Tonko Demands NSF Withdraw Proposal Politicizing Science

This press release from Representative Paul Tonko (D-NY) was published on 2026-09-03 and titled "Tonko Demands NSF Withdraw Proposal Politicizing Science".

Tonko Demands NSF Withdraw Proposal Politicizing Science

WASHINGTON, DC — Today, U.S. Representative Paul Tonko (D-NY-20) led 35 House colleagues in a letter to the National Science Foundation (NSF) calling for the agency to rescind its planned revisions for the Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide, now titled Guidance on Financial Assistance (GFA) . The proposed revisions significantly change the policy framework that governs how researchers and institutes apply for NSF funding, how proposals are reviewed, and what federal funds can be used for. These changes follow an onslaught of attacks by the Trump administration against science and scientists. “At its core this proposal threatens America’s scientific leadership by undermining scientific integrity and allowing political ideology rather than evidence to drive research,” the letter reads. “Since Trump came into office, his administration has taken a sledgehammer to federal funding of science. These cuts are a violation of clear direction from Congress, which, on a bipartisan basis, unambiguously rejected the Administration’s destructive budget request for NSF.” The letter continues, “The consequences are already clear with three in four U.S. based researchers overall having considered leaving the country for countries where science is still valued. We are at risk of losing both an entire generation of researchers and the discoveries they would have made.” The letter concludes, “Genuine scientific progress demands sustained investment in people, infrastructure, and the freedom to follow the evidence wherever it leads, without censorship, coercion, or fear. America became a scientific powerhouse by trusting and funding our scientists. We will only remain a global leader if we continue to do so. We urge you to withdraw this revision and focus on supporting policies that meaningfully uphold the independence, integrity, and funding of American science — not just in rhetoric, but in practice.” Tonko has long pushed to keep politics out of public science. He authored and champions the bipartisan Scientific Integrity Act , legislation that sets clear, enforceable standards for federal agencies and federally-funded research to keep public science independent from meddling by political and special interests. The full letter can be read HERE and below. September 3, 2026 Mr. Brian Stone Chief of Staff, Performing the Duties of the Director National Science Foundation 401 Dulany Street Alexandria, VA 22314 Dear Mr. Stone: We write in opposition to the proposed changes to NSF’s Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide, now titled Guidance on Financial Assistance (GFA). At its core this proposal threatens America’s scientific leadership by undermining scientific integrity and allowing political ideology rather than evidence to drive research. This revision would prematurely align NSF policy with the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) proposed revisions to federal financial assistance regulation 2 CFR 200. These efforts, along with aligning with Trump Executive Orders, threaten to decimate our federal scientific enterprise and inflict real harm on our nation’s scientific experts. We urge NSF to rescind these proposed revisions. An unprecedented attack on American science Since Trump came into office, his administration has taken a sledgehammer to federal funding of science. In 2025, NSF had over 1,300 grants cut, totaling over $700 million. In June, reporting showed that NSF has cut basic science programs across its directorates by an average of 20 to 30%, according to an internal memo from the agency received by the publication. These cuts are a violation of clear direction from Congress, which, on a bipartisan basis, unambiguously rejected the Administration’s destructive budget request for NSF. Cancellation of NSF grants does more than stifle scientific progress, it destabilizes the entire research pipeline. Uncertainty in program funding leaves laboratories with fewer resources to support the next generation of scientists, while making it increasingly difficult for early-career researchers to build a future in American science. The consequences are already clear with three in four U.S. based researchers overall having considered leaving the country for countries where science is still valued. We are at risk of losing both an entire generation of researchers and the discoveries they would have made. Scientific merit and integrity must come before political priorities Guide 8 of the GFA eliminates guardrails that protect merit-based review. The summary of the draft states that “no significant changes are made” and that grant reviews will continue to be led by NSF Program Directors. However, authorities derived from 2 CFR 200 ultimately govern the GFA where applicable. OMB’s proposed changes to 2 CFR 200 takes a dangerous step in the science-based merit review process by empowering senior political appointees to make ultimate grantmaking decisions based on politics and requiring discretionary awards