(Note: These comments are submitted in my personal capacity and reflect my own views. ) 

Michigan is one of the nation’s leading recipients of federal research funding. Every year, billions of dollars support research at the University of Michigan, Michigan State University, Wayne State University, our hospitals, nonprofits and local governments. 

That funding helps develop new cancer treatments, improve care for veterans, prevent suicide, strengthen rural health care, educate and train the next generation of scientists and health care professionals, create thousands of high-quality jobs and improve the health and well-being of communities across our state. 

At the University of Michigan alone, federally funded research supported more than 16,000 jobs and generated $164 million in economic impacts across the state last year.

A federal proposal now under consideration by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) could fundamentally change how those grants are awarded and even make it easier to terminate grants after they have already been approved. Known as OMB-2026-0034, the proposal would allow political appointees greater authority to override the recommendations of expert scientific peer reviewers when deciding which federal grants receive funding. It would also create a pathway for grants to be terminated if political priorities change after funding has already been awarded.

OMB states that the proposed changes are intended to improve accountability for public funds and ensure that discretionary federal awards are consistent with agency priorities and national interest. Setting broad funding priorities is an appropriate role for elected leaders. However, determining which individual research proposals are scientifically rigorous and most likely to improve people’s lives has long been the responsibility of scientific experts. This peer review system has helped produce many of the medical advances and public health innovations that Americans, including Michiganders, rely on today.

We have already seen what happens when politics overrides scientific review. Since January 2025, the Trump administration has terminated thousands of peer-reviewed federal research grants across the country, including studies on cancer, suicide prevention, maternal health, veterans’ health, violence prevention, infectious diseases, LGBTQ+ health and racial and ethnic health disparities.

Although many of these grants have since been restored through court orders while litigation continues, the damage has already been substantial. Research projects and clinical trials were interrupted, jobs were lost, careers were disrupted (especially for women and early-career investigators), and universities across the country have implemented hiring freezes and reduced graduate admissions. 

Michigan is no exception. Universities, hospitals, and research institutes across the state have experienced grant terminations, funding delays and growing uncertainty surrounding federally funded research. 

I know this firsthand. Last year, the National Institutes of Health terminated six of my peer-reviewed, federally funded research grants and delayed funding for two others. Those grants represented years of work by students, staff, community partners and research participants who had invested their time and trust in the research process. 

I am now a plaintiff in litigation challenging those actions, and those grants have since been restored while the case proceeds. But the experience reinforced how quickly political decisions can upend rigorous, peer-reviewed research that has already been approved, disrupting not only scientific progress but also the patients, communities and local organizations that depend on that work.

The consequences would touch every Michigander, from a veteran seeking better treatment for PTSD, to a child waiting for a breakthrough cancer therapy, to families and communities relying on evidence-based mental health, substance use, and violence prevention programs. It also threatens the research enterprise that supports tens of thousands of jobs, drives innovation, and strengthens Michigan’s economy.

The public comment period for OMB-2026-0034 closes on July 13. Before this proposal moves forward, it deserves far more public attention than it has received. Regardless of your political views, every Michigander has a stake in ensuring that scientific funding decisions are guided by rigorous expert review, transparency and the potential to improve people’s lives. 

I encourage everyone to learn more about the proposal and submit a public comment before the deadline and share this information with others. The decisions made today will determine which discoveries are pursued, which treatments reach patients, and whether Michigan continues to lead the nation in research that improves and saves lives.

Bridge welcomes guest columns from a diverse range of people on issues relating to Michigan and its future. The views and assertions of these writers do not necessarily reflect those of Bridge or The Center for Michigan. Bridge does not endorse any individual guest commentary submission. If you are interested in submitting a guest commentary, email your submission or idea to guestcommentary@bridgemi.com. Click here for details and submission guidelines.

Republish This Story

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under our Republication Guidelines. Questions? Email republishing@bridgemi.com