New Deadline 6-7-25
Click for making public comment - Anyone who would like to register an objection should go to this page and click on the green “public comment” button at the top:
There is a disturbing development highlighted by Dr. Monica Gandhi regarding the current attempt to politicize grant decision-making. It would take jobs formerly classified as civil service jobs and make them political appointees by the president.
Forwarded below is a letter from Dr. Monica Gandhi, an expert in infectious diseases specializing in the care of patients with HIV and AIDS at UCSF. There is only a day to do this. The comment period has been extended to June 7, 2025! Please spread the word!
Subject: New NIH Rules
Dear Colleagues,
There is an opportunity before tomorrow to enter comments to oppose this proposed new policy (which would make all Institute Directors at the NIH and even Division directors, e.g. DAIDS) political appointees.
Thank you,
Monica
-------------------
SCHEDULE F
Recently, the Federal Register published the Trump administration’s new regulation that would institute Schedule F. That’s a plan to reclassify tens of thousands of government jobs as “policymaking positions” and therefore subject to presidential appointment and removal of those who occupy these positions. This regulation would reclassify jobs that once fell under civil service protection and where the jobs could be filled on the basis of expertise and experience. You can see the proposed regulation here: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2025-04-23/pdf/2025-06904.pdf .
The language that is most worrying for science grants is this:
- Substantive participation and discretionary authority in agency grantmaking, such as the substantive exercise of discretion in the drafting of funding opportunity announcements, evaluation of grant applications, or recommending or selecting grant recipients. Grantmaking is an important form of policymaking, so employees with a substantive discretionary role in how federal funding gets allocated may occupy policymaking positions.
From various sources, it appears that the plan with regard to NIH is that all Institute and Center Directors (as opposed to now where it is just the NCI Director) would become political appointees as would most or all division directors. This would dramatically politicize NIH and increase the turnover of key positions, limiting longer-term planning and execution.
Any regulation must go through a “notice and comment” period in which the public can weigh in on the regulation and its wisdom.
The comment period is open until May 23rd.
Anyone who would like to register an objection should go to this page and click on the green “public comment” button at the top: New deadline link: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/05/23/2025-09356/improving-performance-accountability-and-responsiveness-in-the-civil-service
By law, the proposing agency (in this case, the office of personnel management headed by Project 2025 coordinator Russell Vought) must take comments into account and respond to them, thereby forming a record that can be challenged in subsequent litigation. The agency must act in a rational way, providing reasons for not taking particular objections into account and justifying its proposal in ways that are legally acceptable. If thousands of scientists say that political interference with grants assessment is going to destroy the scientific integrity of federal grants, the agency will have to explain why the rule doesn’t do that (which it can’t because this is precisely why the new regulation is being instituted).