A federal grant decision in Kentucky now shows how political priorities can shape whether publicly funded work continues. The U.S. Department of Education declined to continue Project EXCEL after concluding that parts of the program conflicted with the current administration’s priorities. That matters because political priorities are becoming a more explicit part of decisions about whether some federally funded work continues.
Project EXCEL is not the only Kentucky award to undergo priority-based review. Kentucky records show that other University of Kentucky Research Foundation awards have already been reviewed against agency or administration priorities, while eight Department of Energy awards that underwent portfolio review were retained. Separately, the Office of Management and Budget, or OMB, is proposing a government-wide framework that would give senior political appointees a more formal role in reviewing grants and give agencies broader discretion to terminate awards. This Dispatch examines what that shift could mean for federal grantmaking, institutional independence, and public accountability.
Project EXCEL was funded through a Department of Education award T365Z210014. On September 23, 2025, the department notified the University of Kentucky Research Foundation that it would not continue the award beyond September 30. The department said the project reflected priorities of the previous administration that conflicted with those of the current administration. The notice specifically cited recruitment through UK’s Center for Graduate Diversity and outreach to underrepresented groups, women, and persons with disabilities.
A grant non-continuation decision by itself would not establish a broader shift in federal grantmaking. In Project EXCEL’s case, however, the Department of Education explicitly tied its decision to whether the project aligned with the current administration’s priorities. That makes the award significant beyond a single program because it shows political-priority alignment becoming an explicit part of the judgment about whether federally supported work should continue.
The same broader pattern appears in eight named Department of Energy awards to the University of Kentucky Research Foundation that went through DOE’s Portfolio Review Process. All eight were retained, showing that priority-based review does not necessarily end in termination or non-continuation. The review letters also raised the possibility of changing award terms or adding compliance requirements, although our reporting has not established that DOE later imposed those changes. The reviews still matter because they show agency priorities becoming an explicit part of the review of individual Kentucky awards.
These actions are related, but they do not all arise from the same legal mechanism. DOE’s Portfolio Review Process came from a May 2025 Secretarial Policy and predates Executive Order 14332. Existing law and regulations can already permit some priority-based grant actions. The executive order separately directs greater political supervision of discretionary grants, and OMB’s May 2026 proposal would make related practices more uniform across government. The Kentucky evidence, therefore, does not depend on the proposed OMB rule having taken effect.
OMB’s proposal would give designated senior political appointees a formal role in reviewing discretionary awards before they are issued and require them to exercise independent judgment. It would also expressly make peer-review recommendations advisory. The proposal would further broaden agencies’ authority to suspend or terminate awards, while remaining subject to statutory limits. Together, those changes would shift more grantmaking discretion toward politically accountable officials and reduce the independent weight of professional or peer-review recommendations.
As of August 29, OMB’s proposal was still not a final rule. The comment period closed July 13, and the federal regulatory agenda still lists the proposal at the Proposed Rule Stage; OMB has proposed an October 1 effective date for a final rule. The Senate also passed a provision that would temporarily block the rule, but that restriction has not become law. That distinction matters because the proposal could still change before any final rule is issued.
Elected administrations do have policy discretion within congressionally created federal programs. Political oversight is not inherently improper, and executive officials can reasonably argue that accountability to elected leadership should matter in decisions about how public money is used. The harder question is how far that discretion should extend when professional, scientific, or statutory review also shapes a grant decision, and what safeguards should constrain political officials.
Political discretion over federal grants is substantial, but it is not unlimited. Program-specific laws can require peer review or other procedures, while appropriations law constrains how agencies use or withhold money Congress has provided. Courts may review some disputes, and Congress retains its own legislative, funding, and oversight powers, including the Congressional Review Act. Those protections vary across programs, however, and do not preserve the same degree of independent judgment everywhere.
The democratic question is how much meaningful professional or institutional judgment remains when political priorities influence decisions about individual grants.
For Kentucky universities and other federal grant recipients, the practical question is who ultimately decides whether supported work continues. Scientific, professional, or programmatic review may inform that decision without necessarily settling it if agency leadership concludes that an award no longer advances current priorities. That does not mean every grant is vulnerable to cancellation, but it does mean political change can affect individual awards alongside other forms of review. Project EXCEL makes that possibility concrete for Kentucky rather than leaving it as an abstract national debate.
The University of Kentucky administers federal awards that support public research and programs, and politically significant decisions affecting those awards should be easier for Kentuckians to see. UK should make federal review letters, material award amendments, termination or non-continuation notices, reconsideration outcomes, and material changes imposed through priority-based review readily accessible.
That transparency would allow the public to distinguish routine grant administration from decisions shaped by changing political priorities. If those priorities are affecting publicly supported work, the evidence should not be difficult to find.
Political judgment has a legitimate place in administering public programs, but its consequences become more significant when it reaches decisions about individual grants. When political priorities help determine which publicly funded work continues, the public needs enough information to see how that judgment was exercised and what other forms of review shaped the outcome. Accountability depends not on removing political judgment from grantmaking, but on making its role visible when political priorities influence decisions also shaped by professional or statutory review.
Sources
U.S. Department of Education, Project EXCEL non-continuation notice, Sept. 23, 2025, award T365Z210014. The notice says the award would not continue after Sept. 30 and identifies the Administration-priority conflict and the program elements ED cited.
U.S. Department of Energy Portfolio Review letters for eight UKRF awards, produced by UK through Open Records on Aug. 27, 2026. All eight awards were retained; the letters contemplated possible modifications or compliance requirements.
Executive Order 14332, “Improving Oversight of Federal Grantmaking,” Aug. 7, 2025. It directs senior-appointee involvement in discretionary-grant review and requires independent judgment. Executive Order 14332
OMB, “Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance,” RIN 0348-AB88. OMB’s current regulatory agenda continues to list it at the Proposed Rule Stage. OMB regulatory agenda entry
OMB proposed federal financial-assistance revisions, May 29, 2026. The Reporting Package identifies the proposal as the source of the proposed senior-appointee review, advisory peer-review status and broader termination/suspension structure.
H.R. 6500, Senate action, Aug. 8, 2026. The Senate passed the amended measure 90-6; the restriction discussed in the article had not become law when the body text was locked. Senate roll-call vote