A proposed Office of Management and Budget rule is raising alarms among U.S. scientists that federal research funding could be undermined, with fears centered on reducing the role of peer review and increasing political influence in grant decisions. The proposal also includes provisions that could make it easier for the government to terminate active grants. The concern comes as scientific institutions and researchers evaluate whether rulemaking changes will shift oversight away from established evaluation processes. Multiple commentators argue that such changes could affect both the timing and stability of research program funding. For biotech R&D leaders, the practical risk is continuity: any decrease in predictable grant cycles can directly affect translational timelines, hiring, and the flow of early-stage findings into company-sponsored development work.