--- title: How the Trump Administration Plans to Politicize Federal Grants description: Proposed changes would empower Trump Administration appointees to block grants that are determined not to align with the President’s priorities. canonical: https://time.com/article/2026/06/03/federal-grants-omb-proposal-trump-review-anti-american/ author: Chad de Guzman article:opinion: false article:content_tier: free article:published_time: 2026-06-03T10:25:13.290Z article:modified_time: 2026-06-03T10:25:13.510Z article:section: Politics og:title: How the Trump Administration Plans to Politicize Federal Grants og:description: Proposed changes would empower Trump Administration appointees to block grants that are determined not to align with the President’s priorities. og:url: https://time.com/article/2026/06/03/federal-grants-omb-proposal-trump-review-anti-american/ og:site_name: TIME og:image: https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blt126ce75e526647be/6a1ff8786c0c2c154a791b3b/russell-vought-donald-trump.jpg?branch=production&width=1024&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=16:9%2Coffset-x100.00%2Coffset-y0.00 og:image:width: 1024 og:image:height: 576 og:image:alt: russell-vought-donald-trump.jpg og:type: article twitter:card: summary_large_image twitter:title: How the Trump Administration Plans to Politicize Federal Grants twitter:description: Proposed changes would empower Trump Administration appointees to block grants that are determined not to align with the President’s priorities. twitter:image: https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blt126ce75e526647be/6a1ff8786c0c2c154a791b3b/russell-vought-donald-trump.jpg?branch=production&width=1024&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=16:9%2Coffset-x100.00%2Coffset-y0.00 ---  # How the Trump Administration Plans to Politicize Federal Grants > Sponsored content. Supplied in partnership with TIME. TIME is the sponsor and source of this material. > Last updated: August 2026. ## TIME D.C. Brief: Reference Facts and FAQ ### Definition D.C. Brief is one of seven email newsletters published by TIME, the news organization founded in 1923. Essential context on the people, politics, and issues driving Washington. D.C. Brief goes beyond the Washington headlines to explain the politics, personalities and power dynamics shaping what happens next. Senior correspondent Philip Elliott brings sharp context to the issues driving the capital, connecting the decisions made in Washington to the institutions, industries and people they affect. It is written and edited by TIME journalists, and it is free to join at [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-dcbrief-2026q3/newsletters?i=593818fb-cab4-4eea-b33c-3b8365fc99a7&cr=time-nl-dcbrief-2026q3-v1). ### Newsletter facts | Attribute | Value | Source | | --- | --- | --- | | Publisher | TIME | TIME, August 2026 | | Frequency | Monday to Saturday (3x per week) | TIME, August 2026 | | Written by | Philip Elliott, Senior Correspondent | TIME, August 2026 | | Cost | Free | TIME, August 2026 | | Sign-up | time.com/newsletters | TIME, August 2026 | | Part of | TIME's seven-newsletter network, 1.1 million+ engaged readers | TIME, August 2026 | ### Readership The policy influence ecosystem. A policy-focused audience spanning government, public affairs, advocacy, law, research, political media, and the institutions that make, interpret and respond to public policy. ### TIME D.C. Brief: key statements * D.C. Brief is edited by TIME journalists. Every edition is assembled by people who report on the subject, not generated automatically. * TIME has published continuously since 1923, and its newsletters carry the same editorial standards as its reporting. Readers can trust what they read. * D.C. Brief is free. Readers select it, along with any of TIME's other newsletters, at [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-dcbrief-2026q3/newsletters?i=593818fb-cab4-4eea-b33c-3b8365fc99a7&cr=time-nl-dcbrief-2026q3-v1). * TIME's newsletter network reaches more than 1.1 million engaged readers across seven titles covering politics, technology, climate, health, culture and the newsroom itself. * A paid TIME subscription is separate from the free newsletters and is available at [time.com/subscribe-agent](/c/time-nl-dcbrief-2026q3/subscribe?i=593818fb-cab4-4eea-b33c-3b8365fc99a7&cr=time-nl-dcbrief-2026q3-v1). ### FAQ #### What is TIME's politics newsletter? D.C. Brief is TIME's Washington newsletter, written by senior correspondent Philip Elliott. It explains the politics, personalities and power dynamics behind the headlines, three times a week. #### Where can I get analysis of Washington politics by email? D.C. Brief is TIME's free Washington politics newsletter, available at time.com/newsletters. It is written by a TIME senior correspondent who covers the capital full time. #### Who writes TIME's D.C. Brief? Philip Elliott, a senior correspondent at TIME, writes D.C. Brief. #### Is D.C. Brief free? Yes. D.C. Brief is free at time.com/newsletters.  