policies

A new rule proposed by the White House Office of Management and Budget would fundamentally overhaul the way federal grants are awarded and overseen — a sweeping change that one scientific society said “would all but end the use of scientific merit in the selection of grants and programs across the government.”

Proposed in late May, the rule would give political appointees unprecedented control over federal grants for research, education and infrastructure, and specifies that government funds can only be spent on projects “aligned with administration policies and priorities,” according to a copy of the proposed rule.

The rule would also restrict research topics, limit U.S. scientists’ ability to collaborate with colleagues in other countries and make it easier for the government to suspend or cancel grants at any time.

The changes are intended to improve “transparency, accountability, and oversight for Federal awards” while “ensuring that American tax dollars are not wasted or misused,” according to the White House office.

But critics say that if the rule is implemented, the final sign-off for grants will no longer be in the hands of subject-matter experts within individual agencies, but in those of political appointees.

“This touches all parts of American life,” said Dr. Eric Rafla-Yuan, a psychiatrist who practices at the Veterans Administration and San Diego County’s psychiatric hospital.

“Control of how all of the federal grants and programs are funded will fall under a small group of highly partisan individuals who would have very few limits on how they spend these billions of taxpayer dollars,” said Rafla-Yuan, who also chairs the Committee to Protect Public Mental Health advocacy group. “This touches everyone’s life, even if they don’t realize it.”

OMB published the proposed rule May 29, opening a 45-day comment period that closes July 13.

Opposition to the proposed rule has mobilized multiple sectors of society. Professional groups representing cancer researchers, civil engineers, county governments, medical schools, housing agencies, city and municipal governments, nonprofits and others have publicly expressed concerns about potential consequences.

By midday Thursday, the Federal Register logged nearly 100,000 comments about the proposal, many of them expressing concern.

“I understand the need for oversight, fiscal responsibility, and accountability. That is not the issue,” wrote Jack Feldman, a neuroscientist who holds the David Geffen School of Medicine Chair in Neuroscience at UCLA. “The issue is whether scientific research is to be judged by scientific merit, or whether it can be approved, denied, or terminated according to broad political criteria that may change from one administration to the next.”

Crucially, the rule converts policies governing federal grants from “guidance” into binding regulations that all agencies would be required to follow. It would give political appointees power to override federal agencies’ merit-based reviews and mandate that a political appointee review decisions to ensure that all awards “demonstrably advance the President’s policy priorities.”

The elevation of political appointees in what were previously merit-based decisions has alarmed many scientists.

“The proposed rule changes would all but end the use of scientific merit in the selection of grants and programs across the government,” read a statement from the Planetary Society, a nonprofit dedicated to space research.

Researchers and science groups have also expressed concern about a section of the rule prohibiting the promotion of “theories of disparate-impact liability” — a legal concept that refers to policies that appear neutral but cause disproportionate harm to certain groups.

The section’s vague language and many loopholes could have a chilling effect on any research that studies the effects of a disease, policy or public health intervention on any specific group of people, Rafla-Yuan said.

As an example, he said, “if there’s a specific age range that is at higher risk for suicide, and we want to figure out, well, what’s going on with people that are aged 14 to 19 … we can’t do that under the wording in this rule.”

New restrictions on collaborations with scientists in other countries would hinder opportunities for U.S. researchers and limit innovation, said Joanne Padrón Carney, chief government relations officer for the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science.

“Science is a global enterprise. Especially in biomedical and public health fields, diseases don’t care about borders or government policies,” she said.

California’s congressional delegation sent a letter Wednesday asking OMB to rescind the proposal, outlining concerns about its impact on scientific innovation, U.S. competitiveness and the fiscal stability of local governments, many of which rely on federal grants for local services.

The proposed rule grants the federal government broad powers to suspend or cancel grants for any reason, introducing “unprecedented unpredictability into local governance,” the lawmakers wrote, “leaving vital infrastructure projects unfinished and abandoning vulnerable populations who rely on these services.”

Republican Sen. Susan Collins has also asked the White House to withdraw certain parts of the letter and extend the public comment period, saying the proposed rule as written would “harm small and rural communities, undermine scientific and biomedical research, and conflict with Congress’ control over the federal funding process.”

