Science Is Under Attack. But Scientists Are Speaking Up

The White House's Office of Management and Budget proposed a rule on May 29, 2026, that would change how billions of dollars in federal research funding get decided. Instead of relying mainly on peer review, where scientists with relevant expertise evaluate grant applications, the rule would give political appointees more say over which projects get funded, based on whether the work fits the administration's priorities. Grants could be denied or cut off if results are politically inconvenient, and researchers could face new barriers to working with international colleagues or attending conferences.

This isn't limited to lab research. The same rules would apply to federal discretionary funding broadly, including disaster relief programs. Critics, including the Union of Concerned Scientists, argue the change would sideline expert review, restrict research on topics like LGBTQ+ health and diversity, and raise constitutional concerns about free speech and the separation of powers between Congress and the president.

The public comment period drew nearly half a million responses, with the vast majority opposed, including formal objections from scientific societies covering fields from physics and chemistry to cancer research and astronomy. Some members of Congress have also pushed back. Separately, the Scientific Integrity Act, recently reintroduced in the Senate, aims to build longer-term protections against political interference in federal science and require agencies to base decisions on evidence.

For homeowners, this story is about federal policy on research funding rather than a home upgrade program, and it does not change any current rebate or incentive available for energy efficiency projects.