Politicizing the federal grantmaking process 

Earlier this month, President Trump issued an executive order that introduces a new framework for how federal grants are reviewed, awarded and rescinded. Titled “Improving Oversight of Federal Grantmaking,” the order cites goals of enhancing grants efficiency and ensuring alignment with administration priorities. 

While its provisions may appear incremental, the order formalizes and codifies a model of grant oversight that has increasingly shaped agency practice in recent months—one in which political officials exert more direct influence over which grants are issued, to whom and under what terms. Simply put, this executive order changes the landscape of federal grantmaking.

Under this order, political review and values alignment are no longer informal parts of the process; they are now guiding principles embedded in the grants process itself. Like several other directives issued by the president this year, the order reflects a broader pattern of executive action aimed at aligning federal programs with the administration's stated priorities—including efforts to eliminate or discourage funding for diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives and related policy areas. 

At some agencies, this new order may just be formalizing current agency practices—where political staff may already be rewriting or holding up grant announcements. At other agencies, it may signal a new approach—or perhaps just provide further support for appointees that have been less successful engaging in their agency’s grantmaking operations. Nonetheless, its formal inclusion in an executive order raises the stakes, making this approach more official, institutionalized and potentially long-lasting. 

These changes could have profound implications for the over $1 trillion in federal grants and the services they fund across health care, housing, education and other areas. They also have potential implications for who receives these funds, particularly for state and local governments, where federal grants support significant portions of their annual budgets. As federal policy shifts, the mechanics of how those dollars are distributed—and who gets to decide—deserve close scrutiny because even well-intentioned reforms can have unintended consequences, particularly if they complicate the process, sideline expertise or discourage high-performing applicants.

Over the last year, federal grantmaking has already been tested by political intervention. When the Department of Government Efficiency briefly took control of grants.gov earlier this year, the pace of grants slowed dramatically. From January through mid-July, the federal government posted just 27 grants per week, according to analysis by the Child Poverty Action Lab, far below the 100+ issued during the last year of the previous administration. This sharp drop was followed by a rebound to 108 grants per week as of mid-July, thanks to DOGE ceding control of grants.gov.

But this increase likely reflects a backlog of previously delayed grants—particularly noncontroversial, recurring programs that agencies sought to move quickly once control returned to civil servants. For example, the Housing and Urban Development Lead Hazard Reduction Grant Program and the Department of Interior Historic Preservation Fund’s Annual State Historic Preservation Office Grants—are both longstanding grants that were issued much later in 2025 than in previous years and with shorter application windows, likely to allow awards to be made before the end of the federal fiscal year on Sept. 30. Consider recent trends: of approximately 200 grant announcements posted since June 1, 72% gave applicants fewer than 60 days to respond—despite Office of Management and Budget guidance recommending 60 days minimum. One in three opportunities closed in just 30 days.

But now, this new executive order could have a similar effect to DOGE in reducing the flow of grants. It mandates political appointee review at multiple stages: deciding which programs should offer grants, shaping Notices of Funding Opportunity, reviewing applicants and even terminating existing awards. It even allows for political review of the scoring of individual grant applications, which is unprecedented. 

Including additional reviewers at every step in the process introduces more layers of review and oversight, which could significantly slow down grant cycles and increase the burden on both agency staff and applicants. In particular, the requirement to involve political appointees at each decision point could lengthen internal agency timelines and divert staff capacity away from grant delivery and oversight.

It also introduces more uncertainty even when grants are made. Under the executive order, agencies are required to insert provisions that allow grants to be revoked at any time for failing to "effectuate the President’s priorities." This approach was used to great effect earlier this year to dismantle the U.S. Agency for International Development and crackdown on equity initiatives and DEI-related work. For longstanding and successful recipients of federal grants, the chance that funds may suddenly stop flowing may change the calculus about whether it is worth the significant effort of applying for federal funds. This could lead to fewer and lower quality grantees, thereby decreasing the impact of federal funds. 

The executive order also incorporates the “Gold Standard Science” Executive Order, issued in May 2025. This policy has drawn fierce criticism from researchers and scientific organizations. Despite its name, the EO has been described by nearly 5,000 scientists as a "Fool’s Gold standard"—an effort that could allow political appointees to override peer-reviewed evidence and promote ideologically driven or pseudoscientific claims. Linking this controversial science framework to federal grantmaking could further erode confidence in an already strained system.

In fact, though the executive order’s focuses is about grants efficiency and oversight, the order itself includes few details about how it will improve the federal grantmaking process. In fact, the existing Uniform Grants Guidance already provides a much stronger framework for effective oversight and efficiency. 

For example, this Uniform Grants Guidance already states that funding opportunities should use simple, understandable writing and it also makes clear that agencies should only request information from applicants that is necessary to evaluate the application. In fact, based on these provisions, OMB spearheaded a cross-government effort during the previous administration to reform grants process by dramatically simplifying application language, reducing unnecessary forms and focusing funding on evidence-backed activities. This reduced burden on federal grantees—allowing them to focus more effort on delivering services—federal staff, allowing them to spend more time on effective oversight of grants. 

Building on this previous work, if the goal is to improve the impact of federal grants, then further increasing the use of evidence-based practices is a more clearcut way to do it. This would involve elevating the role of career officials who already understand what works. For example, Agency Evaluation Officers, already empowered by the Evidence Act, have the tools and insight to design better grants and evaluate their impact. These are changes that would genuinely improve results—not politicize access.

Federal grants are one of the most powerful tools for addressing national challenges at the local level. Their success depends on a process that is efficient, transparent and focused on results. As this executive order is implemented, its long-term success will likely depend on how it is balanced with the expertise of career officials, the use of evidence-based strategies and the continued focus on improving outcomes for communities. Ensuring that the grantmaking system remains effective and trusted will require thoughtful execution and a clear commitment to its core public purposes.

Depending on its implementation, this ideological focus could have the opposite effect: leading to slower, more burdensome processes that reduce the flow of funds to communities. Thus, it seems fair to ask whether the EO is less focused on effective oversight, efficiency and improved outcomes than on political ideology? 

Jed Herrmann served at the White House Office of Management and Budget, where he worked on federal grants policy.