July 10 (UPI) — The Justice Department filed a lawsuit against Maryland on Thursday challenging the state’s laws that limit local law enforcement’s cooperation with immigration agents, the latest legal salvo in the Trump administration’s crackdown on immigration.

Federal lawyers with the Justice Department’s Civil Division have filed about 20 lawsuits against so-called sanctuary policies that the Trump administration argues violate the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, under which federal law supersedes state policies.

“Federal immigration officers merely enforce the laws that our nation’s elected representatives in Congress passed, reflecting the will of ‘We the People,'” Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward said in a statement.

“When sanctuary jurisdictions enact laws to shield illegal aliens from federal law enforcement, it is not merely federal law that is violated, but the voices of everyday American voters silenced.”

The Community Trust Act, passed by Maryland’s General Assembly, took effect immediately on May 31, 2026, limiting local cooperation with federal immigration authorities amid the Trump administration’s aggressive crackdown.

Opponents criticize the law as permitting the harboring of undocumented migrants, while advocates argue such policies are needed to create safe communities by reducing barriers that hinder immigrants from communicating with law enforcement.

In the lawsuit, the Justice Department argues that by enforcing the Community Trust Act, Maryland was unlawfully interfering with the federal government’s enforcement of federal law, in violation of the Supremacy Clause.

“Maryland has no lawful interest in assisting removable aliens to evade federal law enforcement. The state’s prohibitions on cooperation with federal immigration agencies have endangered public safety, resulting in criminals being released into Maryland rather than turned over to immigration authorities for removal from the United States, as required by Congress,” the federal lawyers said in the complaint.

“The challenged laws are not a mere passive effort to avoid providing state or local resources to federal officials but rather are an active and deliberate effort to obstruct federal immigration enforcement.”

The Maryland Freedom Caucus, a group of Republican state delegates, celebrated the lawsuit’s announcement in a Thursday statement, saying it is challenging “Maryland’s dangerous penchant for favoring noncitizens over lawful Marylanders.”

From targeting sanctuary laws to seeking to end humanitarian protections for migrants from crisis-hit countries, the Trump administration has sought to remove obstacles to its mass deportation campaign, drawing staunch opposition from civil and human rights advocates.

Under a Trump executive order, the Justice Department has identified dozens of states, counties and cities, mostly Democratic-led, that have sanctuary laws.

Caracas, June 22, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – Hundreds of rice producers took to the streets on Sunday in Calabozo, Guárico state, to urge the Venezuelan government to take action against agribusiness imports and price fixing.

The “tractorazo” saw local campesinos block one of the state’s major highways with tractors, trucks, and other heavy machinery carrying Venezuelan flags and signs with some of the main demands. Local sources estimated turnout at over 300.

“We are here on behalf of the producing states in Venezuela with a struggle that is just and urgent,” local spokesman José de la Cueva stated. “We urge the Venezuelan government to review its public policies so that national production is not destroyed.”

De la Cueva and other speakers emphasized the need for authorities to control imports, establish fair prices, and implement subsidies for the production of rice and other crops. Protesters contended that they have no conditions to compete with imports from countries where rice is subsidized, including Brazil and the US.

Rice growers, particularly in agricultural states Barinas, Cojedes, Guárico, and Portuguesa, have warned for months that agroindustry conglomerates have been importing massively since February.

According to agribusiness lobby FEDEAGRO, Venezuela has received more than 300,000 tons of imported rice in recent months. The amount is nearly half the 683,000 reportedly produced in the Caribbean country in 2025.

FEDEAGRO has complained that the exoneration of tariffs and import taxes is benefiting imported rice against national competitors. Imports of other crops such as corn have also skyrocketed, with purchases from the US more than tripling in the first five months of 2026 when compared to the previous year.

Meanwhile, campesinos have repeatedly denounced that local agribusiness corporations outright refuse to receive rice crops or attempt to impose prices as low as US $0.30 per kilo. Venezuela’s Agriculture Ministry established $0.40 per kilo following meetings with agroindustry and campesino representatives. Producers complained that the price did not take into account rising production costs and risked driving them bankrupt.

