Follow the money
The Trump administration's Office of Management and Budget has proposed a new rule that would give political appointees power to block federal discretionary spending along ideological lines.
THE SAME ADMINISTRATION THAT ADMITTED in court it kept federal grants vindictively from states President Trump lost in the last election is now trying to politicize the way the government spends taxpayer money.
Russell Vought’s Office of Management and Budget — which accounts for every dollar that comes in and goes out — proposed a new rule that would give political appointees a kind of veto power and subject all federal discretionary awards to partisan arbitrariness and caprice. The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse, but the rule would allow the administration to thwart funding Congress allocated for new scientific research, for example, to improve air quality near a busy port, just because.
So, what’s at stake?
Vought’s OMB’s proposed rule poses a risk to federal funding broadly, but it would especially complicate the missions of agencies like the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Energy and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, all of which depend on federal discretionary awards.
EPA grants fund state, tribal, local and community efforts to reduce air and water pollution, manage hazardous waste and toxic chemicals like PFAS, respond to disasters and manage contaminated sites.
DOE research and assistance programs promote cleaner technologies, energy efficiency, grid reliability, industrial innovation and scientific advancement.
NOAA programs support coastal management, fisheries, ocean science, weather and climate research and public safety.
All this work is under threat if an administration’s political appointees can go over Congress’ head and unilaterally control what researchers are allowed to study, which institutions receive research funding and which states and localities are awarded federal grants. Or, in other words:
This isn’t the first time Vought has taken steps to make it harder to protect the American people’s health and safety. He once said he intended to put career public servants — the veritable army of well-trained technical experts and analysts who do research, set standards and enforce laws — in so much “trauma” they’d stop wanting to show up for work.
How has discretionary spending worked until now?
Come with us down, down into the weeds. Since 2013, OMB has published the “Uniform Guidance” that establishes consistent administrative requirements, cost principles and audit requirements for federal discretionary awards across agencies.
Essentially, it’s an accounting manual for the federal government.
Separately, Congress authorizes an agency to award discretionary funding for specific purposes. Agency-specific regulations and guidance then supply more detailed requirements, which often include expert-led merit- and peer-review processes designed to ensure federal dollars go toward the research and projects best positioned to fulfill Congress’s stated goals.
Until now, this Uniform Guidance has primarily served to inform agencies’ implementation of these programs.
Now what?
The proposed rule is seeking to significantly revise the Uniform Guidance to codify changes that will grant OMB newfound authority to make federal awards subject to the Trump administration’s ideological preferences, regardless of Congress’s directives.
Here are the primary provisions you need to know about and what they mean:
1. OMB proposes to convert Uniform Guidance into a binding regulation.
This change would render this OMB rule, and its future rules issued under the same authority, immediately binding across the federal government.
2. OMB proposes adopting a new “pre-issuance review” process for senior political appointees based on the administration’s policy preferences.
This change would render all discretionary awards subject to an extra layer of scrutiny by political appointees, creating new opportunities to insert political bias and ideological litmus tests into federal grantmaking.
3. OMB proposes allowing agencies to terminate awards that no longer advance administration priorities.
This would impose significant uncertainty on all federal grantees, many of whom rely on federal dollars to support long-term projects.
4. OMB proposes to treat the required peer-review processes as merely advisory and second to the judgment of an agency’s politically appointed leaders.
This change would undermine the effectiveness of federal grantmaking, particularly in scientific research where expert review is vital to ensuring that U.S.-supported science leads the world.
This week, a coalition of environmental groups including Environmental Defense Fund delivered formal comments strongly opposing OMB’s proposed rule.
 | A guest post by
|