Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

pat_k

(14,278 posts)
4. I'm working on mine, but a key point will be that these rules transform grant money into a giant slush fund.
Wed Jun 10, 2026, 05:12 PM
Wednesday

Roughly 170 billion of our tax dollars are awarded in grants that serve the public interest in accord with the applicable congressional mandate. To ensure this, the grants are awarded in a competitive process that involves peer review and expert advisory panel oversight.

The regulatory changes issued May 29 transform that 170 billion dollars into a slush fund ten times the size of the corrupt so-called "anti-weaponization" fund. Instead of peer review and expert advisory panels to ensure the public interest is served, decision-making is handed to political appointees. Instead of being awarded in accord with the applicable congressional mandate, awards are to be made in the service of the radical right agenda of the Trump administration.

These rules are effectively a declaration of intent of by a small group to loot public money to advance their radical agenda and advance the private interests of Trump's allies.

The damage to United States' standing at the cutting edge of research in countless areas, the damage to the economic powerhouse publicly-funded research drives, and the damage to our public health, our safety, and wellbeing is incalculable.

These rules must not go into effect. And similar rules already in effect at NIH and NSF must be revoked or overruled by congressional action.

Recommendations

2 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Stand Up for Science!!! H...»Reply #4