SCROLL NEWS / DISCOVERY
Search headlines
Find the stories shaping the conversation.
Results for " vought " 22 found 🔀 AI-powered Shuffle
Murray, Baldwin Lead Colleagues in Demanding Vought Abandon Any and All Plans to Exert Political Control Over NIH Funding
Lawmakers emphasize need for Republicans to join Democrats and support new guardrails in law to protect the integrity of NIH’s grantmaking process following long line of politically motivated attacks on NIH ICYMI: Senator Murray on Trump’s Latest Plan to Politicize Lifesaving NIH Research ICYMI: Murray on Trump Admin Scrapping Plans for Executive Order to Empower […]
Stand Up for Science Warns of Trump And Vought’s Backdoor Plan to Seize Control of Entire NIH Grant Budget
Signals another attempt to let White House pick winners and losers in American science, undermining decades of peer-reviewed research.
Stand Up for Science Warns of Trump And Vought’s Backdoor Plan to Seize Control of Entire NIH Grant Budget
Signals another attempt to let White House pick winners and losers in American science, undermining decades of peer-reviewed research.
Trump Reportedly To Establish Political Board To Control NIH Funding
President Donald Trump told White House OMB director, Russell Vought, to draft an executive order to create a board that would determine which grants the NIH would fund.
White House Moves to Take Control of N.I.H. Grants
Federal officials are drafting an executive order that would place grants under review by an outside panel, the latest effort to redirect billions of dollars in research spending.
White House Moves to Take Control of N.I.H. Grants
Federal officials are drafting an executive order that would place grants under review by an outside panel, the latest effort to redirect billions of dollars in research spending.
Trump Seeks to Bring Health-Research Funding Under His Control, Politico Reports
Sept 19 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump is seeking to bring a major part of national funding for health research under the control of his political appointees, Politico reported on Saturday. Trump has directed his budget director, Russ Vought, to draft an executive order to create a ...
Vought pushes for scrutiny of NIH grants in Oval Office clash
A heated debate took place in the Oval Office on Friday, with some Trump officials accusing the National Institutes of Health of funding grants that conflict with the president’s agenda.
Science Wins A Skirmish
Thank heaven for small favors: Senators on the Appropriations Committee on Sunday released a stopgap funding bill to avert a government shutdown by Oct. 1 and temporarily block a White House proposal that would fundamentally change how the federal government awards and manages grants. In late May, the Office of Management and Budget released … Continue reading "Science Wins A Skirmish"
The Trump administration could shut US scientists out of the next Nobel-worthy discovery
The new proposal would restrict international collaboration and give political appointees the ability to decide the most important research to fund, and the power to pull the plug at any time, for any reason.
Angus King urges Trump administration to drop rule giving political authority over research grants
King, along with 10 Democratic senators, sent a letter to the director of the Office of Management and Budget, Russell Vought, warning that the rule would undermine scientific research, weaken American competitiveness, and increase bureaucracy.
Trump rule that would politicize grants faces fight from scientists and many others
A Trump administration proposal would give political appointees power to screen and terminate federal grants. Scientists, local governments and a Republican senator are resisting.
Burcum: Who should decide what research gets funded, political operatives or scientists?
From columnist Jill Burcum: A proposed rule from the Office of Management and Budget, led by Project 2025 architect Russell Vought, would shake up how federal dollars for research are allocated.
Trump’s Plan to Corrupt American Science
OMB’s Russell Vought would bring all federal research grants under direct political control, to align with ‘the president’s agenda.’
Scientists overwhelmingly against rule change that would give political appointees say over science grants
Hundreds of thousands of scientists, including Nobel laureates, warn that changes to the way federal grants are approved would greatly damage American science
They're Building Half A Bridge to Save Science...
