OMB Proposes Broad Restrictions on International Research

A sweeping proposed rule on federal grantmaking would block international collaboration on federally funded research with a wide range of countries, which could create a broader chilling effect on international collaboration.

The proposal, published by the White House Office of Management and Budget on May 29, prevents federal award funds from being used for any foreign collaboration with “countries of particular concern”; those considered foreign adversaries; or those subject to sanctions or restrictions relating to national security, defense, or intelligence activities. It also prevents such funds from going directly to foreign countries. Both provisions allow for exceptions if expressly authorized in law or as determined by a political appointee.

OMB is accepting comments on the proposed rule until July 13 and has proposed that the rule take effect by Oct. 1. More than 300 organizations across science, research, policy, and education have requested that OMB extend the comment period to Aug. 27.

Cole Donovan, director of science policy and advocacy of Stand Up for Science, said the list of countries with which grantees could no longer collaborate may be wide-ranging. Donovan previously worked on international science and technology issues at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and the State Department. The ban on countries subject to national security restrictions could even extend to allies, Donovan said, pointing to the semiconductor export restrictions placed on 17 European Union countries at the end of the Biden administration.

Also, because the provision applies to multinational collaborations, U.S. scientists would be shut out of high-value scientific activities, Stand Up for Science argues in their comment on the proposed rule. “For instance, the presence of a [People’s Republic of China] researcher in a multilateral research consortium could force federally funded researchers to abandon the collaboration, excluding the United States from access to the results or other benefits associated with the discovery,” the comment states. “It is unreasonable to assume that foreign partners might be willing to collectively back out of collaborations in fields like physics, where it is not uncommon for collaborations to involve over a thousand international partners, or in collaborations where the U.S. government is not a dues-paying member that involve countries that include both U.S. allies and the Chinese government.”

In another example, the proposal could shut off grant funding that goes to U.S. scientists and institutions through the U.S. Large Hadron Collider program for high-energy physics. The LHC is located in Switzerland and is operated by the European Organization for Nuclear Research, or CERN. For a project like the multinational ITER fusion facility, the proposed rule would not affect congressional appropriations, but grants for related work, such as the Japan-Europe fusion reactor JT60-SA or the EAST reactor in China, would be impacted, Donovan said.

Some lawmakers have recently shown interest in similar restrictions. Rep. John Moolenaar (R-MI), chair of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, introduced a bill earlier in May that would block researchers from conducting work with any entity on U.S. government restricted entity lists while they hold a federal grant.

Comparisons to the Wolf Amendment

OMB seeks to create a uniform regulatory standard across federal assistance programs, the preamble of the proposed rule states. The preamble references the Wolf Amendment, which blocks NASA and OSTP from funding collaborations with China, as an example of restricting government funds for collaboration with foreign adversaries, but notes that the amendment only applies to specific agencies and appropriations.

However, the proposed rule bears little similarity to the Wolf Amendment, other than posing restrictions on international collaboration. The proposal would block bilateral or multilateral cooperation with any covered foreign entity or country, while the Wolf Amendment only applies to bilateral cooperation with China. Also, the proposal applies to federal award funding, including grants and cooperative agreements, while the Wolf Amendment applies more broadly to agency spending.

One analysis of the Wolf Amendment argues that the bureaucracy involved in seeking exceptions “heavily discourages NASA leadership from proposing US-China projects, no matter how useful they may be.”

Donovan expressed a similar concern about the chilling effect of the proposed rule on a wide range of international collaborations. Universities will likely take “a much more precautionary approach given the extreme measures already directed at universities,” he said. “While carveouts may be possible, it is most likely that universities will aim to limit their own foreign involvement and engage the federal approval process only when absolutely necessary,” he added.

Impact on fundamental research exclusion

In its comment to OMB, Stand Up for Science argues that the restrictions on international collaboration in the proposed rule would “disqualify” research funded by federal grants from the fundamental research exclusion. This exclusion exempts certain research from export control regulations, allowing for the free exchange and publication of research results. (Some agencies have moved to limit that exemption in recent years.)

Eliminating the exemption “could expose a vast amount of government research to new restrictions far beyond the intent of the rule,” the Stand Up for Science comment states. Those restrictions would also place additional burden on the State Department and the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security if there is a significant increase in licensing activities and “significantly increase the cost and timeline” of international collaboration, the comment adds.

No funds for foreign entities

The proposal would also prevent federal awards for foreign entities, with exceptions if expressly authorized in law or as determined by a political appointee. Foreign entities may still participate as subrecipients or contractors under a federal award.

The proposal would direct agencies to use a “domestic-first framework” in designing R&D programs and evaluating award applications. For example, in determining whether to approve award activities by foreign entities or that are done outside of the U.S., agencies should consider the extent to which the international element provides access to unique resources not reasonably available within the U.S., the likelihood that the international element will enhance the scientific enterprise of the U.S., and the adequacy of the entity to carry out the work at a level comparable to that of a U.S. recipient, the proposal states.