AMNA NAWAZ: 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 Brangham has more.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: Amna, 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 OK 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.

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?

CRAIG MCLEAN, Former Chief Scientist: 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 administration that is quite ready to displace scientific truths for their own convenient interpretation.

And that's remarkably damaging to the integrity of the United States, to the safety of our people, and to the value of science itself.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: I mean, OMB, in their -- in putting out their statements about this, they told us today that this to them is about eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse, trying to stop woke funding projects.

And they argue on some level that this is the prerogative of any administration to stress the kinds of research they want and de-emphasize others.

What do you make about that argument?

CRAIG MCLEAN: Publicly elected officials have always stated their preference for where the science enterprise might focus, and they state that preference by the annual appropriation, the money that Congress passes, and then hands over to the federal agencies.

And those federal agencies are populated with merit-driven individuals, who then make the judgments as to what should be awarded where.

And we also have seen the use of peer review panels, where non-federal individuals, scientists, come in and evaluate proposals and then make selections.

So what we're doing here that's very different is, we're asking political appointees, who often do not have the credibility or experience in the positions that they're in, to be making those judgments, instead of the people who have spent their entire careers in a position to gain the knowledge and experience as to what's the best investment scientifically.

I do not want a political appointee making the decisions as to not only what science will we pursue, but what that scientific outcome is.

And the Trump administration has repeatedly demonstrated they don't understand science, they don't believe in much of the science, health or climate and other subjects.

And putting people like that in the control seat to determine what the scientific answer is, is unconscionable.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: This is not just about climate work.

This is across all of government.

And OMB argues that they specifically wanted to eliminate any DEI grant-making that is going on.

What is your sense as to what the impact of that elimination would be?

CRAIG MCLEAN: It would narrow the field of participants.

I think the Trump administration has a very sensitive trip wire that if anyone who doesn't look like their perceived majority of white males winds up in a position of responsibility or an advantage or is a financial recipient awardee that there must be some other reason than their skill and abilities to have found themselves in such a place.

And they're doing it aggressively because I think the National Science Foundation, among other agencies, had a very proud and aggressive stance to try and open and widen the aperture of participation of all Americans with appropriate scientific credentials.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: I just want to read you a statement that OMB gave us today about the rationale for this.

They write -- quote -- "Federal grants were already politicized by the last administration to promote a far left DEI agenda.

Funding went to projects like drag shows in Ecuador and transgender experiments on mice.

That ends now.

With this new rule, the Trump administration will bring much-needed transparency to the grant making process and ensure taxpayer dollars are spent wisely."

I should say researchers have pushed back quite hard on this assertion that there was any research trying to turn mice transgender.

But to their larger argument, they are saying this is a corrective, a needed corrective.

What do you say to that?

CRAIG MCLEAN: I don't see this as a correction.

I see this as a regression or a degradation of standards that were advanced to make science more open and available to everyone.

The fact that they don't understand what those experiments were like is, number one, disappointing.

But number two, if that's the best answer they could come up with, it reveals that they don't understand science, because that's not what those experiments were.

There were no transgender mice.

I would have been much more inspired to hear OMB talk about things like trying to economize in the regulatory burden on the scientific and academic community and the likes of that.

But they have missed that opportunity and they rely on their political talking points.

WILLIAM BRANGHAM: All right, that is Craig McLean, the former chief science officer at NOAA.

Thank you so much for being here.

CRAIG MCLEAN: Thank you very much for having me.