In May 2026, the Office of Management and Budget proposed sweeping changes to how the federal government administers billions of dollars in federal research grants.
That funding fuels scientific discovery, medical breakthroughs, and technological innovation. The proposal was open for public comment for 45 days and drew more than half a million responses.
Supporters of the proposal argue that it will prevent waste, fraud, and abuse in federal spending. Critics contend that the proposal will politicize research funding by giving executive branch political appointees greater influence over which research projects receive federal support.
Joining us to break down the OMB proposal and what it could mean for the future of research are:
Evan Morris, professor of radiology and biomedical imaging and of biomedical engineering at Yale
Catharine Young, senior fellow at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
Ryne Weiss, director of research here at FIRE
Timestamps:
00:00 Intro
02:57 What’s in the OMB proposal?
08:57 Research grant “kill switches” and their consequences
17:17 Limits on foreign research partnerships and professional activities
21:29 The importance of federal funding to medical research
23:23 Are pharmaceutical companies the “boogeymen”?
25:13 The gold standard of scientific research
26:22 The “replication crisis”
31:16 Open science and peer review
40:37 Bias in research funding decisions
44:06 Should science be shielded from politics?
49:04 Has research always been political?
53:14 How politicization could change scientific research
58:59 Outro
Enjoy listening to the podcast? Donate to FIRE today and get exclusive content like member webinars, special episodes, and more.
If you became a FIRE Member through a donation to FIRE at fire.org and would like access to Substack’s paid subscriber podcast feed, please email sotospeak@fire.org.
