Es bleiben nur noch drei Tage zum Handeln, es sei denn, die Kommentierungsfrist dafür wird irgendwie verlängert.
Eine vom Weißen Haus vorgeschlagene neue Regel Büro für Verwaltung und Haushalt würde grundsätzlich Überholung die Art und Weise, wie Bundeszuschüsse vergeben und überwacht werden – eine tiefgreifende Veränderung, die eine wissenschaftliche Gesellschaft sagte: „würde die Nutzung wissenschaftlicher Leistungen bei der Auswahl von Zuschüssen und Programmen in der gesamten Regierung nahezu beenden.”
Die Ende Mai vorgeschlagene Regel würde politischen Beauftragten eine beispiellose Kontrolle über Bundeszuschüsse für Forschung, Bildung und Infrastruktur geben und legt fest, dass staatliche Mittel nur für Projekte ausgegeben werden dürfen, die „mit den Richtlinien und Prioritäten der Verwaltung in Einklang stehen“, heißt es in einer Kopie der vorgeschlagenen Regel.
Die Regel würde außerdem Forschungsthemen einschränken, die Möglichkeiten von US-Wissenschaftlern zur Zusammenarbeit mit Kollegen in anderen Ländern einschränken und es der Regierung erleichtern, Zuschüsse jederzeit auszusetzen oder zu streichen.
Die vorgeschlagene Regel räumt der Bundesregierung weitreichende Befugnisse ein, Zuschüsse aus beliebigen Gründen auszusetzen oder zu streichen, was zu „beispielloser Unvorhersehbarkeit in der lokalen Verwaltung“ führt, aber es ist klar, dass sie weitreichende Auswirkungen auf die Zukunft jeglicher und möglicherweise aller Wissenschaft und Forschung haben kann.
Über diese Nachricht wird kaum berichtet, und das ist besorgniserregend. Mehr Menschen müssen darüber reden, es teilen und einen Kommentar gegen die Regel vorbereiten/posten.
Sie können Ihren Kommentar gegen die vorgeschlagene OMB-Regel offiziell einreichen (Aktenzeichen OMB-2026-0034) vor Ablauf der Frist online unter 23:59 Uhr ET An 13. Juli 2026.
Um Ihr Feedback einzureichen, verwenden Sie die Bundes-eRulemaking-Portal Oder vereinfachen Sie den Prozess, indem Sie die geführten Kommentartools nutzen, die von den verschiedenen wissenschaftlichen Koalitionen online bereitgestellt werden.
https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2026-07-10/trump-administration-seeks-to-limit-federal-funding-that-doesnt-advance-presidential-policies
11 Kommentare
it’s not being threatened anymore, it’s actively dealing with the damage as the threats from a year ago are being followed through on.
We’re moving towards a country where you have to make something seem glamorous to get funding. Science be damned!
We’ve been cutting NSF and grants for decades this admin just supercharged it and politicsied it more than previous admins.
Preparing and posting comments to this before the ruling is essential, I feel, from anyone that may already be within any science field, research field, or even government agency that requires research and science to support any and all opinions and/or actions it may have and take.
Further, I think people need to discuss this and how this may take hold if this rule does pass and what actions moving forward there may be able to take both individually and as a community to ensure the future of science and research if the rule passes.
To be fair, I am just astounded at how underreported this has been. I have not seen many topics about this on reddit and I just was notified to this article today… when there are only three days left. The level of being sneaky and sweeping things by nowadays is frightening, but what is more frightening is the potential of this rule being implemented. Because yes, things have been impacted for awhile in the scientific community, but this will undoubtedly make it worse.
Wow, and they just put it all in the open:
This lack of transparency, accountability, and proper oversight became increasingly clear between 2021 and 2024. Federal awards were often used during those years to promote a “woke” policy agenda that did not reflect the values of the vast majority of the American public. (2) For example, Federal programs and funding opportunities were designed to advance unlawful identity-based “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” (DEI) policies and preferences across the country. (3) These policies were inconsistent with basic American values and civil rights laws, including the equal protection principles of the U.S. Constitution. (4) They were also misaligned in many cases with underlying public purposes authorized by law. (5) Collectively, these policies wasted a great amount of taxpayer resources and caused great harm to public trust in government.
The White House Fact Sheet of August 7, 2025, describes examples of the types of wasteful spending that occurred as a result of such policies. For example, Federal grants funded unlawful DEI practices, (6) various anti-American ideologies in American education, (7) non-replicable and highly misleading studies, (8) labs engaged in gain-of-function research, (9) and AI-powered social media censorship tools. (10) More recently, another White House Fact Sheet of January 8, 2026 provided examples of the rampant and pervasive problem of fraud in the United States, including under assistance programs in Minnesota. (11)
Another example of wasteful spending is provided by a 2023 report from Office of Inspector General for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). That report found that recipients of Federal awards from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) potentially misused funds to provide services for illegal immigrants. (12) Such potential abuse of taxpayer funds highlights the need for proper oversight of taxpayer dollars.
In another prominent example, prior to this administration, far-left activists hijacked the critical work done by the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), which was established to respond to the AIDS crisis in Africa. Due to wasteful spending, PEPFAR became a left-wing foreign aid entitlement that attempted to promote abortion and gender ideology. Additionally, an August 2025 report from the Heritage Foundation noted that, according to the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee, billions of dollars in overhead and program charges flow to nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and contractors in Washington, DC rather than providing direct humanitarian aid; and insufficient oversight has resulted in significant waste of taxpayer resources. (13)
An additional example is provided by a 2024 report from the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation regarding the growing failure of objectivity at the National Science Foundation (NSF) during the previous administration. (14) That report found that out of a sample of over three thousand grants, more than ten percent—totaling over two billion dollars in Federal funding—went to “questionable projects that promoted diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) tenets or pushed onto science neo-Marxist perspectives about enduring class struggle.” The report also found that, by 2024, over a quarter of new grants made by NSF (27 percent) directed funding to DEI initiatives and other far-left perspectives. This marked a huge proportional increase over the course of only three years from the 0.29 percent of new grants made by NSF with a similar focus in 2021. (15) This is just a small sample of many examples across the Federal Government of wasteful spending and other misuse and mismanagement of Federal funds.
I don’t feel like digging into these things .. I’ll get a bot to do it
What’s the TLDR, seems that the administration is just cutting DEI focused grants and other wasteful spending. What am I missing?
Yet another aspect of Trump that the rest of the world is happy about … we’re all hiring all the talented people leaving America … assuring decades of innovation to drive our economies.
And proving the right hates science and learning yet again.
Learn mandarin, it will be the chinese century. Trump is handing it to them.
Every administration focuses on what they think are priorities in the field of science, though personally I’d prefer my tax dollars to go to climate, space exploration, ocean exploration instead of human sexuality .
But in ALL of the cases whomever the POTUS may be ( so far) NONE of them have a background in hard science and are going to screw it up
With no such deliberate throttling of advancement here in the EU, how does America feel this will play out for it?