The Planetary Society has issued a stark warning about a proposed rule from the White House Office of Management and Budget that could fundamentally restructure how federal science agencies award research grants, with potentially severe consequences for space science and exploration.
The proposed rule, published in May 2026 and running more than 400 pages, would give senior political appointees direct authority over which research grants receive federal funding. Under current practice, grant decisions at NASA, the National Science Foundation, and other science agencies are made through peer review panels composed of independent scientists who evaluate proposals based on methodological rigor, significance, and feasibility. The new rule would replace that merit-based system with one in which political appointees conduct pre-issuance reviews before any grant can be awarded, and are explicitly prohibited from deferring to panel conclusions.
The Planetary Society, founded by Carl Sagan in 1980, called the proposed changes “reprehensible” in a June 2026 press statement. The organization argued that the rule would “isolate, suppress, and throttle American scientific activity” while enabling partisan political control over grant awards and restricting the dissemination of scientific results.
“The United States cannot be first in space if it is second in science,” the Planetary Society stated. “And the nation cannot lead the world in science if the systems are driven by politics rather than merit.”
The rule contains several specific provisions that directly affect space research. Section 200.205 requires political appointee review of all discretionary grants. Section 200.220 would presumptively prohibit international collaboration even with researchers living in the United States, threatening the globally networked partnerships that define modern space science. Section 200.340 allows grants to be terminated without cause citing agency priorities. Section 200.218 bans research with disparate-impact findings, which scientists argue could effectively prohibit research into environmental justice, health disparities, and demographic patterns.
The OMB rule is the latest front in a broader campaign that the Trump administration has waged against federally funded research. Throughout 2025, the administration attempted similar changes through executive orders and agency directives including grant freezes, keyword-based rejection of research proposals, and impoundment of congressionally appropriated funds. Courts stayed or reversed many of those actions. The new rule is designed to formalize these policies as binding regulations that are harder to challenge in court and can only be superseded by an act of Congress.
For NASA specifically, the stakes are high. The agency’s science budget funds everything from Mars rover operations to exoplanet atmosphere studies to the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope. International collaboration is woven into the fabric of nearly every major NASA science mission. A presumptive ban on international partnerships would force NASA to redesign its research portfolio or face funding disruptions that could ripple across decades of planned exploration.
The Planetary Society’s analysis identifies several other provisions that would constrain space scientists. Section 200.432 requires pre-approval for conference attendance, limiting scientists’ ability to present findings and build collaborations. Section 200.452 restricts journal subscriptions, and Section 200.461 blocks publication fees without prior approval, potentially preventing NASA-funded researchers from publishing in open-access journals.
The rule is subject to a 45-day public comment period that closed on July 13, 2026. The Planetary Society mobilized its community to submit comments through its advocacy action center, urging scientists, students, and space enthusiasts to describe how the rule would specifically affect their work. Every substantive comment becomes part of the permanent public record, and the OMB must respond before the rule can be finalized.
Casey Dreier, the Planetary Society’s chief of space policy, has been a leading voice in the debate, arguing that the rule represents the most direct threat to the peer review system in the history of American science funding. If implemented, he argues, the United States would cede the next generation of discoveries in space to other nations, including the potential detection of biosignatures or life beyond Earth.
The proposed rule comes at a time when the public comment period has already closed, but the Planetary Society continues to urge Congress to intervene. The ultimate outcome depends on whether lawmakers view the rule as a legitimate exercise of executive authority or an overreach that undermines the scientific enterprise that has made the United States a global leader in space exploration for more than six decades.