Greetings all. Sending along the conversation I had today with Dr. Colette Delawalla, the Founder and CEO of Stand Up For Science. This is Colette’s third visit to Hopium land, and today I asked her to come by to talk about their urgent new campaign, Stop Vought. Save Science.
From their new action page:
Russell Vought is trying to destroy American science & federally funded research as we know it.
OMB’s latest proposed rule, “Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance,” would require all scientific grants to be approved by political appointees, stealing approval power from career experts in their fields. Funding would be required to align with “Administration policies and priorities.”
Political appointees selecting or approving research proposals destroys the scientific process, which is exactly what this Administration wants.
This a direct threat to scientific independence, public health, and evidence-based decision-making.
Please join with Stand Up for Science to demand Congress stop this attack on science with direct and intense pressure on Trump and even legislation if that’s what it takes.
To learn more:
View the full OMB-2026-0034 Proposed Rule
View the SUFS Overview of the Rule Proposal
Today Hopium is formally endorsing this campaign and encouraging everyone in our community to take an action - contact your Senators and Rep and please use this page to leave a public comment on the new OMB rule:
Please join with Stand Up for Science to stop this attack on science by adding your feedback and comments to the Federal Register during the public comment period, open until July 13, 2026.
Any member of the public can submit comments on these regulations and comments can be as short or as long as you’d like. There is not a limit on comments, however 100 of the same comment count as one comment. Please note, the comment should be PERSONALIZED by you in order to be counted.
This action is CRITICAL as these comments provide groundwork for legal action should OMB ignore our commentary. Further, this information helps Congress understand why the proposed regulations are harmful to our nation.
A “well-commented” public call has hundreds of comments. We are aiming for THOUSANDS; ten thousand comments, to be precise. If everyone who has received federal funding in their career submitted a comment...we would blow past our goal.
This is an all hands on deck for our future, for our kids and grand kids, and for this great country. Please join this campaign to Stop Vought and Save Science. Encourage others to join you, and let’s work together to block one of the most reckless, dangerous, and illiberal things the Trump regime has yet attempted.
Excited to bring this timely conversation with a really important and dynamic new leader of our pro-democracy movement, hit like so more will see it, and share it with others. We have a month to kill this thing and failure is not an option!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thanks all - Simon
OMG OMB! - A Brief Overview of OMB-2026-0034
Appointees Take the Wheel: Federal grants would now be approved by political appointees. The expert consideration that had been provided by peer review panels is now just one item in a list of potential considerations. Some government agencies have already made this change in response to an earlier executive order. The Stand Up for Science Foundation has learned that political appointees in those agencies have already contacted universities and other institutions and asked them to change the nature of their work in order to more closely align with the President’s agenda.
Makes funding subject to culture-war politics: The regulation includes extensive new requirements, including demands that awards “demonstrably advance the president’s policy priorities.” This includes prohibiting “denial by the recipient of the sex binary in humans or the notion that sex is a chosen or mutable characteristic” in addition to “initiatives that compromise public safety or promote anti-American values.”
The government may terminate and suspend grants at any time, for any reason: Agencies would now be able to terminate grants at any time if they no longer align with “agency priorities” or current administration policy. Previously, grants could only be canceled due to significant issues like fraud or mismanagement. This is significant when combined with OMB’s proposal to discourage awardsthat give recipients more flexibility, while pushing to lock them into multi-year commitments. The combination allows the government to lock-in projects that are aligned with agency priorities while retaining a way to terminate them if political priorities change.
Unscientific Requirements: The document seems to suggest that only studies that can be replicated would qualify for federal grants. Certain scientific activities, like observations of astronomical or weather events, are inherently not replicable. There is also language prohibiting acknowledgement of sex non-binaries that is incompatible with studying human development (see Chimerism, Sweyer Syndrome, etc.)
No Political Viewpoint Discrimination - Except for Prohibited Political Viewpoints: While the regulation prohibits viewpoint discrimination or discrimination based on political views, it also singles out specific topics, like disparate impact liability, as prohibited from receiving federal awards. It also expressly removes language that federal awards should support the public welfare and the environment.
OMB’s rules are now a requirement: Previously, the OMB gave agencies guidance to assist them in independently running and managing their own programs. This is no longer the case. Under the revised text, all instances of “guidance” have been replaced with language like “regulation” and “requirement.”
English Only, Foreign Collaboration Discouraged: The revised regulation severely restricts the extent to which foreign organizations may be funded by the U.S. government, adopting what it calls a “domestic first framework”. This is in addition to restrictions on cooperation with “covered entities” like institutions supported by the People’s Republic of China. The language, which is designed to extend limitations placed on NASA to the rest of the government, appears to conflict with carve-outs for science in the CHIPS and Science Act, which expressly permitted research projects that involve reciprocal exchanges of information.
The overview text of the document also suggests that awardees should not work with organizations that also work with foreign adversaries, which would generally prevent cooperation with almost all of America’s allies and major international organizations like the World Meteorological Organization (aka the folks who coordinate global weather forecasting) and CERN (where US scientists collaborate on the world’s largest particle collider).Explicit ban on funding directed towards research on women, people of color, LGBTQ+ communities, and religious minorities: The proposed rule takes aim at DEI, defining it broadly as ‘unlawful discrimination’. This weaponizes civil rights language against the very communities who have been subject to discrimination. The practical implication for science is huge. Research focused on racial equity, health disparities, climate justice— or any projects that incorporate social dimensions or “broader impacts” —will face severe scrutiny or outright elimination. Science funding will be steered towards areas the administration deems aligned with “Gold Standard Science” or national priorities.
More time spent doing administrative tasks: Despite the Trump Administration’s promise to reduce administrative burden on scientists, the elimination of fixed amount awards and subawards removes tools that make it easier for the government to fund science projects, especially for large collaborations. This change significantly increases the amount of accounting and paperwork done by universities, research hospitals, and their partners. It creates significant extra workload for federal staff, who are now expected to micromanage awards.
OMB is bracing for lawsuits: One of the most revealing aspects of this 400-page documents is the extraordinary length of the legal justifications around two sections, the broad ban on DEI and gender ideology programs and the expanded power to terminate grants at any moment. This signals that the agency is anticipating strong legal challenges and that its proposed rules are on shaky ground.
Bio - Dr. Colette Delawalla, Stand Up For Science Founder & CEO
Colette Delawalla, PhD, is the Founder and Chief Executive Officer of Stand Up for Science. Under her leadership, the organization has mobilized thousands of scientists worldwide, supported whistleblowers across federal agencies including the NIH, EPA, NASA, and FEMA, advocated against cuts to federally funded research, launched a campaign calling for the impeachment of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and is actively working to secure a pro-science congressional majority in 2026. She earned her PhD in Clinical Psychology from Emory University.
