[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 153 (Tuesday, August 12, 2025)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Pages 38929-38933]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-15344]
Presidential Documents
Federal Register / Vol. 90 , No. 153 / Tuesday, August 12, 2025 /
Presidential Documents
[[Page 38929]]
Executive Order 14332 of August 7, 2025
Improving Oversight of Federal Grantmaking
By the authority vested in me as President by the
Constitution and the laws of the United States of
America, and to improve the process of Federal
grantmaking while ending offensive waste of tax
dollars, it is hereby ordered:
Section 1. Purpose. Every tax dollar the Government
spends should improve American lives or advance
American interests. This often does not happen. Federal
grants have funded drag shows in Ecuador, trained
doctoral candidates in critical race theory, and
developed transgender-sexual-education programs. In
2024, one study claimed that more than one-quarter of
new National Science Foundation (NSF) grants went to
diversity, equity, and inclusion and other far-left
initiatives. These NSF grants included those to
educators that promoted Marxism, class warfare
propaganda, and other anti-American ideologies in the
classroom, masked as rigorous and thoughtful
investigation.
The harm imposed by problematic Federal grants does not
stop at propagating absurd ideologies. An unsafe lab in
Wuhan, China--likely the source of the COVID-19
pandemic--engaged in gain-of-function research funded
by the National Institutes of Health. The NSF gave
millions to develop AI-powered social media censorship
tools--a direct assault on free speech. Taxpayer-funded
grants have also gone to non-governmental organizations
that provided free services to illegal immigrants,
worsening the border crisis and compromising our
safety, and to organizations that actively worked
against American interests abroad.
Even for projects receiving Federal funds that serve an
ostensibly beneficial purpose, the Government has paid
insufficient attention to their efficacy. For example,
a significant proportion of the results of federally
funded scientific research projects cannot be
reproduced by external researchers. Even at Harvard and
Stanford, once considered among America's most
prestigious universities, senior researchers have
resigned following accusations of data falsification. A
substantial portion of many Federal grants for
university-led research goes not to scientific project
applicants or groundbreaking research, but to
university facilities and administrative costs.
The grant review process itself also undermines the
interests of American taxpayers. Writing effective
grant applications is notoriously complex, and grant
applicants that can afford legal and technical experts
are more likely to receive funds--which can then
further support these non-mission functions. In
addition, there is insufficient interagency
coordination and review by relevant subject matter
experts to reduce duplication. As a result, the best
proposals do not always receive funding, and there is
too much unfocused research of marginal social utility.
In short, there is a strong need to strengthen
oversight and coordination of, and to streamline,
agency grantmaking to address these problems, prevent
them from recurring, and ensure greater accountability
for use of public funds more broadly. The Government
holds tax revenue in trust for the American people, and
agencies should treat it accordingly.
Sec. 2. Definitions. For purposes of this order:
(a) The term ``agency'' has the meaning given to it
in section 551 of title 5, United States Code, except
that such term includes only agencies that have the
statutory authority to award, offer, or manage Federal
grants
[[Page 38930]]
and does not include the Executive Office of the
President or any components thereof.
(b) The term ``agency head'' means the highest-
ranking official or officials of an agency, such as the
Secretary, Administrator, Chairman, Director,
Commissioners, or Board of Directors, unless otherwise
specified in this order.
(c) The term ``Director'' means the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
(d) The term ``discretionary award'' or
``discretionary grant'' means a grant that is a
``discretionary award'' as that term is defined in 2
CFR 200.1. It does not include programs where
legislation establishes an entitlement to the funds on
the part of the recipient, such as block grants; those
awarded based on a statutory formula; or disaster
recovery grants.
(e) The term ``funding opportunity announcement''
means a ``notice of funding opportunity'' as defined in
2 CFR 200.1, as it pertains to a discretionary award.
(f) The term ``grant'' means any ``grant agreement
or grant'' as defined in 2 CFR 200.1, ``cooperative
agreement'' as defined in 2 CFR 200.1, or similar award
of financial assistance, including foreign assistance
awards.
