Senators Demand Trump Administration Stop Plans To Have Political Appointees Decide All Federal Grant Funding And Follow Constitution
WASHINGTON D.C. (KEYT) – On Wednesday, 47 members of the U.S. Senate penned a letter to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget warning that plans to subject all federal financial assistance to review by political appointees in the executive branch would be unlawful and a violation of the U.S. Constitution's separation of powers.
On Friday, May 29, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) published a proposal in the Federal Register to fundamentally alter the review process for Congressionally-approved financial assistance.
"The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) proposes to revise the Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance to improve government-wide policies and requirements related to the management of grants, cooperative agreements, and other forms of assistance," explained the executive branch office in Fed. Reg. Vol. 91, No. 103. "OMB is proposing revisions that would improve transparency, accountability, and oversight for Federal awards across the Federal Government. This includes ensuring that American tax dollars are not wasted or misused, activities performed under Federal awards are consistent with law and policy, and recipients are held accountable when they fail to meet relevant standards. The revisions also aim to ensure that basic American principles of equality and equal opportunity are upheld throughout all stages of the award making process and that unlawful discrimination is no longer permitted."
The public comment period regarding the proposed rule changes ends on July 13 of this year and already the changes have generated over 14,000 comments since their publication.
"Your proposal exceeds OMB's authority, will make it impossible for grant recipients to faithfully carry out the funding priorities that Congress establishes in statute, and would turn federal grants into a new cudgel for the President to unilaterally advance his partisan agenda and punish political rivals," argued the letter signed by every member of the Senate's Democratic Caucus. "The proposed rule undermines federal agencies' and grant recipients' ability to faithfully carry out the programs enacted by Congress. When Congress authorizes and appropriates money for federal grants, it does so with the understanding that all Administrations will distribute those grants consistent with Congressional intent and the funding instructions articulated in law. The type of discretion the President intends to bestow upon himself through this proposed rule is counter to all past precedent and ignores the reality of how appropriations and authorizing laws are drafted."
Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution states, "Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States".
The section, and the broader text of the U.S. Constitution, does not authorize any executive branch position, officer, office, department, or agency to spend federal funds outside of laws passed by Congress.
According to the Office of Management and Budget, the proposed rules are authorized under 31 U.S.C. 503(a)(2) which allows for the executive branch office to, "Provide overall direction and leadership to the executive branch on financial management matters by establishing financial management policies and requirements" and 31 U.S.C. 6307 which empowers the office to, "issue supplementary interpreative guidelines to promote consistent and efficient use of procurement contracts, grant agreements, and cooperative agreements"
None of those public laws authorize the Office of Management and Budget to unilaterally raise or lower Congressionally-approved funding.
In fact, 31 U.S.C. 503(a)(5) explicitly requires the executive branch office to, "Monitor the financial execution of the budget in relation to actual expenditures, including timely performance reports".
"This proposal dramatically expands agencies' authority to the point where the President could terminate or suspend any grant at any time for any reason and without any notice," argued Wednesday's letter before detailing examples during President Trump's second term where unilateral suspensions of federal funding have had notable impacts. "[T]he Substance Abuse and Mental Health Agency cancelled over $2 billion of grants to mental health and addiction programs without notice, only to reinstate those grants within 24 hours. In another instance, the Federal Emergency Management Agency unilaterally cancelled nearly $4.5 billion of natural disaster mitigation funding without notice, only to claim in court that they had never really cancelled those grants at all."
In December of last year, a federal court reinstated disaster mitigation funds from the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program which President Trump signed into law as part of the Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 after a coalition of state attorneys general filed a lawsuit .
"The BRIC program was yet another example of a wasteful and ineffective FEMA [Federal Emergency Management Agency] program," read a statement from the Department of Homeland Security sent to Your News Channel regarding the terminations. "It was more concerned with political agendas than helping Americans affected by natural disasters. Under Secretary Noem’s leadership, we are committed to ensuring that Americans in crisis can get the help and resources they need."
