Europe warns: Trump's grant rules could isolate American science

OMB proposal gives political appointees more power over funding decisions, limits collaborations with designated adversaries, and makes it harder to publish papers and attend conferences. European research organizations fear long-term harm to international scientific collaboration

Research organizations andUniversities Europe warns that a sweeping change proposed by the Trump administration to federal grant rules could weaken the scientific ties of USA With the rest of the world. The concern is not just about one cut or another, but about a deeper change in the way research will be selected for funding, international partnerships will be approved, and what researchers are allowed to do with the grant money will be determined.

The regulations are not yet final. They were published on May 29, 2026 asRegulatory Bill from the US Office of Management and Budget – OMBIf approved in their current form, they would apply to a wide range of federal grants, including funds transferred to universities, research institutes and nonprofits.

Not just scientific quality

One of the key changes in the proposal is the expansion of the authority of political appointees in decisions regarding grants. Peer review And scientific quality assessment can continue to be part of the process, but will not necessarily be the decisive factor.

The move continues Presidential order issued by the White House in August 2025, which states that grants at the discretion of the government should advance the president's priorities. According to the order, senior officials and political appointees are not supposed to rely solely on the recommendations of professional experts, but rather exercise independent judgment.

For the government, it is about increasing accountability and ensuring that public funds serve the national interest. Opponents argue that the criteria are broad and vague enough to allow research to be favored or rejected based on its compliance with government policy, rather than its scientific importance.

The proposal could also make it easier to cancel grants that have already been approved if the administration determines they no longer serve its priorities, a situation that could make it difficult to plan studies that last for years and require budgetary stability.

New obstacles to international partnerships

Another part of the proposal deals with cooperation with countries and entities defined as risk factors or covered foreign entities. The definitions include, among others, entities linked to rival countries, countries designated as countries of concern, or entities subject to sanctions.

Security restrictions on scientific ties are not a new phenomenon, especially in sensitive areas such as artificial intelligence, advanced computing, space and energy. However, European research organizations fear that the proposed wording is too broad to distinguish between a real security risk and normal academic cooperation.

The problem is particularly complex in multinational studies. Even if a European institution is not located in a restricted country, it may be a partner in a consortium with an institution from another country to which the restrictions apply. In such a situation, American institutions may avoid participating in the entire project.

The concern also extends to large international research facilities. Projects such as the ITER experimental fusion reactor are based on cooperation between the United States, the European Union, China, Russia, Japan, India and South Korea. Experts warn that blanket rules could complicate US participation in such projects, even when they operate under intergovernmental agreements and oversight mechanisms.

Also publishing articles and conferences on the subject

The OMB proposal could also change the way research funds are used on a regular basis. Costs for publishing scientific papers will not always be automatically recognized as allowable expenses, and in some cases, prior approval or express authorization will be required. Conference attendance and expenses related to their organization may also require express approval from the funding agency.

In an era when many journals charge thousands of dollars for open access publishing, such a change could be particularly burdensome for young researchers and small research groups. Conferences are also a central venue for presenting results, exchanging information, and forming new partnerships. The requirement to obtain individual approvals could create delays and discourage researchers from international activity.

For researchers outside the United States, the possible meaning is that an American partner will have difficulty committing in advance to a joint publication, travel to a conference, or transferring budget to consortium partners.

Opposition from universities and academies in Europe

League of European Research Universities – LERU, which represents leading European research universities, warned that international cooperation is a fundamental element in advancing knowledge. It said restrictions stemming from security considerations should be targeted, proportionate and based on a clear risk assessment.

Also the European Federation of Academies of Sciences and Humanities, Allen, expressed concern about the expansion of political control over grants. She argued that replacing scientific judgment with vague political criteria could undermine peer review, research independence, and scientists' ability to choose important but controversial research questions.

The concerns do not only come from Europe. Democratic Senators in the United States They argued that OMB is exceeding its authority and that some of the proposed changes could conflict with laws enacted by Congress. These disputes are likely to continue even if the regulations are approved, and could end up in the courts.

Why should the change also interest researchers in Israel?

Israel is not defined in the proposal as a rival state. However, Israeli institutions participate in many international projects in which American universities and institutions from other countries are also partners. Therefore, rules that restrict the structure of consortia, the transfer of budgets, or the international activities of American researchers could indirectly affect partners in Israel as well.

The immediate impact may be bureaucratic: more testing, more approvals, and more restrictive clauses in research agreements. In the long term, the fear is that American universities will favor simple, local partnerships, avoiding complex multinational ventures even when their scientific value is high.

An offer that may still change

As of July 2026, this is a proposal and not a final rule. OMB may modify sections based on comments submitted, delay the application of the rules, or publish a revised version. Congress and the courts may also influence implementation.

But the uncertainty itself is already being felt. Scientific collaboration requires long-term planning, and the possibility that funding, publishing, and partnership rules could change in a short period of time could prompt institutions in Europe and beyond to seek more stable partners.

Will peer review be abolished?

No. The proposal does not eliminate peer review, but it could reduce its status as the deciding factor. Political appointees would be able to give greater weight to the administration's priorities and the national interest as defined by it.

Will all cooperation between American researchers and foreign institutions be banned?

No. The restrictions focus on collaborations with specific countries and entities. However, the broad definitions may also affect multinational consortia in which an institution from a restricted country participates.

Have the regulations already come into force?

No. They were published as a proposal and may undergo changes before a final version is determined. Even after their approval, there may be legal petitions and disputes over OMB's authority to implement some of the sections.

How might the rules affect scientific publishing?

Researchers may need prior approval to fund advertising expenses and attend conferences. The requirement may delay publications, burden young researchers, and reduce international scientific meetings.

More on the subject on the science website

• 250 years of the United States: This is how the world's greatest scientific power was built
• The upheaval in American science: What will remain of Trump's policies and how uncertainty is harming the next generation of researchers
• Researchers under threat: Trump administration's NIH budget cuts disrupt critical research worldwide
• The war that built the American science funding system
• Trump fired members of the NSF oversight board just before they were about to warn about the loss of scientific primacy to China

For the original publication: Opening the original publication