New Policy Reshaping How Federal Grants Are Awarded

August 19, 2025

Background

The recent executive order (EO), Improving Oversight of Federal Grantmaking, establishes new government-wide standards for grant management, increased scrutiny of grant applications and recipients, and focuses on eliminating what the administration identifies as wasteful spending. The accompanying fact sheet emphasizes the need to “restore the gold standard in science” by ensuring grants are aligned with national priorities and effectively utilize federal resources. 


 In accordance with the EO, agency heads are required to review and revise standard grant terms and conditions to include new termination clauses and to apply these revisions retroactively “to the maximum extent permitted by law.” The order maintains that peer review remains permissible but advisory only, with final decisions resting with senior appointees assigned to each agency by the administration. The EO also introduces specific content restrictions for federally funded research.

APA/APASI Assessment

APA is carefully analyzing the specifics of this EO and its implementation to understand its potential impact on the research community. Key considerations include:


  • Administrative burden: The new standards and termination clauses could mean more complex application requirements, burdensome reporting standards, and the risk of grants being terminated retroactively. This diverts valuable time and resources away from research itself and toward administrative compliance.
  • Defining "wasteful" research: A narrow, politically driven definition of “wasteful spending” could threaten funding for essential longitudinal studies, basic behavioral science, and qualitative research—the very work that builds the foundation for future breakthroughs. Research that doesn't promise an immediate, tangible outcome could be wrongly labeled as non-essential. 
  • Sidelining Investigator-Initiated Research: An overemphasis on top-down “national priorities” could stifle the investigator-initiated, curiosity-driven research that leads to unexpected discoveries. This threatens the pipeline of innovation that allows our field to respond to unforeseen societal needs. 
  • Barriers to Interdisciplinary Science: Psychology’s greatest strengths often come from collaborating with fields like public health, neuroscience, and computer science. If funding becomes siloed under narrow, top-down priorities, it could become much harder to secure support for the kind of interdisciplinary projects that are necessary to solve complex, real-world problems. 
  • Integrity of peer review: The executive order’s provision to make peer review advisory-only is deeply concerning. Peer review by subject matter experts is the internationally recognized gold standard for assessing the rigor, innovation, and potential impact of a research proposal. Diminishing its role and giving final authority to senior appointees risks politicizing federal research funding, reducing the superiority of scientific merit and undermining the public’s trust in science. 

APA’s Position

While APA supports accountability, we firmly believe that any new oversight framework must protect the fundamental principles of scientific inquiry. APA’s position is that federal grantmaking policy must:


  • Uphold the value of investigator-initiated research as a primary driver of innovation and discovery.
  • Safeguard against a narrow definition of “wasteful spending” that could disproportionately harm long-term behavioral and social science research essential for addressing complex societal challenges and generating impactful, evidence-based solutions. 
  • Avoid imposing excessive administrative burdens that divert critical resources and time away from conducting science to navigating compliance.
  • Preserve the scientific integrity and independence that is the bedrock of public trust and the foundation of evidence-based progress.

What APA/APASI Is Doing

In response to this executive order, APA is taking several concrete steps to advocate for the interests of psychological science and the research community:


  • Engaging directly with policymakers: APA Services is actively communicating with federal agencies responsible for implementing this EO to share our analysis and advocate for policies that protect research. 
  • Broadening coalitions: APA is working alongside other scientific societies, research advocacy groups, and patient advocates to coordinate our response and present a unified voice for the broader research enterprise. 
  • Informing our members: Through updates like this one, we are committed to keeping our members informed. APA will provide resources and opportunities for grassroots advocacy as the implementation process unfolds. 


Stay Informed


We will continue to monitor this situation closely and provide updates as they become available.