Trump Issues Executive Order Adding Political Review to Federal Grant Reviews
Earlier in August, U.S. President Donald J. Trump issued an executive order, Improving Oversight of Federal Grant Making, which explicitly adds an element of political oversight into the issuance of grant opportunities and the award of federal grants. The executive order requires that all announcements of federal grant opportunities and the awarding of all federal grants must be reviewed and approved by a political appointee before a final decision is made on the grant.
Specifically, the executive order directs each federal granting agency to “…promptly designate a senior appointee who shall be responsible for creating a process to review new funding opportunity announcements and to review discretionary grants to ensure that they are consistent with agency priorities and the national interest.” It further requires “…pre-issuance review of discretionary awards to ensure that the awards are consistent with applicable law, agency priorities, and the national interest, which shall involve in-person or virtual discussion of applications by grant review panels or program offices with a senior appointee or that appointee’s designee.”
The executive order makes it clear that the political review of federal grant announcements and grant awards should not be perfunctory, stating that “senior appointees and their designees shall not ministerially ratify or routinely defer to the recommendations of others in reviewing funding opportunity announcements or discretionary awards, but shall instead use their independent judgment.” It also revisits the issue of the National Institute of Health’s indirect costs by stating, “all else being equal, preference for discretionary awards should be given to institutions with lower indirect cost rates…” and further directs grants to be awarded to institutions implementing the administration’s plan for “gold-standard science.”
“This executive order undermines expert peer review and inserts political interference into the scientific process”, says Allan Pack, MBChB, PhD, vice-chair, ATS Research Advocacy Committee. “At best, political review will add delay and interference to the federal grantmaking process. At its worst, it will turn the federal research enterprise into pork-barrel spending to reward political friends and contributors instead of advancing science.”
Clean Air: ATS Submits Comments Opposing Rollback of E.P.A.’s MATS Rule
This week, the ATS joined over 20 medical and public health organizations in joint comments opposing the Trump administration’s proposal to roll back the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) regulation to reduce air pollution from powerplants, heavy industry, and other major stationary sources of toxic air pollutants. The Environmental Protection Agency’s proposal to roll back the MATS rule is puzzling in that most facilities covered by the regulation already meet it.
In the joint comments, the ATS noted that the existing MATS rule called for continuous emission monitoring to ensure timely accurate and public reporting of toxic emissions from powerplants and industrial facilities. Prior to this rule, emissions reporting required quarterly smokestack testing that was less reliable and more easily manipulated than continuing monitoring systems.
“I am disappointed that the Trump administration is rolling back the MATS – a rule that industry has already spent money to comply with,” says Alison Lee, MD, chair, ATS Environmental Health Policy Committee. “I hope the EPA will reconsider their action – if not, I expect the agency’s rollback effort will be challenged in court.”