Proposed grant reviews would put political appointees over scientific panels
The Trump administration is pursuing several changes that would alter how scientific research and universities operate, according to a Guardian opinion column published Aug. 7. Jan-Werner Müller, a Guardian U.S. columnist and professor of politics at Princeton University, described the changes as an effort to place science under political direction.
Müller wrote that Russell Vought, identified in the column as the director of the Office of Management and Budget, initiated a rule change that would make any federal grant subject to review by political appointees. Science grants have so far been allocated through judgments by fellow scientists, Müller wrote.
The proposed review process could give the administration leverage over universities that depend on federal funding, Müller argued. He described a scenario in which officials could threaten a university’s funding if its administration failed to align with the president’s priorities.
Müller also described a strategy from Michael Kratsios, the administration’s science adviser, to shift some decision-making from university experts to private corporations. Kratsios wants corporations, aided by artificial intelligence, to identify potential breakthroughs, according to the column.
The approach would depart from the post-World War II model described by Müller, in which taxpayer money supported basic, open-ended research that private companies might not finance. The resulting inventions could later benefit citizens and American businesses, he wrote.
Müller said critics viewed the proposed shift as a way to move money from universities seen by the administration as political opponents to technology companies aligned with it. The column did not identify those critics.
The administration’s efforts also include requests directed at university presidents. Müller wrote that Education Secretary Linda McMahon was asking presidents to publish statements explaining how their institutions would increase “intellectual pluralism,” respond to campus protests and make education more focused on national priorities and immediate employability.
The column said the administration had previously failed to persuade selected universities to accept a compact offering preferential federal treatment. Müller characterized the new requests as a demand for public commitments from university leaders.
International education and research are another target, according to Müller. He wrote that visas for PhD students were limited to four years, with possible extensions requiring students to appeal to the Department of Homeland Security. He also said the administration was targeting international donors and collaboration.
Müller argued that the restrictions could affect the United States’ ability to attract researchers and maintain international ties. He wrote that researchers who remained in the country after earning doctorates had contributed to national wealth, while those who returned home could retain positive views of the United States.
The column traced the administration’s approach to a broader conservative hostility toward higher education. Müller cited a statement by JD Vance in 2021 that “Universities are the enemy,” along with earlier attacks on intellectuals and later opposition to “political correctness” and “wokeness.”
Müller wrote that the current coalition includes the Maga movement’s anti-intellectualism and nativism, Silicon Valley executives who envision technology companies replacing university functions, and conservatives seeking greater control over higher education. He also described a post-Covid belief among some on the right that science and freedom are opposites, as well as continuing attacks on Anthony Fauci.
Congress has not approved some of the major science-funding cuts requested by President Trump, Müller wrote. Republican politicians have also resisted measures that would stop money from reaching their districts, according to the column.
Müller wrote that the new OMB rule appeared to be blocked by a funding agreement reached in the Senate during the week of publication. He cautioned that university leaders and scientists should not rely on occasional congressional resistance and should oppose deals with the administration.
The Guardian column also acknowledged concerns about peer review and administrative work for researchers, describing some of those problems as real. Müller argued that those issues should not be used to place political officials or corporations in charge of scientific decision-making.