Improving Oversight of Federal Grantmaking
President Trump issued an executive order to improve oversight of federal grantmaking.
The order addresses concerns about misuse of taxpayer money by focusing on alignment of grants with national interests and improved agency accountability.
Specific actions include implementing rigorous review processes for funding opportunity announcements and discretionary grants, revising the Uniform Guidance to streamline application requirements and limit administrative costs, and providing for termination of grants not aligned with national interests.
This aims to prevent the funding of projects that promote certain ideologies, compromise public safety or waste taxpayer resources.
Arguments For
Intended Benefits: The order aims to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of federal grantmaking, ensuring funds are used for projects aligned with national interests and preventing waste.
Evidence Cited: The order cites examples of federal grants funding projects deemed contrary to national interests, including those promoting specific ideologies or harming public safety.
Implementation Methods: The order outlines specific steps for agencies to review and approve grant applications, including increased oversight by senior appointees and interagency coordination. The revisions to the Uniform Guidance and grant terms and conditions are also key components of its implementation.
Legal/Historical Basis: The order is issued under the authority vested in the President by the Constitution and laws of the United States to improve governmental efficiency and ensure accountability for the use of public resources.
Arguments Against
Potential Impacts: Increased review processes could slow down the grant application and funding process, potentially delaying important research or initiatives.
Implementation Challenges: Implementing the order's requirements across numerous federal agencies may be complex and resource-intensive.
Alternative Approaches: Other approaches to improving grant effectiveness could involve enhancing existing auditing and monitoring mechanisms rather than introducing extensive new review processes.
Unintended Effects: The order's emphasis on aligning grants with specific policy priorities could lead to biases affecting grant allocation and potentially stifle innovative or controversial research.
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and to improve the process of Federal grantmaking while ending offensive waste of tax dollars, it is hereby ordered:
This opening statement asserts the President's authority to issue the order and states its purpose: to improve the federal grantmaking process and eliminate wasteful spending.
Section 1. Purpose. Every tax dollar the Government spends should improve American lives or advance American interests. This often does not happen. Federal grants have funded drag shows in Ecuador, trained doctoral candidates in critical race theory, and developed transgender-sexual-education programs. In 2024, one study claimed that more than one-quarter of new National Science Foundation (NSF) grants went to diversity, equity, and inclusion and other far-left initiatives. These NSF grants included those to educators that promoted Marxism, class warfare propaganda, and other anti-American ideologies in the classroom, masked as rigorous and thoughtful investigation.
This section introduces the order's core rationale.
It argues that federal grant money is often misused, citing examples of grants supporting projects perceived as wasteful or counter to national interests.
The section highlights concerns about funding for specific initiatives in areas like diversity and inclusion, as well as the potential for ideological bias in grant allocation.
The harm imposed by problematic Federal grants does not stop at propagating absurd ideologies. An unsafe lab in Wuhan, China — likely the source of the COVID-19 pandemic — engaged in gain-of-function research funded by the National Institutes of Health. The NSF gave millions to develop AI-powered social media censorship tools — a direct assault on free speech. Taxpayer-funded grants have also gone to non-governmental organizations that provided free services to illegal immigrants, worsening the border crisis and compromising our safety, and to organizations that actively worked against American interests abroad.
This paragraph further emphasizes the negative consequences of poorly allocated grants, linking them to public health (the COVID-19 pandemic) and national security (border security and free speech).
It underscores the potential for grants to fund initiatives that undermine national interests or public safety.
Even for projects receiving Federal funds that serve an ostensibly beneficial purpose, the Government has paid insufficient attention to their efficacy. For example, a significant proportion of the results of federally funded scientific research projects cannot be reproduced by external researchers. Even at Harvard and Stanford, once considered among America’s most prestigious universities, senior researchers have resigned following accusations of data falsification. A substantial portion of many Federal grants for university-led research goes not to scientific project applicants or groundbreaking research, but to university facilities and administrative costs.
This section points out inefficiencies in grant spending even for ostensibly beneficial projects.
It highlights reproducibility issues in scientific research and concerns about excessive administrative overhead in university research grants.
The grant review process itself also undermines the interests of American taxpayers. Writing effective grant applications is notoriously complex, and grant applicants that can afford legal and technical experts are more likely to receive funds — which can then further support these non-mission functions. In addition, there is insufficient interagency coordination and review by relevant subject matter experts to reduce duplication. As a result, the best proposals do not always receive funding, and there is too much unfocused research of marginal social utility.
This paragraph criticizes the grant review process itself, arguing that the complexity of applications favors applicants with significant resources, undermining fairness and efficiency.
