The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has published a proposal to modify the administration and oversight of federal grants, shifting authority toward political appointees.

管理及預算局 (OMB) 已發表一份建議書，擬修改聯邦撥款的行政與監督方式，將權限移交給政治任命官員。

The proposed regulatory framework, detailed in a document exceeding 400 pages, mandates 'pre-issuance reviews' by senior political appointees to ensure that discretionary awards align with the President's policy priorities and the 'national interest.' This mechanism would effectively subordinate the traditional peer-review process, which has historically functioned as the primary meritocratic determinant for funding since the post-World War II era. Under the new guidelines, peer review would remain advisory, granting political officials discretionary veto power over scientific and academic projects.

擬議的監管框架在一份超過 400 頁的文件中詳細說明，要求由高級政治任命官員進行「發放前審查」，以確保酌情撥款符合總統的政策優先事項與「國家利益」。此機制將使傳統的同行評審程序變得次要，而同行評審自第二次世界大戰後以來，一直是決定資助分配的主要擇優機制。

Institutional implications include the expansion of agency authority to terminate active grants if they are deemed no longer congruent with government objectives, a provision analogous to 'termination for convenience' in federal contracting. Furthermore, the proposal introduces stringent ideological constraints, explicitly prohibiting the use of funds for initiatives related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), gender identity, or the study of disparate-impact liability. The administration also seeks to restrict collaborations with entities designated as 'foreign adversaries' and requires the pre-approval of conference attendance over five-year grant cycles.

制度上的影響包括擴大機關權限，若資助項目被認為不再符合政府目標，即可終止現有撥款，此條款類似於聯邦承包合同中的「方便終止」。此外，該建議引入了嚴格的意識形態限制，明確禁止將資金用於與多元、公平與包容 (DEI)、性別認同或研究差異化影響責任相關的計劃。行政部門亦尋求限制與被指定為「外國對手」的實體合作，並要求五年撥款週期內參加會議需經預先批准。

Stakeholder positioning reveals a significant divergence in perspective. The OMB characterizes these measures as necessary to eliminate waste and counteract a previously 'woke' policy agenda. Conversely, members of the scientific community and various non-profit organizations contend that such centralization of power constitutes a political control apparatus. Critics argue that the replacement of merit-based evaluation with ideological screening may impede global scientific competitiveness and infringe upon academic freedom.

利益相關者的立場顯示出明顯分歧。OMB 將這些措施描述為消除浪費以及對抗先前「覺醒」政策議程的必要手段。相反，科學界成員與各種非營利組織認為，權力如此集中構成了一套政治控制機制。批評者認為，以意識形態篩選取代擇優評估，可能會阻礙全球科學競爭力並侵犯學術自由。

The proposal is currently in a public comment period ending July 13, with intended implementation by October.

該建議目前處於公眾評論期，將於 7 月 13 日結束，預計 10 月起實施。