APA Services continues to work alongside other scientific societies, research advocacy groups, and patient advocates to coordinate a response and present a unified voice for the broader research enterprise to the August 7, 2025, Executive Order (EO): Improving Oversight of Federal Grantmakingopens in new window. The association’s recent activities include joining more than 50 scientific societies in submitting a letter to Congress (PDF, 191KB)opens in new window, recognizing the federal grantmaking system as the global gold standard for supporting groundbreaking research and driving technological innovation, while emphasizing the need for its ongoing evaluation and oversight.” However, “specific directives within the EO raise questions regarding the possibility of politization in federally funded research.” Accordingly, the organizations encourage Congress to provide guidance as federal agencies begin to implement the EO.
Specifically, the groups urge Congress to:
- Urgently invoke its Congressional oversight authority to avert serious harm to U.S. leadership in scientific and medical research, noting that “unprecedented oversight by political appointees risks injecting partisan bias into what has long been an impartial, merit-based system.”
- Safeguard independent peer review as the foundation of federal grantmaking so that the most meritorious proposals receive funding across administrations, warning that the EO’s shift of award decisions to political appointees “fundamentally threatens the integrity of the grantmaking process by removing key subject-matter expertise.”
- Protect federal research funding from short-term political pressures by prohibiting science agencies from amending discretionary grant terms to allow termination for convenience.
- Partner with the scientific community—including bodies like the National Science Board of the National Science Foundation—to assess current practices and recommend measures that support a diverse portfolio of grant recipients.
The letter’s signatories further highlight the inefficiencies added to the grant process and the increased administrative workload for researchers added by the EO. The EO would also add new layers of review and approval requiring significant agency staff time and resources, thus slowing the review and award process.
Lastly, the groups urge Congress to “stop the Administration’s proposal to prioritize research proposals from academic institutions with the lowest indirect (Facilities & Administration) cost rates.” (See related Washington Update article, "Partnering with the scientific community to develop a transparent model that adequately supports institutions’ essential research costs.") They emphasize the scientific community’s eagerness to work with the Congress and the administration to strengthen the scientific enterprise.
For more information, contact Angela L. Sharpe.