proposed OMB – A new analysis warns that proposed White House regulations would allow political appointees to halt federal research grants, putting nearly 5,000 clinical trials at risk of termination— including about 1,000 cancer treatment tests—before the public comment per
For patients who sign up for clinical trials, the waiting is already hard enough. Now, new proposed federal rules could make the ground shift under that waiting—turning ongoing studies into unfinished promises.
Stand Up for Science. a science advocacy group. says nearly 5. 000 clinical trials. including about 1. 000 tests of cancer treatments. could face termination under proposed federal regulations. The group also says the potential cuts would affect hundreds of pediatric, veteran health, and heart disease trials.
The risk stems from a rule proposed in May by the White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The proposal would give political appointees the final word on federal research grants across agencies. That would mark a departure from years of relying on scientific peer review to judge grant merits.
The rules are framed as a response to a “woke” policy agenda and as a way to curb international collaboration. according to a statement published in the Federal Register. The OMB is headed by Russell Vought. described in the analysis as the lead architect of the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 plan for the Trump administration.
Clinical trials are the final stages for testing new medical treatments and interventions. They can involve dozens to thousands of volunteer patients, depending on the trial’s aims. A 2025 JAMA Internal Medicine analysis of 383 clinical trials associated with grants terminated by the Trump administration found that as many as 74. 000 patients were affected by the cuts.
Stand Up for Science extends that warning to the new proposal. Applying the proposed rules to some 10. 000 clinical trials currently funded by the National Institutes of Health. the group found that nearly half would face termination. Many of those. the analysis says. are international in nature or could run into a list of more than 350 “banned words”—phrases that Pen America. a free speech group. reports federal agencies have either sought to prohibit or limit. The report says words on the list include “abortion,” “solar power,” and “vaccines.”.
“People’s lives are on the line. These are clinical trials of new drugs and interventions that could change people’s lives,” said Stand Up for Science founder Collette Delawalla in a statement.
Not everyone agrees the projected numbers can be treated as precise. Vishal Patel. a physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. said the new report relies on assumptions that may be too severe. In particular, he questioned the idea that using a banned word would inevitably trigger termination. “This seems like an analysis that is highly sensitive to the assumptions made by the analyst,” he said. “Assuming using a banned word would inevitably lead to termination might be too extreme. he says: ‘This might just be a little too crude of an estimate.’”.
The Trump administration rejects the criticism. In response to the report. a Trump administration spokesman told Scientific American that: “The Trump Administration will ensure funding goes toward real science instead of promoting a far-left DEI agenda with things like drag shows in Ecuador and transgender experiments on mice. This rule will bring much-needed transparency to the grantmaking process and ensure taxpayer dollars are spent wisely.”.
The proposal has drawn condemnation from medical and scientific organizations. including the American Heart Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. They argue the OMB rules would break the “compact” between the scientific enterprise and federal agencies—where research decisions are based on peer review by scientists inside and outside government.
In an article published on Monday. the editorial board of the New England Journal of Medicine wrote that: “The OMB proposal to permit political appointees to discontinue funding of ongoing grants at any time. without cause. would have serious adverse consequences for the research enterprise and for patients.” The board added: “Can physician–investigators ethically enroll a patient in a trial if ongoing funding for the trial is uncertain?”.
The public comment period for the OMB rules ends on July 13, with more than 28,000 comments submitted so far. If the proposal is implemented, the new rules would take effect by October.
Editor’s Note (6/16/2026): This story is in development and may be updated.
clinical trials White House Office of Management and Budget OMB research grants peer review National Institutes of Health cancer trials pediatric trials patient risk banned words public comment period
So they’re shutting down trials now? Wild.
Wait I’m confused—if it’s “woke” then why are they doing it through grant rules? Feels like politics either way. My cousin did a trial and that would be a disaster.
I guess this is why every research grant gets delayed… “political appointees final word” sounds like it means they can just deny stuff without peer review? Also they keep talking “international collaboration” like that’s the problem lol.
74,000 patients affected or whatever, but they’re also saying 5,000 trials could be ended before public comment. Why even call it a proposal then? And Russell Vought—didn’t he used to be in something with the Heritage Foundation? Not shocked but still, this is basically stopping cancer stuff while everyone argues about words.