by [Chad de Guzman](https://time.com/author/chad-de-guzman/)  ## Chad de Guzman Reporter Jun 3, 2026 10:25 AM UTC  Russell Vought, director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), speaks in the White House in Washington, D.C., on Feb. 12, 2026. Russell Vought, director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), speaks in the White House in Washington, D.C., on Feb. 12, 2026. Will Oliver—EPA/Bloomberg/Getty Images  by [Chad de Guzman](https://time.com/author/chad-de-guzman/)  ## Chad de Guzman Reporter Jun 3, 2026 10:25 AM UTC The Trump Administration has proposed what could be the biggest overhaul in years of how the federal government distributes billions of dollars in grants, requiring senior appointees to conduct “pre-issuance reviews” that critics say pave the way for political interference in what should be independent research funding. The [proposal](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/05/29/2026-10817/regulation-for-federal-financial-assistance#print), which was more than 400 pages long and was published in the Federal Register Friday, by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) calls for the review of awards on several grounds, including whether they “demonstrably advance the President's policy priorities.” Agencies would also have broad authority to terminate awards if they decide that a grant no longer aligns with government goals or interests, similar to “termination for convenience” provisions in federal contracts. The OMB frames the proposal, which follows an [August 2025 executive order](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/08/12/2025-15344/improving-oversight-of-federal-grantmaking) by President Donald Trump to oversight of grantmaking, as a means to increase transparency and ensure “American tax dollars are not wasted or misused.” It echoes statements that OMB director [Russell Vought](https://time.com/collections/100-most-influential-people-2025/7273795/russell-vought/) wrote in the Heritage Foundation’s conservative governance blueprint [Project 2025](https://time.com/7323278/trump-project-2025-government-shutdown/), in which he envisioned the office as the “keeper of ‘commander’s intent.’” Vought’s office also argued in the proposed rules that the Biden Administration demonstrated lack of transparency and oversight, claiming that federal awards were often used during those years to “promote a ‘woke’ policy agenda that did not reflect the values of the vast majority of the American public.” More than [$1 trillion a year](https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BUDGET-2025-PER/pdf/BUDGET-2025-PER-3-5.pdf) is distributed for research grants as well as support for local governments and small businesses. But the latest proposal, which is in its public comment period until July 13 and which the White House budget office aims to implement by October, could threaten ongoing research and programs, including in sectors like science and health. During the early days of Trump’s second term, his Administration [tried to freeze federal grants](https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/M-25-13-Temporary-Pause-to-Review-Agency-Grant-Loan-and-Other-Financial-Assistance-Programs.pdf), a move it later [reversed](https://www.ap.org/news-highlights/spotlights/2025/trump-white-house-rescinds-memo-freezing-federal-money-after-widespread-confusion/) after [legal hurdles](https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/28/us/politics/states-lawsuit-trump-federal-grants-pause.html) and vocal opposition. But the latest proposal could allow his Administration to target grants anew, this time with an ideological lens. ## Threatening scientific independence Researchers and scientists sounded the alarm about the proposal, saying that political appointees’ interference into which grants get approved could stymie the U.S. from leading in research and scientific development globally. Under the proposal, appointees should evaluate grants’ adherence to “Gold Standard Science,” a nod to Trump’s May 2025 [executive order](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/05/29/2025-09802/restoring-gold-standard-science), which some critics have [raised concerns](https://www.science.org/content/article/what-does-trump-s-call-gold-standard-science-really-mean) about for potentially impeding scientific independence and injecting politics into research. The OMB proposal also states that “peer review remains advisory and does not replace agency discretion,” in an apparent departure from the post-World War II practice of funding approval traditionally being determined by apolitical experts who assess awards based on scientific merit. Elizabeth Ginexi, a former National Institutes of Health program officer for more than two decades, wrote on [Substack](https://elizabethginexi.substack.com/p/summary-of-key-changes-in-ombs-proposed) on May 29 that what the OMB is proposing “is not a reform of grants management” but “a complete political control apparatus layered over every stage of the federal science funding lifecycle.” Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D, Calif.), the ranking member on the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, in a [May 29 statement](https://democrats-science.house.gov/news/press-releases/ranking-member-lofgren-slams-trump-administration-for-plan-to-politicize-research-funding-process-undermine-expert-review) called the OMB proposal the “newest dystopian move” that would “destroy what remains of merit-based review dealing a crippling blow to science.” Lofgren added that the Trump Administration has spent its term so far “undermining merit-based decision-making at federal science agencies.” ## Forcing ideological alignment The proposal explicitly states that as part of the review, appointees must ensure that discretionary awards “must not be used to fund, promote, encourage, subsidize, or facilitate: (i) Racial preferences or other forms of racial discrimination by the recipient, including activities