Published May 22, 2025, via Research News
Recently, the Federal Register published the Trump administration’s new regulation that would institute Schedule F. This plan would reclassify tens of thousands of government jobs as “policymaking positions” and therefore subject them to presidential appointment and removal of those who occupy these positions. This regulation would reclassify jobs that once fell under civil service protection and where the jobs could be filled on the basis of expertise and experience. You can see the proposed regulation in the Federal Register here.
The language that is most worrying for science grants is this:
- Substantive participation and discretionary authority in agency grantmaking, such as the substantive exercise of discretion in the drafting of funding opportunity announcements, evaluation of grant applications, or recommending or selecting grant recipients. Grantmaking is an important form of policymaking, so employees with a substantive discretionary role in how federal funding gets allocated may occupy policymaking positions.
From various sources, it appears the plan with regard to NIH is that all Institute and Center Directors (as opposed to only the NCI Director as it is currently) would become political appointees, as would most or all division directors. This would dramatically politicize NIH and increase the turnover of key positions, limiting longer-term planning and execution.
Any regulation must go through a “notice and comment” period in which the public can weigh in on the regulation and its wisdom.
The comment period is open until May 23, 2025.
Anyone who would like to register an objection should visit the Federal Register website and click the green “public comment” button at the top.
By law, the proposing agency (in this case, the office of personnel management headed by Project 2025 coordinator Russell Vought) must take comments into account and respond to them, thereby forming a record that can be challenged in subsequent litigation. The agency must act in a rational way, providing reasons for not taking particular objections into account and justifying its proposal in ways that are legally acceptable. If thousands of scientists say that political interference with grants assessment is going to destroy the scientific integrity of federal grants, the agency will have to explain why the rule doesn’t do that (which it can’t because this is precisely why the new regulation is being instituted).
Mark E. Lowe, MD, PhD
Vice Chancellor for Research
Associate Dean for Research, School of Medicine
Harvey R. Colten Professor of Pediatric Science