Grant Slam: New Executive Order Serves Up Changes for Federal Grants
What You Need to Know
Key takeaway #1
Discretionary grants and funding opportunity announcements will face stricter content and eligibility requirements. Appointed administration officials must review grants and funding opportunity announcements, and funding is expressly prohibited for grants deemed to relate to race, gender identity, undocumented immigrants, or “initiatives that compromise public safety or promote anti-American values.”
Key takeaway #2
Agencies must incorporate termination-for-convenience clauses into all discretionary grant agreements, allowing for immediate termination if awards no longer support agency priorities or “the national interest.” The Administration effectively concedes that it lacks authority to terminate grants for these reasons based on the current terms in most agreements.
Client Alert | 1 min read | 08.12.25
On August 7, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order (EO) titled, “Improving Oversight of Federal Grantmaking,” setting out the framework for sweeping changes to the grantmaking process. The order purports to address the Administration’s concerns about federal grants supporting controversial or ineffective programs and incurring excessive administrative costs. The EO implements three key changes to federal grant requirements.
First, federal agencies must now designate a senior appointee to review all new discretionary grant funding opportunities and awards “to ensure that they are consistent with agency priorities and the national interest.” This is likely to significantly delay new funding opportunity announcements and awards. The EO also mandates that agencies conduct annual reviews of grant awards, and these reviews must include mechanisms to hold officials accountable for their selection and oversight decisions.
Second, the EO sets new standards for approving discretionary grants, directing senior appointees to independently evaluate proposals to ensure they “demonstrably advance the President’s policy priorities” where applicable. Funding is explicitly barred for programs that are deemed to relate to race, gender identity, undocumented immigrants, or “initiatives that compromise public safety or promote anti-American values.” Grant applicants must also commit to “complying with administration policies, procedures, and guidance respecting Gold Standard Science.”
Third, all discretionary grants will now be required to include provisions for termination for convenience, allowing agencies to end awards if they no longer advance agency priorities or the national interest. The EO directs agencies to review their active awards and funding opportunity announcements for such a termination-for-convenience provision and revise existing and future grant agreements to clearly permit immediate termination for convenience. The EO directs the Office of Management and Budget to amend the Uniform Grant Guidance at 2 C.F.R. Part 200 to reflect these requirements. The requirement to ensure grants can be terminated in this manner conflicts with the Government’s litigation position that such terminations are already permissible under the existing regime.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.26.25
From ‘Second’ to ‘First:’ Federal Circuit Tackles Obvious Claim Errors
Patent claims must be clear and definite, as they set the boundaries of the patentee’s rights. Occasionally, however, claim language contains errors, such as typographical mistakes or incorrect numbering. Courts possess very limited authority to correct such errors. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has emphasized that judicial correction is appropriate only in rare circumstances, where (1) the error is evident from the face of the patent, and (2) the proposed correction is the sole reasonable interpretation in view of the claim language, specification, and prosecution history. See Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 407 F.3d 1297, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) and Novo Indus., L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d 1348, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Client Alert | 5 min read | 11.26.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.25.25
Brussels Court Clarifies the EU’s SPC Manufacturing Waiver Regulation Rules
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.24.25