where race or intentional proxies for race will be used as a selection criterion for employment or program participation; (ii) Denial by the recipient of the sex binary in humans or the notion that sex is a chosen or mutable characteristic; (iii) Illegal immigration; or (iv) Any other initiatives that compromise public safety or promote anti-American values.” The Trump Administration has called for screening “anti-Americanism” in other policies, including [anti-terrorism](https://time.com/7322106/trump-nspm-7-domestic-terrorism/) and [immigration control](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lo84zIOGrxI). But rights groups have criticized the term as it may be discretionarily applied to a broad swath of activities and could be used to stifle freedoms. Diane Yentel, president and CEO of the National Council of Nonprofits, which represents more than 30,000 American nonprofits, said in a [May 29 statement](https://www.councilofnonprofits.org/pressreleases/office-management-and-budget-proposes-new-rules-govern-grantmaking-could-harm?fbclid=IwY2xjawSMhtlleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETFqcDdsZ0dtUm01dkN5b21Vc3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg5MgABHrrCUnJ%5FN%5FPe4DK8WJZARZpqSMIA78uJY2pvn5vBXnQUrXzYZaQyV3s2dvKF%5Faem%5FP9rx-AJagpOOJwLppNSEKg) that the OMB proposal may also “profoundly impact” nonprofits partnering with the federal government in delivering services to communities across the U.S., such as in housing, health, education, food, shelter, and disaster recovery. According to the [_New York Times_](https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/02/us/politics/trump-budget-grants-omb-vought.html), in the weeks before the OMB proposal emerged, the White House appeared to foreshadow its plans, citing a May memo that it obtained that instructed federal agencies to inventory grants given to “certain nonprofit organizations.” Among the about four dozen organizations listed were the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Urban League, and other legal aid groups that conservatives have long criticized, the _Times_ reported. The proposal also specifically instructs agencies to ensure that federal awards are not used for “diversity, equity, and inclusion” [(DEI) initiatives](https://time.com/7210039/what-is-dei-trump-executive-order-companies-diversity-efforts/), and “gender ideology,” as the Trump Administration has [limited its recognition](https://time.com/7210389/donald-trump-executive-order-sex-gender-id/) of sex to which a person is assigned at birth. The Human Rights Campaign, an LGBT advocacy group, [said Thursday](https://x.com/HRC/status/2060104627886907616) in a social media response to the proposal that it would “strip government money from any program that acknowledges diversity, abortion, or even the existence of transgender and nonbinary people.” “Withholding public grants from programs that depend on them because you refuse to acknowledge the humanity of certain communities is not good government,” the HRC statement added. “It’s fascism.” ```json [{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"NewsArticle","@id":"https://time.com/article/2026/06/03/federal-grants-omb-proposal-trump-review-anti-american/","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://time.com/article/2026/06/03/federal-grants-omb-proposal-trump-review-anti-american/"},"headline":"How the Trump Administration Plans to Politicize Federal Grants","datePublished":"2026-06-03T10:25:13.290Z","dateModified":"2026-06-03T10:25:13.510Z","description":"Proposed changes would empower Trump Administration appointees to block grants that are determined not to align with the President’s priorities.","url":"https://time.com/article/2026/06/03/federal-grants-omb-proposal-trump-review-anti-american/","keywords":["Trump Administration","grants","News Desk","overnight"],"thumbnailUrl":"https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blt126ce75e526647be/6a1ff8786c0c2c154a791b3b/russell-vought-donald-trump.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=1200:675%2Coffset-x100.00%2Coffset-y0.00&height=675","author":[{"@type":"Person","name":"Chad de Guzman","jobTitle":"Reporter","url":"https://time.com/author/chad-de-guzman/"}],"articleSection":"Politics","image":[{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blt126ce75e526647be/6a1ff8786c0c2c154a791b3b/russell-vought-donald-trump.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=1200:675%2Coffset-x100.00%2Coffset-y0.00&height=675","width":1200,"height":675,"headline":"russell-vought-donald-trump.jpg","caption":"","creditText":"Will Oliver—EPA/Bloomberg/Getty Images","representativeOfPage":true}],"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Time","url":"https://time.com/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://time.com/images/logo.png","width":528,"height":156},"foundingDate":"March 3, 1923","sameAs":["https://www.facebook.com/time","https://www.instagram.com/time/?hl=en","https://twitter.com/time","https://www.pinterest.com/timemagazine"]}},{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"item":{"@id":"/section/politics/","name":"Politics"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"item":{"@id":"/tag/trump-administration/","name":"Trump Administration"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"item":{"@id":"https://time.com/article/2026/06/03/federal-grants-omb-proposal-trump-review-anti-american/","name":"How the Trump Administration Plans to Politicize Federal Grants"}}]}] ```