The Trump administration is proposing a sweeping overhaul of how the federal government awards billions of dollars in research grants, giving political appointees a much larger role in funding decisions.

The administration argues these changes are necessary to stop what they call a woke agenda.

But researchers across many fields say this could allow the administration to

effectively limit and exert more control over critical scientific research. Our William

Brigham has more.

These proposed changes, which were put out by the Office of Management and Budget, or OMB,

call for new criteria to review grants, including no funding or promoting of diversity, equity, or

inclusion. Projects must, quote, demonstrably advance the president's policy priorities. And in a

major change, political appointees, not necessarily subject matter experts, would be required

to give the final okay before money is awarded.

For more on all this, we are joined by Craig McLean.

He is the former chief scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,

where he oversaw grants and awards flowing through that agency.

Craig, thank you so much for being here.

You are part of this organization called Stand Up for Science that is pushing back against

this change.

Help us understand why this would make a difference.

Because to some people, they might think these are relatively minor changes.

You know, putting a different person at the top of the decision-making chain doesn't seem like such a huge shift.

Why is this so troubling to you?

It's remarkably troubling because, first off, the Trump administration has already demonstrated its ability in the past to displace scientific judgment with their own political pronouncements. One of them is climate change, believing that it doesn't exist when, in fact,

the evidence is conclusive that climate change is real, humans are causing it. So this is an

...