It also points out the lack of interagency coordination and the funding of research with questionable value.
In short, there is a strong need to strengthen oversight and coordination of, and to streamline, agency grantmaking to address these problems, prevent them from recurring, and ensure greater accountability for use of public funds more broadly. The Government holds tax revenue in trust for the American people, and agencies should treat it accordingly.
This concluding paragraph summarizes the arguments presented and reiterates the need for improved oversight and accountability in federal grantmaking, emphasizing the fiduciary responsibility of the government to taxpayers.
Sec. 2. Definitions. For purposes of this order:
This section defines key terms used throughout the executive order to ensure clarity and consistency in interpretation.
(a) The term “agency” has the meaning given to it in section 551 of title 5, United States Code, except that such term includes only agencies that have the statutory authority to award, offer, or manage Federal grants and does not include the Executive Office of the President or any components thereof.
Defines 'agency' to include only those with the authority to manage federal grants, excluding the Executive Office of the President.
(b) The term “agency head” means the highest-ranking official or officials of an agency, such as the Secretary, Administrator, Chairman, Director, Commissioners, or Board of Directors, unless otherwise specified in this order.
Defines 'agency head' as the top official of each agency.
(c) The term “Director” means the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Defines 'Director' as the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
(d) The term “discretionary award” or “discretionary grant” means a grant that is a “discretionary award” as that term is defined in 2 CFR 200.1. It does not include programs where legislation establishes an entitlement to the funds on the part of the recipient, such as block grants; those awarded based on a statutory formula; or disaster recovery grants.
Defines 'discretionary award' according to 2 CFR 200.1, excluding entitlements, formula-based grants, and disaster relief.
(e) The term “funding opportunity announcement” means a “notice of funding opportunity” as defined in 2 CFR 200.1, as it pertains to a discretionary award.
Defines 'funding opportunity announcement' as a notice of funding opportunity from 2 CFR 200.1, applicable to discretionary awards.
(f) The term “grant” means any “grant agreement or grant” as defined in 2 CFR 200.1, “cooperative agreement” as defined in 2 CFR 200.1, or similar award of financial assistance, including foreign assistance awards.
Defines 'grant' broadly to include grant agreements, cooperative agreements, and similar financial assistance, including foreign aid.
(g) The term “regulation” means an agency statement of general or particular applicability and future effect designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy or describing the procedure or practice requirements of an agency, including, without limitation, regulations, interpretative rules, and statements of policy.
Defines 'regulation' to encompass a wide range of agency statements with general or specific applicability and future effects, covering implementation, interpretation, or prescription of law or policy.
(h) The term “senior appointee” means an individual appointed by the President, a non-career member of the Senior Executive Service, or an employee encumbering a Senior Level, Scientific and Professional, or Grade 15 position in Schedule C of the excepted service.
Defines 'senior appointee' to include presidential appointees and high-ranking federal employees.
Sec. 3. Strengthening Accountability for Agency Grantmaking. (a) Each agency head shall promptly designate a senior appointee who shall be responsible for creating a process to review new funding opportunity announcements and to review discretionary grants to ensure that they are consistent with agency priorities and the national interest. For the avoidance of doubt, this process shall not guarantee any particular level of review or consideration to funding applicants except as consistent with applicable law. As consistent with applicable law, this review process shall incorporate, at a minimum:
This section mandates that each agency designate a senior appointee to establish a process for reviewing grant applications to align with agency priorities and national interests.
This review is not intended to guarantee a particular level of consideration, but to ensure consistency and alignment with objectives.
(i) review and approval of agency funding opportunity announcements by one or more senior appointees or their designees;
Requires senior appointees to review and approve funding opportunity announcements.
(ii) continuation of existing coordination with OMB;
Requires continued coordination with the Office of Management and Budget.
(iii) to the extent appropriate to the subject matter of the announcements, review by designated subject-matter experts as identified by the agency head or the agency head’s designee;
Requires review by subject matter experts where appropriate.
(iv) review of funding opportunity announcements and related forms to ensure that they include only such requirements as are necessary for an adequate evaluation of the application and are written in plain language with a goal of minimizing the need for legal or technical expertise in drafting an application;
Requires the simplification of grant applications to minimize the need for specialized legal or technical expertise.
(v) interagency coordination to determine whether the subject matter of a particular funding opportunity announcement has already been addressed by another agency announcement and, if so, whether one of the announcements should be modified or withdrawn to promote consistency and eliminate redundancy;
Mandates interagency coordination to avoid duplication of efforts.