(g) The term ``regulation'' means an agency
statement of general or particular applicability and
future effect designed to implement, interpret, or
prescribe law or policy or describing the procedure or
practice requirements of an agency, including, without
limitation, regulations, interpretative rules, and
statements of policy.
(h) The term ``senior appointee'' means an
individual appointed by the President, a non-career
member of the Senior Executive Service, or an employee
encumbering a Senior Level, Scientific and
Professional, or Grade 15 position in Schedule C of the
excepted service.
Sec. 3. Strengthening Accountability for Agency
Grantmaking. (a) Each agency head shall promptly
designate a senior appointee who shall be responsible
for creating a process to review new funding
opportunity announcements and to review discretionary
grants to ensure that they are consistent with agency
priorities and the national interest. For the avoidance
of doubt, this process shall not guarantee any
particular level of review or consideration to funding
applicants except as consistent with applicable law. As
consistent with applicable law, this review process
shall incorporate, at a minimum:
(i) review and approval of agency funding opportunity announcements by one
or more senior appointees or their designees;
(ii) continuation of existing coordination with OMB;
(iii) to the extent appropriate to the subject matter of the announcements,
review by designated subject-matter experts as identified by the agency
head or the agency head's designee;
(iv) review of funding opportunity announcements and related forms to
ensure that they include only such requirements as are necessary for an
adequate evaluation of the application and are written in plain language
with a goal of minimizing the need for legal or technical expertise in
drafting an application;
(v) interagency coordination to determine whether the subject matter of a
particular funding opportunity announcement has already been addressed by
another agency announcement and, if so, whether one of the announcements
should be modified or withdrawn to promote consistency and eliminate
redundancy;
(vi) for scientific research discretionary grants, review by at least one
subject matter expert in the field of the application, who may be a member
of the grant review panel, the program officer, or an outside expert; and
(vii) pre-issuance review of discretionary awards to ensure that the awards
are consistent with applicable law, agency priorities, and the national
[[Page 38931]]
interest, which shall involve in-person or virtual discussion of
applications by grant review panels or program offices with a senior
appointee or that appointee's designee.
(b) Agency heads shall designate one or more senior
appointees to review discretionary awards on an annual
basis for consistency with agency priorities and
substantial progress. Such review shall include an
accountability mechanism for officials responsible for
selection and granting of the awards.
(c) Until such time as the process specified in
subsection (a) of this section is in place, agencies
shall not issue any new funding opportunity
announcements without prior approval from the senior
appointee designated under subsection (a) of this
section, except as required by law.
Sec. 4. Considerations for Discretionary Awards. (a)
Senior appointees and their designees shall not
ministerially ratify or routinely defer to the
recommendations of others in reviewing funding
opportunity announcements or discretionary awards, but
shall instead use their independent judgment.
(b) In reviewing and approving funding opportunity
announcements and discretionary awards, as well as in
designing the review process described in section 3(a)
of this order, senior appointees and their designees
shall, as relevant and to the extent consistent with
applicable law, apply the following principles,
including in any scoring rubrics used to assess grant
proposals:
(i) Discretionary awards must, where applicable, demonstrably advance the
President's policy priorities.
(ii) Discretionary awards shall not be used to fund, promote, encourage,
subsidize, or facilitate:
(A) racial preferences or other forms of racial discrimination by the
grant recipient, including activities where race or intentional proxies for
race will be used as a selection criterion for employment or program
participation;
(B) denial by the grant recipient of the sex binary in humans or the
notion that sex is a chosen or mutable characteristic;
(C) illegal immigration; or
(D) any other initiatives that compromise public safety or promote anti-
American values.
(iii) All else being equal, preference for discretionary awards should be
given to institutions with lower indirect cost rates.
(iv) Discretionary grants should be given to a broad range of recipients
rather than to a select group of repeat players. Research grants should be
awarded to a mix of recipients likely to produce immediately demonstrable
results and recipients with the potential for potentially longer-term,
breakthrough results, in a manner consistent with the funding opportunity
announcement.
(v) Applicants should commit to complying with administration policies,
procedures, and guidance respecting Gold Standard Science.
(vi) Discretionary awards should include clear benchmarks for measuring
success and progress towards relevant goals and, as relevant for awards
pertaining to scientific research, a commitment to achieving Gold Standard
Science.
