Improving Oversight of Federal Grantmaking
Record date: 2025-08-12
( printed page 38929) Executive Order 14332 of August 7, 2025 Improving Oversight of Federal Grantmaking By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and to improve the process of Federal grantmaking while ending offensive waste of tax dollars, it is hereby ordered: Section 1 . Purpose. Every tax dollar the Government spends should improve American lives or advance American interests. This often does not happen. Federal grants have funded drag shows in Ecuador, trained doctoral candidates in
What this record contains
- Federal Register document
- 2025-15344
- Publication date
- 2025-08-12
- Citation
- 90 FR 38929
- Issuing office
- Executive Office of the President
Official record excerpt
( printed page 38929) Executive Order 14332 of August 7, 2025 Improving Oversight of Federal Grantmaking By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and to improve the process of Federal grantmaking while ending offensive waste of tax dollars, it is hereby ordered: Section 1 . Purpose. Every tax dollar the Government spends should improve American lives or advance American interests. This often does not happen. Federal grants have funded drag shows in Ecuador, trained doctoral candidates in critical race theory, and developed transgender-sexual-education programs. In 2024, one study claimed that more than one-quarter of new National Science Foundation (NSF) grants went to diversity, equity, and inclusion and other far-left initiatives. These NSF grants included those to educators that promoted Marxism, class warfare propaganda, and other anti-American ideologies in the classroom, masked as rigorous and thoughtful investigation. The harm imposed by problematic Federal grants does not stop at propagating absurd ideologies. An unsafe lab in Wuhan, China—likely the source of the COVID-19 pandemic—engaged in gain-of-function research funded by the National Institutes of Health. The NSF gave millions to develop AI-powered social media censorship tools—a direct assault on free speech. Taxpayer-funded grants have also gone to non-governmental organizations that provided free services to illegal immigrants, worsening the border crisis and compromising our safety, and to organizations that actively worked against American interests abroad. Even for projects receiving Federal funds that serve an ostensibly beneficial purpose, the Government has paid insufficient attention to their efficacy. For example, a significant proportion of the results of federally funded scientific research projects cannot be reproduced by external researchers. Even at Harvard and Stanford, once considered among America's most prestigious universities, senior researchers have resigned following accusations of data falsification. A substantial portion of many Federal grants for university-led research goes not to scientific project applicants or groundbreaking research, but to university facilities and administrative costs. The grant review process itself also undermines the interests of American taxpayers. Writing effective grant applications is notoriously complex, and grant applicants that can afford legal and technical experts are more likely to receive funds—which can then further support these non-mission functions. In addition, there is insufficient interagency coordination and review by relevant subject matter experts to reduce duplication. As a result, the best proposals do not always receive funding, and there is too much unfocused research of marginal social utility. In short, there is a strong need to strengthen oversight and coordination of, and to streamline, agency grantmaking to address these problems, prevent them from recurring, and ensure greater accountability for use of public funds more broadly. The Government holds tax revenue in trust for the American people, and agencies should treat it accordingly. Sec. 2 . Definitions. For purposes of this order: (a) The term “agency” has the meaning given to it in section 551 of title 5, United States Code , except that such term includes only agencies that have the statutory authority to award, offer, or manage Federal grants ( printed page 38930) and does not include the Executive Office of the President or any components thereof. (b) The term “agency head” means the highest-ranking official or officials of an agency, such as the Secretary, Administrator, Chairman, Director, Commissioners, or Board of Directors, unless otherwise specified in this order. (c) The term “Director” means the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). (d) The term “discretionary award” or “discretionary grant” means a grant that is a “discretionary award” as that term is defined in 2 CFR 200.1 . It does not include programs where legislation establishes an entitlement to the funds on the part of the recipient, such as block grants; those awarded based on a statutory formula; or disaster recovery grants. (e) The term “funding opportunity announcement” means a “notice of funding opportunity” as defined in 2 CFR 200.1 , as it pertains to a discretionary award. (f) The term “grant” means any “grant agreement or grant” as defined in 2 CFR 200.1 , “cooperative agreement” as defined in 2 CFR 200.1 , or similar award of financial assistance, including foreign assistance awards. (g) The term “regulation” means an agency statement
The excerpt is reproduced from the public federal record and may omit later sections, tables, signatures or attachments. Open the official source for the complete text.
Questions for accountability
- What legal authority does this government action cite?
- Which agencies or officials were directed to act?
- What measurable implementation, cost, deadline or later court action followed?
How to use this page
This is a source-record entry, not a truth-rating by itself. It preserves the action, date and original government publication so it can be connected to later claims, implementation records, court decisions, costs and measurable outcomes. Editorial claim reviews on this site use separate finding labels and explain the evidence for those findings.