“The rule will impact the entire government grantmaking process across the United States,” the groups warned. “The Office of Management and Budget itself says the proposed revisions would relate to more than $179 billion in funds for small entities.”
POLITICO, which exclusively obtained the letter, male “The proposed rule has already happened Over 15,000 public commentsWith many expressing concern that the changes could undermine research in various fields.
Under Foote’s ruling, federal agencies would be required to conduct “pre-release reviews” of federal grants — money appropriated by Congress — to ensure that their distribution is consistent with “applicable law, federal agency priorities, and the national interest.”
The rule sets out a number of criteria that political appointees at federal agencies must examine when determining whether an organization can receive federal grant dollars. For example, the rule would prohibit the distribution of federal grants to organizations that “promote anti-American values” or support “ideologies that deny the biological reality of sex or bisexuality in humans.”
New York Times I mentioned The consequences of Foote’s rule “could fall more heavily on health and science, an area where it could be more… [President Donald Trump] “He pursued some of the toughest cuts in his second term.”
“In exchange for federal aid, researchers will face restrictions on the topics they can explore, the foreign laboratories they may collaborate with, and even the conferences they can appear at,” the newspaper noted. Dr. George C. said: Benjamin, CEO of the American Public Health Association, a professional organization and advocacy group, said the policy could destroy innovation, science and research in the United States.
“This is an executive power grab that would give presidential political appointees unfettered control over more than $1 trillion that Congress has appropriated for the benefit of all Americans.”
Earlier this month, Lawyers for Good Government and the Environmental Defense Network said that “if finalized, the rule would make top political appointees responsible for approving and rescinding individual grants, stripping recipients of due process rights” while attaching “ideological strings to nearly every federal dollar, raising First Amendment and equal protection concerns.”
The two organizations published a Fact sheet Warning that the proposed rule has the potential to cut off billions of dollars in funding that communities across the United States rely on for “health, public education, scientific research, public safety, and economic development projects.”
“This is an executive power grab that would give presidential political appointees unfettered control over more than $1 trillion that Congress has appropriated for the benefit of all Americans,” said Gillian Blanchard, senior vice president for climate change and environmental justice at Lawyers for Good Government. “Conditioning funding for important programs related to ideology and viewpoint discrimination, while erasing basic due process protections, violates freedoms of speech and equal protection, and deprives Congress of its fiscal powers.”
Democratic lawmakers also sounded the alarm over Vaught’s proposal. Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, He said She said Thursday that she had given her Republican colleagues two opportunities to denounce Vaught’s ruling, and they declined both times.
“Vaught continues to try to steal from communities across the country. Now, he is trying to set a new political test on grants to a broad swath of the federal government,” DeLauro said. “The test will be simple: Are you loyal enough to the president? If no, it will result in you being denied life-saving disaster relief, funding for treatment research, closing Head Start offices, and more. If you are not loyal enough, and if you speak out against this administration, the president and his cronies will take away the resources Congress has provided.”
Source link
