Cancer Researchers Explain How OMB’s Proposed Changes to Federal Grantmaking Will Cause Delays, Reduce Transparency, and Undermine Merit-based Processes
Who should decide which scientific research projects deserve to be funded by the federal government? That question is at the heart of a proposed new set of regulations by the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Currently, these decisions are made through a merit review process in which scientific experts assess the quality of the research project and its potential to advance new knowledge. But under the OMB proposal, titled “Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance,” political appointees would have expanded power to override this expert assessment and deny or revoke funding if projects do not align with the administration’s priorities.
That potential change, however, is only one aspect of the 400-plus-page proposal that would alter numerous processes behind how federal grants are awarded and managed. Since this proposal was announced on May 29, organizations and individuals throughout the scientific community have expressed concerns about its potential impact on American innovation and medical breakthroughs.
In a statement, the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) called this proposal “a major threat to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and its lifesaving mission to accelerate progress for patients with cancer and the hundreds of other diseases that afflict millions of Americans.”
While AACR is deeply concerned about many of the proposed changes, the statement highlighted a few especially concerning provisions. Cancer Research Catalyst asked researchers to help explain why these particular provisions could be so damaging.
Political Review of Federal Funding Decisions
As mentioned, one of the biggest changes would be to subject every federal research funding decision to political review by appointed officials who are unlikely to have subject-matter expertise. These officials will be instructed to determine whether grant proposals are aligned with the administration’s concept of “Gold Standard Science.” Additionally, active grants that have already been awarded can be suspended or terminated if it is determined that the project no longer meets the administration’s priorities.
“Scientific innovation thrives when driven by objective data rather than political agendas,” said former AACR President Elizabeth M. Jaffee, MD, FAACR, deputy director of the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins. “The United States continues to lead the world in new medical discoveries because it is free from political bias.”
AACR President-Elect Robert H. Vonderheide, MD, DPhil, FAACR, director of the Abramson Cancer Center of the University of Pennsylvania, noted that one of his biggest concerns is the delay this could add to the review process before a funding decision is made. He said that researchers experienced longer than normal waits to hear back about their proposals for fiscal year 2026 funding, and he worries that an added layer of review may only further hold up decisions.
“The program officers are trying to move grants forward, and I am sure are working very hard, but we continue to see a pause in funds flow even when the grants received a fundable score,” added Jaffee. “This has resulted in reduced lab sizes, personnel terminations, and faculty leaving the country or for industry.”
Another advantage of the current merit review process, according to Vonderheide, is that it provides valuable feedback from experts in the field that helps researchers improve their next submission. “This would not be possible if rejection notices are provided without providing scientific rationale,” he added.
Researchers understand the need for fiscal responsibility, said Kornelia Polyak, MD, PhD, FAACR, professor of medicine at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Harvard Medical School and coleader of the Harvard Cancer Consortium Cancer Cell Biology Program, but she added, “This should apply to all spending of the government and be done in a rational way and with the involvement of experts and people affected by the decisions.”
Barriers to Scientific Collaboration
The OMB proposal also calls for placing additional restrictions on international partnerships that would prevent federal award funds from being used in any collaborations involving “countries of particular concern,” as well as to prevent funds from going directly to foreign countries.
“For patients with terminal cancers, early-phase trials often require international collaboration,” explained Cornelia Ulrich, PhD, chief scientific officer and executive director of the Comprehensive Cancer Center at the Huntsman Cancer Institute and a professor at the University of Utah. “Delays or added barriers to these agreements directly slow access to promising therapies.”
This is particularly true for children’s cancer and rare cancer research, which depends on multinational participation for patient enrollment since the incidence of these cancers is so low, added Ulrich, who is also a member of the AACR Science Policy and Government Affairs Committee. She said her institution has already felt the effect of the administration’s efforts to limit international collaborations as the Huntsman Cancer Institute was forced to cancel submission of a large sarcoma research grant because it involved partners in Canada and Germany.
Researchers will also need to be able to perform rapid international data sharing and coordinated studies to examine the potential reasons behind the global rise of early-onset cancers, Ulrich said. “New administrative barriers would delay our ability to identify causes and develop prevention strategies,” she added.
Vonderheide explained that many other areas of research also involve major international scientific collaborations. For example, the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA), the BRCA BCY Collaboration, and the Evidence-based Network for the Interpretation of Germline Mutant Alleles (ENIGMA) Consortium are all international groups studying BRCA1/2 mutations (which can increase the risks for certain cancers), including identifying different cancer risk modifiers, standardizing genetic variant classification, and tracking clinical outcomes. ENIGMA is funded by the National Cancer Institute.
“These global networks involving many U.S. institutions and medical centers pool clinical data and biological samples from thousands of patients worldwide to power hereditary cancer research,” Vonderheide said.
Restrictions on Activities Fundamental to Scientific Research
Different provisions of the OMB proposal call for limits on the use of federal funds to support scientific publications, journal subscriptions, and attendance at scientific conferences.
“Many researchers do not have access to institutional funds to support travel to scientific meetings to present results from research nor funds to cover publication costs,” explained Electra D. Paskett, PhD, FAACR, director of the Division of Cancer Prevention and Control in the College of Medicine at The Ohio State University and a member of the AACR Board of Directors. “Excluding these from grant budgets would severely handicap the dissemination of effective cures and discoveries as well as advancing the careers of investigators, especially junior investigators.”
Ulrich agreed that these restrictions would hit students, fellows, and early-career scientists hardest, which she fears could lead to brain drain from U.S. institutions.
“Senior investigators may still find ways to publish major papers, but trainees will lose dissertation publications, conference presentations, and networking opportunities—directly undermining the future biomedical workforce in the United States,” she said. “The United States has led the way in extraordinary impact in cancer. Yet now, this future is gravely uncertain. Researchers are questioning whether they need to leave to other countries to pursue high-impact science. Additional uncertainty and restrictions will accelerate these losses and weaken U.S. competitiveness.”
Jaffee added that another issue is a reduction in students deciding to even pursue careers in research. At Johns Hopkins, she said that over the past 50 years their rate of developing MD and MD/PhD oncologists in research is about 85%, but now they are starting see oncology fellows grow concerned about careers in research and choose straight clinical jobs instead.
What Can the Public Do?
The AACR statement ends with a call to action for AACR members and other interested parties to make their voices heard by submitting comments in opposition to this proposal by the July 13, 2026, deadline, or by contacting their congressional representatives to request policymakers exercise their authority to prevent the implementation of the provisions in the OMB proposal.
As of the publication of this post, OMB has already received more than 98,000 comments about the proposal. Anna Barker, PhD, FAACR, chief strategy officer of the Ellison Medical Institute, Distinguished Visting Fellow at Arizona State University, and chair of the AACR Scientist↔Survivor Program, encouraged more people to speak up.
“The changes being proposed could irreparably damage NIH and weaken its position as the world’s leading medical research enterprise,” Barker said. “I am hopeful that everyone (including scientists, patients, and cancer survivors) will submit their comments and call their congressional representatives. This comes at a time when we need to double down on government-funded research to also reclaim our dominance in the biotechnology sector for the benefit of the patients we all serve. So, speak up, our message cannot be too strong, and it needs to be heard!”
Click here for Instructions on how to Submit a Comment to OMB Click here to Contact Your Members of Congress about the proposal
