Democrats in Congress are raising questions about a draft rule proposed by the Trump administration that would change the way grants, such as those through the National Institutes of Health, are administered. Pictured is an NIH Pediatric Oncology Branch researcher’s lab jacket embroidered with the NIH logo. (Photo courtesy of NIH)
WASHINGTON — Democrats in Congress are pushing back against a Trump administration rule proposed by the Office of Management and Budget that would significantly change the way federal grants are reviewed and distributed.
In recent weeks, several groups of lawmakers have written public comment letters to Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought expressing forceful opposition to the bill up-to-date draft ruleswhich, among other things, would give political representatives the power to decide which institutions receive grants.
A summary of the rule quotes the Biden administration as to why it is needed. “Federal awards were often used in those years to promote a ‘woke’ political agenda that did not reflect the values of the vast majority of the American public,” it says, citing policies on diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI.
Democrats said the proposal exceeded the office’s authority, would make it harder for grant recipients to implement funding priorities set by Congress and would turn federal grants into a tool for President Donald Trump to “unilaterally advance his partisan agenda and punish political rivals.”
The draft rules would allow Trump to “terminate or suspend any benefit at any time, for any reason, and without notice,” they said.
“Ultimately, these changes will make it more difficult for grant recipients to apply for and administer federal funds – undermining public safety, public health, economic competitiveness, and the government’s ability to manage rising costs,” New York Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and the full Senate Democratic Caucus wrote in their report Letter dated July 1st to Vought.
Maryland Democrats in Congress and members of the Congressional Community Safety CaucusLed by Reps. Summer Lee of Pennsylvania, LaMonica McIver of New Jersey and Gabe Amo of Rhode Island, also wrote letters calling on the OMB to rescind its proposed up-to-date rule.
Hundreds of billions of funds affected
The Draft rules with more than 100 pagesreleased May 29 in collaboration with 41 other federal grant agencies and titled “Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance,” would change the framework for evaluating grant applications and cost-sharing guidelines.
This would potentially impact hundreds of billions of dollars in federal funding for universities, nonprofits and other U.S. institutions, according to SciLine, an independent nonprofit service for journalists and scientists affiliated with the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Under the proposed rule, federal grants may not be used to “fund, promote, encourage, subsidize, or facilitate” DEI initiatives.
In many cases, awards would also be required to “demonstrately advance the president’s policy priorities,” and agencies could eliminate funding that “is not effective in achieving program goals or federal agency priorities” or is “no longer in the interest of the federal government.”
“The overarching goal of OMB’s proposed revisions is to improve transparency, accountability, and control over how federal tax dollars are used in connection with the awarding of federal grants,” the statement said Summary the rule.
OMB officials say they could implement the up-to-date draft rules as early as October 1.
Community violence intervention programs
During the public comment period for the draft rule, which ran from May 29 to July 13, congressional Democrats criticized its vague wording and the impact it has on many institutions that rely on federal funding.
Maryland senators and Democratic representatives condemned the rule in their July 10 letter to Vought for changing a process that has traditionally been based on merit. “The federal grantmaking process includes essential, nonpolitical guardrails that this rule seeks to undermine,” they wrote.
They also said the proposed rule sets out a set of up-to-date, undefined standards for grants, including that they must adhere to “gold scientific standards” and not reflect “anti-American values” that recipients may not understand or be unable to adhere to.
Maryland institutions, often known as centers of scientific research and innovation, were these hit difficult Since Trump’s second term began in 2025, there have been funding cuts at the National Institutes of Health and mass layoffs at the federal level. Local governments and schools that receive federal funding have also been affected Take hitsas well as the state’s overall economy.
In their July 13 letter, members of the Congressional Community Safety Caucus expressed concerns about how the draft rule might specifically impact community violence intervention programs.
Community violence intervention programs, local efforts that have been linked to reductions in violent crime rates in cities across the country, rely on federal grants for “state and local government investments, hospital partnerships, philanthropy and research support,” according to the lawmakers’ letter.
They wrote that the up-to-date draft rules would jeopardize the operation of these programs by allowing Trump administration officials to “withhold, suspend, or terminate grants or change terms and conditions during implementation, forcing grantees to operate in a turbulent environment.”
The government has already cut portions of Department of Justice programs, further limiting funding available for community violence intervention programs.
Other answers
Although opposition to the proposed rule comes primarily from Democratic lawmakers, there is some bipartisan criticism of the rule’s broad scope and brief timeline.
Sen. Susan Collins, a Republican from Maine, on July 6 asked V wanted to extend the proposal’s public comment period by at least 90 days and “withdraw portions of the rule that would potentially harm small and rural communities and scientific and biomedical research.”
“While I agree that these principles should guide the management and oversight of federal funds, the rule would impose new, burdensome requirements on awardees … and would be inconsistent with Congress’s oversight of the federal funding process,” she wrote.
OMB did not respond to States Newsroom’s request for comment on lawmakers’ opposition to the proposed rule. But Vought took it social media last month to express his opinion on the opposition.
“The taxpayer-subsidized left’s furor over OMB’s update of federal grantmaking regulations demonstrates the importance of stopping bureaucracies from leaking through NGOs spending that is weak, wasteful, and inconsistent with Trump administration policies,” he wrote.