(vi) for scientific research discretionary grants, review by at least one subject matter expert in the field of the application, who may be a member of the grant review panel, the program officer, or an outside expert; and
Requires scientific research grants to be reviewed by at least one subject matter expert in the field.
(vii) pre-issuance review of discretionary awards to ensure that the awards are consistent with applicable law, agency priorities, and the national interest, which shall involve in-person or virtual discussion of applications by grant review panels or program offices with a senior appointee or that appointee’s designee.
Requires pre-issuance review of discretionary awards to ensure alignment with national interests.
This step mandates a discussion of applications by relevant parties and senior appointees.
(b) Agency heads shall designate one or more senior appointees to review discretionary awards on an annual basis for consistency with agency priorities and substantial progress. Such review shall include an accountability mechanism for officials responsible for selection and granting of the awards.
This subsection requires annual review of discretionary awards by senior appointees to ensure ongoing alignment with agency priorities and accountability.
(c) Until such time as the process specified in subsection (a) of this section is in place, agencies shall not issue any new funding opportunity announcements without prior approval from the senior appointee designated under subsection (a) of this section, except as required by law.
This mandates a moratorium on issuing new funding opportunity announcements until the new review processes are fully established, with exceptions for legally mandated announcements.
Sec. 4. Considerations for Discretionary Awards. (a) Senior appointees and their designees shall not ministerially ratify or routinely defer to the recommendations of others in reviewing funding opportunity announcements or discretionary awards, but shall instead use their independent judgment.
This section specifies that senior appointees must exercise their independent judgment in reviewing grant applications rather than simply ratifying recommendations from others.
(b) In reviewing and approving funding opportunity announcements and discretionary awards, as well as in designing the review process described in section 3(a) of this order, senior appointees and their designees shall, as relevant and to the extent consistent with applicable law, apply the following principles, including in any scoring rubrics used to assess grant proposals:
This subsection outlines key principles guiding the review of applications and the design of the review processes.
(i) Discretionary awards must, where applicable, demonstrably advance the President’s policy priorities.
Requires grants to demonstrably support the President's policy agenda.
(ii) Discretionary awards shall not be used to fund, promote, encourage, subsidize, or facilitate:
Prohibits grants to activities that promote specific disallowed activities.
(A) racial preferences or other forms of racial discrimination by the grant recipient, including activities where race or intentional proxies for race will be used as a selection criterion for employment or program participation;
Prohibits grants that promote racial preference or discrimination.
(B) denial by the grant recipient of the sex binary in humans or the notion that sex is a chosen or mutable characteristic;
Prohibits grants that deny the sex binary.
(C) illegal immigration; or
Prohibits grants that fund or support illegal immigration.
(D) any other initiatives that compromise public safety or promote anti-American values.
Prohibits grants that compromise public safety or promote anti-American values.
(iii) All else being equal, preference for discretionary awards should be given to institutions with lower indirect cost rates.
Favors institutions with lower overhead costs when other factors are equal.
(iv) Discretionary grants should be given to a broad range of recipients rather than to a select group of repeat players. Research grants should be awarded to a mix of recipients likely to produce immediately demonstrable results and recipients with the potential for potentially longer-term, breakthrough results, in a manner consistent with the funding opportunity announcement.
Encourages grant distribution to a wider range of recipients, avoiding favoritism towards repeat grant recipients.
(v) Applicants should commit to complying with administration policies, procedures, and guidance respecting Gold Standard Science.
Requires applicants to adhere to administration's scientific standards (Gold Standard Science).
(vi) Discretionary awards should include clear benchmarks for measuring success and progress towards relevant goals and, as relevant for awards pertaining to scientific research, a commitment to achieving Gold Standard Science.
Requires clear measurable benchmarks for success in projects and commitment to Gold Standard Science where appropriate.
(vii) To the extent institutional affiliation is considered in making discretionary awards, agencies should prioritize an institution’s commitment to rigorous, reproducible scholarship over its historical reputation or perceived prestige. As to science grants, agencies should prioritize institutions that have demonstrated success in implementing Gold Standard Science.
Prioritizes institutions committed to rigorous and reproducible scholarship over prestige, especially for science grants.
Emphasizes successful implementation of Gold Standard Science in funding decisions.
(c) Nothing in this order shall be construed to discourage or prevent the use of peer review methods to evaluate proposals for discretionary awards or otherwise inform agency decision making, provided that peer review recommendations remain advisory and are not ministerially ratified, routinely deferred to, or otherwise treated as de facto binding by senior appointees or their designees. Further, nothing in this order shall be construed to create any rights to any particular level of review or consideration for any funding applicant except as consistent with applicable law.
