Groups vigorously oppose Trump administration proposal to politicize funding for science and health

WASHINGTON — A coalition of environmental groups filed comments strongly opposing a Trump administration proposal that would give the president’s political appointees veto power over federal grants that provide funding for initiatives and research that reduce pollution, protect public health and advance science. Across Republican and Democratic administrations alike, federal grants have long been anchored in statutory protections to ensure healthier lives, safe drinking water for all Americans, protection of vital resources such as the Great Lakes, prudent use of federal resources and a fair and rigorous decision-making framework. The new proposal makes the Trump administration’s policy dictates the operative consideration for decisions about federal grants irrespective of long-standing statutory protections for human health and the environment.   

The proposed rule from the Office of Management and Budget, Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Energy, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and more than 30 other federal agencies would “centralize political control over individual grant decisions, increase bias and unfairness in the federal grantmaking system and create new barriers, uncertainty, delay and disruption” for essential programs that protect public health and the environment, according to the comments filed by Environmental Defense Fund, Southern Environmental Law Center, Sierra Club, Conservation Law Foundation, Natural Resources Defense Council and National Wildlife Federation.

Public grants are a core way that Congress directs federal agencies to deliver benefits to Americans, and they help make medical and scientific breakthroughs possible. For instance, grants administered through the Department of Energy, EPA and NOAA support programs that lower energy costs for American families, protect public health and track weather patterns to help manage and predict droughts.

The proposal from the White House budget office, led by Project 2025 architect Russell Vought, would allow federal agencies to terminate awards that no longer advance administration priorities. It would also relegate the peer review process to the sidelines, giving outsize importance instead to the judgment of a federal agency’s political leaders. 

These changes “would unlawfully limit the implementation and effectiveness of existing, Congressionally-mandated research programs and federal financial assistance for clean air, clean water, hazardous-waste cleanup, toxic-chemical protection, emergency response, coastal resilience, fisheries management, climate science, and clean-energy innovation,” the groups state in the comments.

Quotes:

“Federal grant funding shouldn’t be subject to a political purity test,” said Sarah Vogel, Senior Vice President for Healthy Communities at Environmental Defense Fund. “These initiatives support essential programs and research that help us live longer, healthier and more affordable lives. The Trump administration’s proposal would do real damage to the integrity and independence of the scientific process by injecting partisan politics into critical decision-making about the public dollars communities rely on.”

“This extreme proposal puts funding across the country for public health and safety, environmental protection, life-saving scientific research, disaster and emergency response, and much more at risk,” said Hana Vizcarra, attorney at Earthjustice. “Playing favorites with federal funding and ignoring statutory mandates doesn’t benefit anyone. This is yet another example of the Trump administration putting politics above the families and workers facing the most serious harms from pollution, toxic chemical exposure, and worsening extreme weather.”

"When political officials decide what research is acceptable, we lose more than funding,” said Ticora V. Jones, Chief Science Officer at Natural Resources Defense Council. “We lose the questions scientists could ask that help us solve our problems.  We lose the findings that might be inconvenient but help us understand the risks we face.  We lose collaborations that help us address challenges across borders and around the world. We lose warnings that help us prepare for extreme weather and detect harmful exposures.  And we lose a pipeline of people who are excited to help us create a new world through their research and problem solving that would be cut off by this rule."

"Community based organizations around the country have relied on consistency from an unbiased federal grant process for years,” said Ben Grillot, Senior Attorney at the Southern Environmental Law Center. “This proposed rule would not only overhaul that process it would make it chaotic and politically driven. Millions of people around the country benefit from the research, services, and work done through federal grants, and this rule upends long-standing protections designed to ensure fairness and stability."