On August 7, 2025, a pair of seismic events shook the world of federal grantmaking in the United States, sparking fierce debate among scientists, artists, and lawmakers from coast to coast. In a move that has left researchers and the arts community reeling, President Trump signed an executive order dramatically shifting the balance of power over federal grants, while a federal judge in Oregon issued an injunction to halt sweeping cuts to arts and humanities funding. The twin developments have brought questions of political influence, constitutional authority, and the future of American innovation into sharp relief.
The Trump administration’s executive order, signed Thursday, mandates that all federal agencies—ranging from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH)—appoint officials to review all federal funding opportunities and grants. The stated goal? To ensure these grants align with agency priorities and serve the national interest. But there’s a catch: these officials would be political appointees, not career scientists or experts in the field. The order also grants agencies new authority to terminate grants at any time, even during the grant period, and blocks agencies from announcing new funding opportunities until the new protocols are firmly in place.
According to reporting from the Los Angeles Times, the Trump administration claims these changes are intended to “strengthen oversight” and “streamline agency grantmaking.” Yet the move has provoked an outcry from the scientific community and beyond. “This is taking political control of a once politically neutral mechanism for funding science in the U.S.,” said Joseph Bak-Coleman, a scientist at the University of Washington who studies group decision-making. The Association of American Medical Colleges warned that the changes would delay grant review and approval, slowing “progress for cures and treatments that patients and families across the country urgently need.”
The executive order comes on the heels of an already tense climate for federal research funding. Thousands of grants at agencies such as the NSF and NIH have been terminated in recent months, targeting topics like transgender health, vaccine hesitancy, misinformation, and diversity, equity, and inclusion. The administration has also threatened funding for scientific research at prominent universities, including Harvard and UCLA. The potential consequences extend far beyond the research community: emergency relief grants from FEMA, public safety initiatives from the Department of Justice, and public health efforts supported by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) could all be affected.
Experts expect the order to face legal challenges. As Ramakrishnan reported for the Associated Press, legal scholars and advocacy groups are already scrutinizing the order’s implications for the separation of powers and the constitutional role of Congress in controlling federal spending. The controversy over who decides how federal dollars are spent is hardly new—but the scale and speed of the changes have left many stunned.
While the science and public health sectors grappled with these developments, the arts and humanities community scored a significant—if temporary—victory. On the same day as the executive order, U.S. District Judge Michael Simon issued a preliminary injunction blocking funding cuts by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) to more than 50 state and jurisdictional humanities councils. The cuts, announced in an April 2 letter from acting NEH Chairman Michael McDonald, hit organizations like Nevada Humanities especially hard. Nevada Humanities was notified it would lose its primary source of funding: a five-year general operating support grant.
Chris Barr, executive director of Nevada Humanities, told the Reno Gazette Journal that the organization was “fighting for its survival” after the announcement. “The loss of funding from the NEH will not only severely hinder our work, it will also reduce the tremendous amount of economic activity that arts and culture programming brings to the state of Nevada,” Barr said. The New Mexico Humanities Council warned it might have to shut down entirely.
The Federation of State Humanities Councils, joined by Oregon Humanities, filed a lawsuit in May 2025 challenging DOGE’s authority to overturn funding that had already been approved by Congress. As the lawsuit put it, “This lawsuit challenges the disruption and attempted destruction, spearheaded by DOGE, of the congressionally established federal-state partnership between NEH and the 56 state and jurisdictional humanities councils.”
Judge Simon’s ruling questioned the legality of the funding cuts, particularly as they relate to the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches. Citing several legal precedents, including a 2018 case against Trump, Simon wrote that “the United States Constitution exclusively grants the power of the purse to Congress, not the President.” The injunction prevents the cuts from taking effect while the lawsuit proceeds, applying to all members of the Federation of State Humanities Councils, including Nevada Humanities.
The decision was met with relief and cautious optimism by those fighting to preserve arts and humanities programming. “This is an important victory on a long road to ensuring states and territories get the resources that Congress intended for humanities programming in local communities,” said Phoebe Stein, president of the Federation of State Humanities Councils, in a statement. Still, Stein noted that the battle is far from over: “Humanities councils are still operating without their congressionally appropriated funds, and many have already laid off staff and cancelled vital programs as a result. We are hopeful that this judgement will prevail in any further litigation of this case.”
Despite the injunction, the uncertainty continues to take a toll. Many humanities councils have yet to receive the funds they were allocated, and the layoffs and program cancellations have already begun to ripple through communities nationwide. The economic and cultural impact of these disruptions—especially in smaller or rural states—remains to be fully seen.
At the heart of both stories is a fundamental question: who gets to decide how federal money is spent, and on what priorities? The Trump administration’s effort to centralize control over grants in the hands of political appointees has been framed as a bid for efficiency and accountability. Critics, however, see it as a dangerous politicization of a process that has long relied on peer review, expertise, and the insulation of science and the arts from the shifting winds of politics.
Meanwhile, the legal battle over the arts and humanities cuts underscores the ongoing tension between the executive branch and Congress over the power of the purse. Judge Simon’s ruling, drawing on constitutional principles and recent precedent, signals that the courts may be willing to push back against executive overreach—at least for now.
As the lawsuits proceed and agencies scramble to implement new protocols, scientists, artists, and advocates across the country are left waiting and wondering what comes next. The stakes, they argue, are nothing less than the future of American innovation, creativity, and democratic governance. For now, the only certainty is that the fight over federal grants—and who controls them—is far from over.