Clarifies that peer review is still permitted but remains advisory, not binding on senior appointees.
Reiterates no guaranteed level of review consideration for applicants beyond legal requirements.
Sec. 5. Revisions to the Uniform Guidance. (a) The Director shall revise the Uniform Guidance and other relevant guidance to streamline application requirements and to further clarify and require all discretionary grants to permit termination for convenience, including when the award no longer advances agency priorities or the national interest, but subject to appropriate exceptions, including agreements entered into in furtherance of international trade agreements or those awarded by the Department of Commerce under title XCIX of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (Public Law 116-283), the CHIPS Act of 2022 (Public Law 117-167), or division F of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Public Law 117-58).
This section directs the OMB Director to revise the Uniform Guidance to make application requirements more efficient and allow for the termination of grants that no longer serve agency priorities, with some exceptions.
(b) The Director shall further revise the Uniform Guidance and other relevant guidance to appropriately limit the use of discretionary grant funds for costs related to facilities and administration.
Directs the OMB Director to revise the Uniform Guidance to limit the use of grant funds for administrative costs and facilities.
Sec. 6. Implementation and Termination Clauses. (a) Within 30 days of the date of this order, each agency head shall review the agency’s standard grant terms and conditions and submit a report to the Director detailing:
This section outlines the implementation timelines and reporting requirements for agencies to comply with the order.
(i) whether the agency’s standard terms and conditions for discretionary awards permit termination for convenience and include the termination provisions described in 2 CFR 200.340(a), including the provisions that an award may be terminated by the agency “if an award no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities” or, in the case of a partial termination by the recipient, if the agency “determines that the remaining portion of the Federal award will not accomplish the purposes for which the Federal award was made”;
Requires a report on existing grant termination条款 and whether they align with the 2 CFR 200.340(a) standard, including circumstances for termination.
(ii) whether the agency’s standard terms and conditions for discretionary foreign assistance awards permit termination based on the national interest; and
Requires a report on the agency's foreign assistance grant termination provisions based on national interest.
(iii) the approximate number of active discretionary awards at the agency, as well as the approximate percentage of funding obligated under those awards that contains termination provisions allowing for termination under the circumstances described in subsection (i) of this section.
Requires reports on the number of active discretionary awards and the percentage with termination provisions as described.
(b) Each agency head shall, to the maximum extent permitted by law and consistent with relevant Executive Orders or other Presidential directives, take steps to revise the terms and conditions of existing discretionary grants to permit immediate termination for convenience, or clarify that such termination is permitted, including if the award no longer advances agency priorities or the national interest. Each agency head shall ensure that such terms are included in all future discretionary grants and likewise shall take steps to revise all applicable regulations binding on or incorporated in discretionary grant terms and conditions to require such terms. Agency heads shall take action to incorporate these new terms and conditions into all future amendments to grant awards.
Mandates revision of existing grant terms to include termination provisions and incorporation of these provisions into future grants and relevant regulations.
(c) To the extent practicable and consistent with applicable law, agency heads shall insert in future discretionary grant agreements terms and conditions that:
This subsection details additional terms and conditions to be included in future grant agreements.
(i) prohibit recipients from directly drawing down general grant funds for specific projects without the affirmative authorization of the agency; and
Prohibits grantees from using grant funds without agency authorization for specific projects.
(ii) require grantees to provide written explanations or support, with specificity, for requests for each drawdown.
Requires grantees to provide justifications for all funding requests.
Sec. 7. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
This section includes general provisions clarifying the scope and limitations of the order.
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
Clarifies that the order does not impact existing legal authorities of executive departments or agencies.
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
Clarifies that the order does not impact the OMB Director's functions related to budget, administration, and legislation.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
Notes the order's implementation is subject to applicable laws and available funding.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
States that this order does not create any legally enforceable rights.
(d) If any provision of this order, or the application of any provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid, the remainder of this order and the application of its provisions to any other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.
Includes a severability clause, meaning if any part of the order is deemed invalid, the rest remains in effect.
(e) The costs for publication of this order shall be borne by the Office of Management and Budget.
Specifies that the OMB will cover the costs of publishing the order.
DONALD J. TRUMP
THE WHITE HOUSE,
August 7, 2025.
Indicates the President's signature and the date of issuance.
The post Improving Oversight of Federal Grantmaking appeared first on The White House.
This is a standard WordPress post metadata indicating the original source of the content.