The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) published a proposed rule on May 29th that would significantly change how federal research grants are awarded, with significant implications for NIH-funded GI and biomedical research.
Here’s what the proposal would do, why ACG is concerned, and how you can make your voice heard.
What would this rule change?
The lengthy proposal makes sweeping changes to how all federal agencies would issue research funding and other financial awards. If finalized, the rule would take effect on October 1, 2026.
The most discussed provision: senior political appointees would be required to review and approve every discretionary grant before it is awarded. At the NIH, this would mean that peer review—the expert-driven process that has long governed scientific funding decisions—could be sidelined.
The proposal would also require research grants to “demonstrably advance the President’s policy priorities,” and agencies would have explicit authority to terminate active projects if they determine it no longer serves the national interest—even after a multi-year award has begun.
Earlier this week, three senior Democrats on the House Energy & Commerce Committee sent a letter to NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya, MD, raising concern about the proposal. “The proposal … directly threatens your authority over NIH grantmaking and your ability to maintain a process that protects scientific integrity and merit-based review,” they wrote. “Rather than repeatedly undercutting the ability of your own agency to fulfill its mandate, we implore you to demand OMB rescind the proposed rule.”
What is ACG doing?
ACG believes this proposal injects partisanship into what has historically been a science-driven process for evaluating research proposals.
Last month, even before the rule was announced, ACG President William D. Chey, MD, MACG warned Congress that ongoing uncertainty at the NIH has already weakened the United States’ longstanding position as the global leader of biomedical research. In an accompanying ACG Magazine editorial, Dr. Chey highlighted growing concerns about leadership turnover at the NIH and the perception of politics overruling scientific merit.
ACG is actively engaging with Congressional offices to express our alarm about the proposal. ACG will also seek opportunities to partner with other medical societies and healthcare organizations to register our concerns with the federal government.
How can I get involved?
The administration must review and respond to public comments before issuing a final rule. Individual comments from physicians, researchers, and patients help demonstrate the breadth of concern across the medical and scientific community.
You can submit your own comments through July 13 and help reinforce the importance of preserving an independent, merit-based scientific review process.