On May 29th, the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) published a proposed rule that would significantly change how federal research grants are awarded, with significant implications for NIH-funded GI and biomedical research.
This proposed rule only adds to the uncertainty at the NIH, which ACG President Bill Chey, MD, MACG has argued is threatening America’s standing as the global leader in biomedical research.
Here’s what the proposal would do, why ACG is concerned, and what actions we’re taking.
August Update: Senate Moves to Block Rule–For Now
Earlier this week, the Senate Appropriations Committee introduced a short-term budget package that would fund government agencies until Dec. 11th. The package also included language to delay implementation of the White House Office of Management and Budget’s proposed rule on federal grants, but only until Dec. 11th.
As of Friday, the Senate was still navigating the legislative process to approve the government funding bill, among other priorities, before adjourning for summer recess until September.
For weeks, ACG has raised alarm on the Hill about the harms of this proposed federal rule and how it could fundamentally reshape the funding process at the NIH, with political appointees—not peer reviewers—having the final say over which grants get funded.
We are grateful that Senate leadership has listened to our concerns and is now poised to ensure the rule is not finalized on Oct. 1st, as originally planned. Speaking about the rule, Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins (R-ME) said, “I think this politicized the grants process, and I don’t want that to occur” and Ranking Member Patty Murray (D-WA) added she would “welcome the fight” to further block the rule come December.
In the meantime, ACG will use the coming weeks to continue our fight on the Hill and to push the administration to withdraw the rule.
Read below for more information about the rule and how ACG is fighting back.
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.
Before the comment window on the regulation closed, Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, asked OMB to “withdraw portions of the rule that would unduly burden scientific and biomedical research and small communities.”
And previously, in June, 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.
Together, the GI Societies (ACG, AASLD, AGA, ASGE, and NASPGHAN) sent formal comments to the administration about the harms of the proposed rule.
Additionally, ACG joined 160+ not-for-profit scientific, medical, and scholarly societies in expressing concern about another section of the OMB proposal, which would prohibit the use of federal research grants to cover researchers’ publication costs.
In April, 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.
In Congress, ACG Governors Are Explaining the Impact of NIH-Funded Research on Patients and Local Economies
Renewing our successful advocacy efforts from last year, the ACG Governors are again sending letters to key Senators and House Representatives who oversee funding for the NIH.
In their letters, the ACG Governors emphasized the importance of biomedical research, both for our patients and on the economies of states and local communities. They also highlighted several active GI research projects on issues like colorectal cancer, gut microbiomes, liver disease, and more. So far, we have received many positive responses from congressional staffers.
As a sample, here is the letter ACG Governor for West Virginia Justin Kupec, MD, FACG sent to Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, Chair of the Senate Labor-Health Appropriations Subcommittee. Similarly, ACG Governor for Alabama Mohamad Eloubeidi, MD, FACG sent a letter to Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-AL), Chair of the House Senate Labor-Health Appropriations Subcommittee.
Interested to see what research the NIH funds in your community? Use the agency’s tool to learn more.