The most consequential change in the proposal include revision of §200.205–Federal Agency Review of Merit of Proposals in accordance with Executive Order 14332 Improving Oversight of Federal Grantmaking issued by President Trump on August 7, 2025.
"OMB proposes to revise § 200.205 to strengthen requirements for agency merit review and to establish a new preissuance review process consistent with Executive Order 14332," the executive branch office states in the Federal Register. "Under the proposed requirements for pre-issuance review, as part of the broader merit review process, agencies must ensure that proposals selected for funding are consistent with applicable law, Federal agency priorities, and the national interest. Consistent with the Executive order, senior appointees must conduct these reviews and apply specific principles when evaluating proposals. These principles include ensuring that discretionary awards advance the President’s policy priorities, prohibit the use of funds for discriminatory or otherwise impermissible purposes, and emphasize ensuring compliance with applicable law."
The new preissuance review process created by the proposal requires that all Congressionally-approved funds "demonstrably advance the President’s policy priorities" and that "applicants should commit to complying with administration policies, procedures, and guidance respecting Gold Standard Science".
The phrase "Gold Standard Science" is written three separate times in Executive Order 14332 and refers back to an early executive order, Executive Order 14303 Restoring Gold Standard Science issued by President Trump on May 23,2025.
"My Administration is committed to restoring a gold standard for science to ensure that federally funded research is transparent, rigorous, and impactful, and that Federal decisions are informed by the most credible, reliable, and impartial scientific evidence available," stated Executive Order 14303. "We must restore the American people's faith in the scientific enterprise and institutions that create and apply scientific knowledge in service of the public good. Reproducibility, rigor, and unbiased peer review must be maintained."
The prior order to have federal decisions informed by the "most credible, reliable, and impartial scientific evidence available" appears to directly contradict the proposal to have political appointees within the Office of Management and Budget unilaterally determine all Congressionally-approved financial assistance.
In fact, the proposed changes explicitly limit the peer-review process to, "remain advisory and are not ministerially ratified, routinely deferred to, or otherwise treated as de facto binding by senior appointees or their designees."
"[T]he United States has built a biomedical research enterprise, led by investments in the National Institutes of Health (NIH), that is the envy of the world and makes us the world leader in medical innovation," noted the Senators in their letter to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. "This was built on the foundation that investments in biomedical research would be allocated based on a strictly non-partisan, rigorous, scientific review process to determine which specific research projects to fund. This proposed rule would fundamentally undermine that, and direct political appointees to substitute their own independent opinions over those of panels of experts."
"With the threat of termination hanging over every grant recipient, presidents will be able to substitute their personal and partisan policy positions for federal spending directives, undermining Congress's constitutional power of the purse," added the legislators.
While the Office of Management and Budget stated that the purpose of the changes is to improve transparency and accountability, "The proposal removes the requirement that grant recipients follow financial internal control standards established by the Government Accountability Office (GAO)," the Senators noted in their letter Wednesday. "Congress required that GAO issue standards for financial internal controls and that agencies follow these standards in the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act of 1982."
"Courts in Rhode Island and the District of Columbia have already rejected OMB's claim that it can
indiscriminately pause or terminate grants, holding that the CFO Act [Chief Financial Officers Act] does not give OMB 'the power to halt all finances, full-stop, on a moment's notice'," added Wednesday's letter. "By dictating policy for grant recipients, OMB is attempting to supplant Congress's primary role in appropriating funds and directing their purpose.
The Senators concluded Wednesday's letter stating, "Article I of the Constitution vests the power of the purse in Congress, which Congress has historically exercised by appropriating taxpayer dollars through federal grants to fund critical programs, including to protect public safety, advance scientific research, and support health and nutrition initiatives. OMB's proposal unlawfully seeks to substitute Congress's role in directing federal spending with the President’s preferred priorities, and in doing so, makes it harder for every community and organization in the United States to fairly access federal funding. We call
on you to rescind this proposal."
Your News Channel has reached out to the Office of Management and Budget for a statement, more information, and clarification of specific parts of the proposed rules and its response will be added to this article when it is received.