(vii) To the extent institutional affiliation is considered in making
discretionary awards, agencies should prioritize an institution's
commitment to rigorous, reproducible scholarship over its historical
reputation or perceived prestige. As to science grants, agencies should
prioritize institutions that have demonstrated success in implementing Gold
Standard Science.
(c) Nothing in this order shall be construed to
discourage or prevent the use of peer review methods to
evaluate proposals for discretionary awards or
otherwise inform agency decision making, provided that
peer review recommendations remain advisory and are not
ministerially ratified,
[[Page 38932]]
routinely deferred to, or otherwise treated as de facto
binding by senior appointees or their designees.
Further, nothing in this order shall be construed to
create any rights to any particular level of review or
consideration for any funding applicant except as
consistent with applicable law.
Sec. 5. Revisions to the Uniform Guidance. (a) The
Director shall revise the Uniform Guidance and other
relevant guidance to streamline application
requirements and to further clarify and require all
discretionary grants to permit termination for
convenience, including when the award no longer
advances agency priorities or the national interest,
but subject to appropriate exceptions, including
agreements entered into in furtherance of international
trade agreements or those awarded by the Department of
Commerce under title XCIX of the William M. (Mac)
Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2021 (Public Law 116-283), the CHIPS Act of
2022 (Public Law 117-167), or division F of the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Public Law 117-
58).
(b) The Director shall further revise the Uniform
Guidance and other relevant guidance to appropriately
limit the use of discretionary grant funds for costs
related to facilities and administration.
Sec. 6. Implementation and Termination Clauses. (a)
Within 30 days of the date of this order, each agency
head shall review the agency's standard grant terms and
conditions and submit a report to the Director
detailing:
(i) whether the agency's standard terms and conditions for discretionary
awards permit termination for convenience and include the termination
provisions described in 2 CFR 200.340(a), including the provisions that an
award may be terminated by the agency ``if an award no longer effectuates
the program goals or agency priorities'' or, in the case of a partial
termination by the recipient, if the agency ``determines that the remaining
portion of the Federal award will not accomplish the purposes for which the
Federal award was made'';
(ii) whether the agency's standard terms and conditions for discretionary
foreign assistance awards permit termination based on the national
interest; and
(iii) the approximate number of active discretionary awards at the agency,
as well as the approximate percentage of funding obligated under those
awards that contains termination provisions allowing for termination under
the circumstances described in subsection (i) of this section.
(b) Each agency head shall, to the maximum extent
permitted by law and consistent with relevant Executive
Orders or other Presidential directives, take steps to
revise the terms and conditions of existing
discretionary grants to permit immediate termination
for convenience, or clarify that such termination is
permitted, including if the award no longer advances
agency priorities or the national interest. Each agency
head shall ensure that such terms are included in all
future discretionary grants and likewise shall take
steps to revise all applicable regulations binding on
or incorporated in discretionary grant terms and
conditions to require such terms. Agency heads shall
take action to incorporate these new terms and
conditions into all future amendments to grant awards.
(c) To the extent practicable and consistent with
applicable law, agency heads shall insert in future
discretionary grant agreements terms and conditions
that:
(i) prohibit recipients from directly drawing down general grant funds for
specific projects without the affirmative authorization of the agency; and
(ii) require grantees to provide written explanations or support, with
specificity, for requests for each drawdown.
Sec. 7. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order
shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or
the head thereof; or
[[Page 38933]]
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget
relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with
applicable law and subject to the availability of
appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not,
create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural,
enforceable at law or in equity by any party against
the United States, its departments, agencies, or
entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any
other person.
(d) If any provision of this order, or the
application of any provision to any person or
circumstance, is held to be invalid, the remainder of
this order and the application of its provisions to any
other persons or circumstances shall not be affected
thereby.
(e) The costs for publication of this order shall
be borne by the Office of Management and Budget.
(Presidential Sig.)
THE WHITE HOUSE,
August 7, 2025.
[FR Doc. 2025-15344
Filed 8-11-25; 11:15 am]
Billing code 3110-01-P