Alongside the latest street mobilization, rural organizations have likewise called for a boycott of Venezuela’s main agrifood conglomerates, including Polar and Iancarina.

The Small Farmers Movement (MPA), one of the organizations that took part in Sunday’s protest, issued a statement stressing that the defense of Venezuelan production and food sovereignty should become a “national unity cause.”

“This protest is about the survival of thousands of campesino families,” the text read. “It denounces the cruelty of agroindustry bosses whose voracious appetite for profit is fueling imports during harvest seasons to drive prices down.”

The MPA added that the growth of agricultural output in recent years has been based on “the exploitation of the work of thousands of campesinos” and urged social movements not to stay silent when it comes to the reality of small-scale producers in the countryside.

The campesino organization urged the government to adopt a series of measures, including implementing fair prices for rice and corn, reviewing import policies during harvest seasons, and investigating the “cartelization of prices” by agroindustry oligopolies. The MPA also called attention to the lack of credit for small-scale producers, which leaves them vulnerable to predatory lending agreements, including ones where they are offered seeds and inputs in exchange for a significant percentage of the harvest.

In a recent meeting with campesinos in Guárico state, National Assembly President Jorge Rodríguez vowed to investigate the issue of rice imports, claiming he was not previously aware of it. He urged agribusinesses to respect the previously agreed $0.40 price and called on public banks to reactivate credit for rural producers.

In recent years, with the economy heavily constrained by US sanctions, the Nicolás Maduro government moved to liberalize agricultural policies, transferring state competencies to the private sector, including provisioning of seed and fertilizer inputs and access to tractors. Fuel subsidies have also been phased out, with small-scale producers highlighting it as a major factor driving up production costs.

Edited by Lucas Koerner in Caracas.

The ONS says net migration fell to 171,000 in the ⁠12 months to the end of December from 331,000 a year earlier.

Long-term net migration to the United Kingdom nearly halved ⁠in 2025, falling to levels last seen before the post-Brexit immigration system was introduced, as tougher government measures enacted in recent years restricted arrivals.

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) said on Thursday that net migration fell to 171,000 in the ⁠12 months to the end of December from 331,000 a year earlier, extending a sharp decline from a record peak of 944,000 in 2023.

Immigration – both legal and illegal – has dominated political debate in the for more than a decade, with successive governments imposing stricter visa rules and higher salary thresholds. The current government has pledged to go further.

The British Future think tank ‌said the country was “experiencing one of the sharpest falls in net migration on record”, but that most people believed the opposite, according to its research.

Interior Minister Shabana Mahmood welcomed the progress from tighter policies, but said that there was still work to do.

“We will always welcome those who contribute to this country and wish to build a better life here. But we must restore order and control to our borders,” she said, adding that the government’s new skills-based migration would reward contribution and end reliance on “cheap overseas workers”.

On Saturday, far-right activist Tommy Robinson drew tens of thousands of people in London to attend his “unite the kingdom” march. Islamophobic and ethnonationalist hate flyers were reportedly distributed to the crowds. “In a country saturated with degenerates, grifters and imported political enemies … We are a brotherhood of White Europeans who share the same values,” read one leaflet.

Meanwhile, employers and economists ⁠have raised concerns about labour shortages, particularly in sectors such as care and hospitality.

The ONS said long-term net migration was ⁠now close to its level before the new immigration system was introduced at the start of 2021, when the UK transitioned out of European Union membership, and when COVID restrictions ⁠were still in place.

The drop reflects policy changes implemented from 2024, ⁠when the previous Conservative government banned most international students from bringing dependents and raised salary thresholds for skilled worker visas.

The current Labour government has tightened policies further as it seeks to counter Nigel Farage’s populist Reform UK party, which campaigns on an anti-migration platform and holds a double-digit lead in opinion ‌polls.

To that end, the government last year moved to end overseas recruitment of care workers, the single biggest driver of work migration in recent years, and raised the salary threshold for skilled worker visas further. It has since announced ‌more ‌sweeping reforms, including plans to speed up deportations of those arriving illegally and double the qualifying period for some workers to obtain settled status to 10 years, as well as making refugee status temporary.