Today’s post is about science: what you can do now to protect it from unprecedented threats, and how your action is the first half of a long-term program that Congress must take up next. Let me start with describing the embryonic state of science advocacy. There are many well-meaning organizations: the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Research!America, and subject-specific organizations such as the Society for Neuroscience and the American Physical Society. Their general approach is to emphasize the common good: the remarkable value that science and innovation have provided to all Americans. However, these organizations are offering an incomplete solution. Before I start, a preliminary: If you already know about the threat, go ahead and weigh in with OMB at this link. Ideas about what to say come from Research!America and the American Physical Society. You have until Monday, July 13 at 11:59pm Eastern. Then come back here and read the rest of this post. Finally, get in touch with whoever is likely to be your next member of Congress in 2027. The threat: An end to merit-based science… The onslaught of attacks on science is accelerating. It’s not just cuts to grants, which was the last battle. That battle is not done yet, but there is a new and worse threat. Now comes a proposed public rule from the Office of Management and Budget. The rule would take decision-making power over grants away from experts and put it into the hands of political appointees. Former NIH official Elizabeth Ginexi wrote an excellent summary of what OMB is trying to do, which is codify the executive branch’s ability to award or terminate grants, for arbitrary cause or no stated cause. Since World War II, a necessary step in scientific grant-making has been consideration of scientific merit. This approach has made America into a dominant scientific superpower, the envy of the world. Of course, political considerations do come into the mix. The proposed rule tilts the balance dramatically away from merit. …but why? Many people have difficulty comprehending why Russell Vought and OMB would want to damage science in this way. If you’re a working scientist, you are likely to be particularly uncomprehending. Who would hurt an activity so self-evidently good? The answer is: this is part of the program to replace the rule of law with a personalist regime. OMB Director Russell Vought, a Christian nationalist, would like to implement what legal scholars call a “unitary executive,” and what I would call a dictatorship. Or if you like, a personalist authoritarian regime. I am a working scientist. This rule will debilitate my research. It may chill the speech of scientists for speaking freely in the public sphere. It is a form of personalizing power and decision-making within the executive branch. In short, it sacrifices science in the service of tyranny. To Russell Vought, a decrease in the quality of science might be an acceptable cost. He might even consider it an added benefit to weaken a pillar of soft U.S. power based on knowledge and skepticism. The professional societies are building half a bridge The nonprofits are asking you to make public comment. Public comment is like building the first half of a bridge. Before implementation, OMB is compelled by law to have a period of public comment. Rules have to be consistent with the law and the Constitution. They express the federal government’s stance toward how those laws will be implemented. When a presidential administration works in good faith, these public comments are used to inform their eventual action, and sometimes mitigate it. The comment period reflects our First Amendment right to petition our government. The executive branch is then supposed to take those comments into account - completing the bridge between us, the people, and our government. Project 2025 seeks to take away the second half of the bridge. We have to replace it. The first half of the bridge Organizations like AAAS, Research!America, and SfN are partly right. You should certainly comment. Their core model is earnest: if enough of us make noise, then we will achieve change. This idealistic point of view is offered in good faith. That point of view is also currently bullshit. The fundamental reason is that the federal rulemaking process has two parts: There has to be a period of public comment. OMB makes the final rule…but is free to disregard public comment. Oops. That’s a loophole. However, not all is lost. Congress can complete the bridge Congress has enormous power. That power suggests a roadmap for how to proceed. This lawless administration is still going to issue that rule. Nonetheless, your comments still play an essential role. Here are two steps you can take. Step 1: Send your comment to your Representative and Senator. Whether they are Democrats or Republicans, many of them support science. Whatever you wrote as public comment in the Federal Register, also send it to your member of Congress. You can include information about jobs in your district or state by looking at Joshua Weitz’s ScienceMatters interactive map. Call the U.S. Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121 and give your town, zip code, or state, then deliver your message. Step 2: Politicize the hell out of science. You heard me, politicize it as an issue. We hear a lot from the old scientific establishment about science being nonpartisan. This is obsolete, sentimental thinking. Under normal conditions, it was true. But we can no longer make that assumption. We can keep on pretending, but we’re putting science at risk. There is a way forward. Rules are subordinate to the law…and Congress makes laws. Therefore Congress can step in. In this fall’s election, it is likely that Democrats will retake the House of Representatives. That puts at least one chamber of Congress in the hands of Democrats. They are far more inclined than the current Congress to investigate and legislate. This opens a path to undoing the damage. It also creates a permission structure for pro-science Republicans to find a way back from the brink. We have to encourage them. In the House, every district is up every two years. In your district, contact both of the major party candidates. If your state has a Senate race, contact those candidates too. Specifically mention the proposed OMB rule. Ask for two things: For this year’s appropriations process in August and September, ask that amendments be added to stop the implementation of the new rule. Those amendments should support peer-reviewed science and stop political interference. Looking ahead to next year, ask the Congressman/Congresswoman/Senator to work to hold hearings in 2027 on the importance and benefits of peer-reviewed science for health and prosperity. What hearings and amendments will accomplish Congress can use its investigatory power to summon heads of agencies and the director of the OMB. That will allow fact-finding regarding the consequences of this rule. Congress can override the rule through the appropriations process. They can write into statute a requirement to follow peer review and best scientific practices. In this way, Congress can stop the attacks on science. Postscript: Moving forward Now I have a request for you, to help me. As many of you know, I ran for Congress in order to save democracy and science. Although I did not win, that battle continues by other means. I met and heard from thousands of supporters both here in New Jersey and nationally. I learned that pro-science, pro-democracy activists have the potential to become a much greater force. In the weeks and months ahead, I will be building ways to harness that energy. I will be announcing those plans soon. In the meantime, an important step is to wind down the Congressional campaign, which has a few remaining bills to pay. Please help me retire that last debt.
WATCH LIVE: OMB Director Vought testifies before Senate panel on Trump's 2027 budget request
WATCH LIVE: OMB Director Vought testifies on Trump’s 2027 budget request in House hearing
Trump administration plans to break up largest federal climate research center
Russ Vought, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, said the National Science Foundation "will be breaking up" the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado.
Vought says National Science Foundation to break up federal climate, weather research center
The National Science Foundation will “break up” a climate and weather research lab in Colorado, according to White House Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought. The Foundation, an …