{"id":110699,"date":"2026-06-05T14:34:08","date_gmt":"2026-06-05T14:34:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/neclink.com\/index.php\/2026\/06\/05\/proposed-trump-rule-targets-woke-federal-grants-for-public-lands-health-science\/"},"modified":"2026-06-05T14:34:08","modified_gmt":"2026-06-05T14:34:08","slug":"proposed-trump-rule-targets-woke-federal-grants-for-public-lands-health-science","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/neclink.com\/index.php\/2026\/06\/05\/proposed-trump-rule-targets-woke-federal-grants-for-public-lands-health-science\/","title":{"rendered":"Proposed Trump Rule Targets \u2018Woke\u2019 Federal Grants for Public Lands, Health, Science"},"content":{"rendered":"


\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

Aimed at \u201cresponsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars,\u201d the White House wants political appointees to have final say on grant review.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\"\"<\/div>\n

Visitors hike the Mist Trail toward Vernal Falls on Aug. 31, 2025, in Yosemite National Park, California. <\/span>\u00a0(Apu Gomes\/Getty Images)<\/cite><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

The roughly 400-page document is framed as a backlash to \u201ca \u2018woke\u2019 policy agenda,\u201d which it claims guided the Biden administration\u2019s federal funding initiatives. Grants designed to advance \u201cunlawful identity-based \u2018Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion\u2019\u201d policies are called out, alongside \u201canti-American ideologies in education,\u201d \u201clabs engaged in gain-of-function research\u201d \u2014 a broad term referring to scientific studies of virology \u2014 and \u201cwasteful spending\u201d by the U.S. President\u2019s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR.<\/p>\n

The Office of Management and Budget declined to respond on the record to KQED\u2019s questions about the proposed rule.<\/p>\n

The affected departments, as listed in the draft rule, are wide-ranging, from Health and Human Services to Interior to Education, Labor and Homeland Security.<\/p>\n

\"\"
Visitors leave Muir Woods National Monument on July 24, 2025, in Muir Woods National Monument, California. Under a directive from Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and the Trump administration, the National Park Service has removed an exhibit at Muir Woods National Monument that aimed to tell a more comprehensive history of the site. The exhibit was installed in 2021 and amended to highlight previously untold narratives of the Coast Miwok and Southern Pomo peoples who stewarded the land for hundreds of years, and the efforts by the California Club, a women\u2019s organization, to save the forest in the early 20th century. (Justin Sullivan\/Getty Images)<\/cite><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

So far, members of the scientific community have raised alarm<\/a> at the proposal and its potential to hollow out the peer review process for federal grants.<\/p>\n

That could have a major effect on the nation\u2019s public lands, said Jesse Chakrin, executive director of the San Francisco-based Fund for People in Parks. Typically, he said, nonpolitical subject matter experts from a range of departments would all chime in on a proposal to ensure it is rigorous \u2014 and any termination decisions would be made based on performance metrics, agreed to when a contract is signed.<\/p>\n

\u201cThat is being replaced with political review,\u201d he said. \u201cThis is a dangerous arena to get into, where the forever business of NASA, NOAA or NPS are all now on the whims of political appointees and the shifting political tides. This is not how things were intended to be done.\u201d<\/p>\n

Chakrin said he\u2019s also worried about the effect of more stringent workforce restrictions proposed for groups that work on public lands, including nonprofit \u201cfriends of\u201d organizations that ally with local and national parks to fill funding gaps, conservation groups, scientific research institutes and trails associations and crews \u201cthat work in a good faith effort to increase the capacity to meet the visitor experience requirements, demands, needs of the public, and they did so through federal grants and contracts,\u201d he said. \u201cThis is really, really concerning.\u201d<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

Jordan Marbury, a spokesperson for Friends of the Inyo<\/a>, an advocacy group for public lands in the Eastern Sierra, told KQED by email they work directly with federal agencies on conservation, wildfire and watershed work \u2014 all of which could be vetoed under this proposed rule.<\/p>\n

\u201cOur stewardship work, and the resilience of the public lands millions of people depend on, would be on the chopping block,\u201d he wrote.<\/p>\n

Some agencies have already seen the consequences of defunding due to similar policy from the Trump administration. Redgie Collins, vice president of legal and government affairs for CalTrout<\/a>, a San Francisco-based conservation nonprofit, said that as part of early 2025 Department of Government Efficiency cutbacks<\/a>, the organization lost $4.2 million<\/a> in federal grant money \u2014 likely due to its work on biodiversity and with local tribes. Nearly a third of the organization\u2019s general budget comes from federal grants, he said, to fund restoration projects that not only further their ecological mission, but also provide jobs and assistance to farmers and ranchers.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe concern here is that even agencies that do want to support rural economies, that do want to see construction jobs in rural areas throughout the country \u2014 they could get flagged based on buzzwords that don\u2019t actually implement even what this OMB order wants,\u201d he said. \u201cSo, there\u2019s just more confusion and concern for really anyone that touches federal funding in the conservation space, especially.\u201d<\/p>\n

Collins said he\u2019s not just worried about conservation groups like his: \u201cEveryone who gets funding from the federal government should be concerned,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n

Public comment<\/a> on the rule change is open until July 13. More than 5,000 people have already commented on the rule, as of Thursday.<\/p>\n

\"\"
A National Park Service employee at Yosemite National Park, California, on March 1, 2025. Aimed at \u201cresponsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars,\u201d the White House wants political appointees to have final say on grant review. (Laure Andrillon\/AFP via Getty Images)<\/cite><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Many in the comments decried the proposed rule for its sweeping nature. One, from a wildfire expert and volunteer firefighter, raises concerns about the effects of the rule on international collaboration and the potential that long-term studies, funded by grants, may be canceled due to the rule.<\/p>\n

\u201cTerminating grants mid-project would waste taxpayer investments, disrupt data collection, eliminate employment opportunities for researchers and technicians, and reduce the reliability of scientific findings that inform land management decisions,\u201d they wrote.<\/p>\n

Another commenter stated, simply: \u201cNO to politicians deciding what is best for the American public. Let the public decide.\u201d<\/p>\n

Chakrin said he hopes the public shows up to comment and protest the rule.<\/p>\n

\u201cI hope that they are not okay with this,\u201d he said. \u201cIt\u2019s un-American to decide that some Americans are American enough and some Americans are not. I hope people are disturbed, and I hope they make their voice known.\u201d<\/p>\n

<\/span><\/div>\n