicize NIH Grantmaking, Sparking Bipartisan Alarm in Biomedical Research Community
Key Insights
The Trump administration has proposed a sweeping rule that would give GOP political appointees veto power over federal research grants, fundamentally altering the long-standing peer-review system.
Rep. Jamie Raskin and over 125 House Democrats have formally opposed the rule, calling it "disastrous and likely unlawful" and warning it will stifle healthcare innovation for generations.
Johns Hopkins University (search) has already lost more than $500 million in federal funding, a 43% reduction for new and ongoing programs, amid broader cuts to biomedical research.
A proposed federal rule that would grant political appointees sweeping new authority to veto research grants is sending shock waves through Maryland's biomedical research community and drawing sharp opposition from congressional Democrats.
Late Wednesday, U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin of Montgomery County, whose district includes the National Institutes of Health, launched the Democrats' formal opposition to the proposed regulation, which was filed May 29 in the Federal Register. In a letter to Russell Vought, director of the Office of Management and Budget (search), Raskin called the proposed rule "disastrous and likely unlawful" and warned it is destined to stifle healthcare innovation for generations.
The letter was signed by Raskin and more than 125 fellow Democrats, including Maryland Reps. April McClain Delaney, Steny Hoyer and Sarah Elfreth.
A Fundamental Shift in Grantmaking
The proposed rule represents what critics describe as a fundamental transformation of the nation's long-standing grantmaking system. Raskin's letter characterized the change as a shift from a nonpartisan, peer-reviewed process to a "political obstacle course."
The long-standing grantmaking system built on expert reviews has made the country exceedingly good at producing innovative treatments and cures, Raskin wrote. At the center of this ecosystem have often been Maryland-based agencies and universities, which are already struggling with chaotic job and funding cuts.
The Trump administration defends its approach as fiscally responsible. The Office of Management and Budget (search) and multiple other agencies proposing the regulation wrote that it would "improve transparency, accountability and oversight for federal awards across the federal government."
Political Interference Codified
Dr. Georges Benjamin, president of the American Public Health Association (search) and a former Maryland health secretary, said in an interview that the proposed rule codifies political interference in the process that has characterized the Trump administration over the past year and a half.
"They are trying to put into the rule everything they tried to do illegally in office," Benjamin said. "It's one reason we were able to successfully sue them, because there was no rule."
A new regulation could make future legal challenges tougher. Benjamin's group and others are currently combing through the 412-page rule and assessing legal options and congressional action.
Benjamin noted that the rule would move decisions from the long-standing peer-review process to political appointees who can unilaterally block grants or cancel them midstream if they "don't like someone a researcher associates with." The rule also blocks all so-called diversity, equity and inclusion-related grants, foreign collaborations, and possibly attendance at certain scientific meetings.
Impact on Johns Hopkins and Maryland Institutions
The impact on Maryland's research institutions has already been severe. Johns Hopkins University (search) reported that researchers received 43% less federal funding for new and ongoing programs, a loss of more than $500 million.
"Moving away from merit-based funding decisions will erode the integrity of the innovation ecosystem and undermine confidence in federally funded science," said Doug Donovan, a university spokesperson.
Steven Farber, a biology professor who volunteers to review proposed NIH grants, urged OMB to abandon the rule, saying it would "introduce unprecedented risk to the scientific community, public health and national security."
Limited Options for Opposition
Democrats' ability to stop new regulations is limited, given Republicans' control of the White House and both houses of Congress. The letter is a first formal step to oppose the proposed rule before critics could take the issue to court.
Public comments for the proposed rule, which affects health and scientific research as well as other grants and contracts, remain open for the next couple of weeks. After the public comment period, the administration can tweak the rule before it becomes final. Once finalized, rules may be legally challenged for being unlawful or exceeding the government's authority.
Efforts to cut or control medical funding have faced bipartisan pushback in Congress, though the current letter is signed only by Democrats.