An Office of Management and Budget rule set to take effect in December would bar virtually all federally funded research collaborations involving China — a break in U.S.-China scientific engagement larger than any since relations were normalized, and one of the biggest overhauls of U.S. science funding in decades.

The rule expands the 2011 Wolf Amendment, which bars NASA-funded bilateral work with China, to every federal agency and every scientist receiving federal funds. It would also shift grant authority from scientific peer review to political appointees, requiring awards to "advance the President's policy priorities." It does not require congressional approval.

The proposal has drawn roughly half a million public comments. A Washington Post analysis of 50,000 of them found about 88 percent negative. The rule was originally slated for October, but a bipartisan stopgap funding bill pushed the date back to December.

President Donald Trump dismissed all 22 members of the National Science Board days before the board was to release its biennial report to the president and Congress. That report, prepared by the independent body overseeing $9 billion in federal science funding, contained a stark warning: China has surpassed the United States as the world's top investor and producer of science and engineering R&D.

"The National Science Board would never have advised or seen as wise a strategy of essentially hiding from the competition," said Keivan Stassun, a professor of physics and astronomy at Vanderbilt University and one of the fired board members.

"At a time when we know that our main competitor has a stronger hand, you want to stay in the game. Or else we will just be more and more in the dark as China pulls farther and farther ahead," Stassun said.

How dependent is U.S. research on Chinese collaborators?

U.S. researchers published around 240,000 internationally co-written science and engineering papers in 2024. About 23 percent included a Chinese co-author, making China the most frequent international research partner for American scientists, according to National Science Board data.

Chinese universities now claim 19 of the top 25 spots in global academic output rankings compiled annually by Leiden University in the Netherlands, displacing Harvard from first place this year for the first time. China leads U.S. output in quantum science, artificial intelligence, biotechnology and chemistry — fields where U.S. labs increasingly depend on shared facilities and shared expertise.

Stanford theoretical physicist Steven Kivelson, who holds NSF and Education Department grants and collaborates with a former student now in China, illustrates the practical stakes. His research on superconductors relies on neutron and muon experiments. The United States has no facility for the muon experiments his work requires, and U.S. neutron science groups warned last year of a funding "crisis" in access to domestic neutron facilities.

"Experiments in my field which require large amounts of infusion of funds and expert personnel, China has simply invested much more than the United States," Kivelson said. "When I go to China, it's to learn about the latest developments in the field, not to offer them the fruits of U.S. research."

What does the rule actually prohibit?

Scientists and universities flag vague language barring collaborations with "covered countries." They read it as prohibiting any collaboration involving China — even projects with other, friendly countries.

"This is why this rule is actually so burdensome and confusing … if we were part of, for example, a European project and that European project also had some partnership with China, that would also not be allowed," said Roohi Dalal, deputy director of public policy at the American Astronomical Society, which represents some 9,000 scientists.

The Pentagon and the National Science Foundation have already enacted narrower restrictions on collaborations with specific Chinese entities. Mark Barnes, a partner at Ropes & Gray who advises universities on international collaborations, called the OMB text "the Wolf Amendment on steroids."

"This kind of broad restriction on research would be more appropriately decided by Congress after a full public debate about the risks and value of international collaborative research ... not all research is national security sensitive," Barnes said.

Who backs the rule?

Republican lawmakers have pushed for a complete cut to federally funded research involving Chinese collaborators and embraced the OMB proposal.

"The CCP should not get a single dime, directly or indirectly, of American research funding," Sen. Jim Banks (R-Indiana) said in May.

Banks and Rep. John Moolenaar (R-Michigan), chairman of the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party, previously introduced legislation barring federally funded researchers from collaborating with Chinese entities on U.S. government restricted lists. A 2025 report by Moolenaar's committee found thousands of U.S. papers with co-authors affiliated with Chinese defense-linked organizations working in artificial intelligence, hypersonics and nuclear physics.

Critics of past policy concede U.S. institutions have managed research security poorly. "The culture around research security in the country for many, many decades is that of a laissez-faire approach," said Jackie Deal, a senior fellow in the Asia program at the Foreign Policy Research Institute.

What changes for R&D managers?

For portfolio planning, the rule arrives amid steep proposed budget cuts: 54 percent at the National Science Foundation, 23 percent at NASA, and $5 billion at the National Institutes of Health in the administration's 2027 request. Combined with the collaboration ban, the shift moves grant decisions toward political appointees on four-year cycles — a risk the American Association for the Advancement of Science flagged in its comment urging withdrawal.

"We will not succeed if with every new administration we are ping-ponging back and forth about priorities," the AAAS wrote. "Fast-tracking such profound changes ... hands an easy victory to nations like China."

"I do think there are still members of Congress who think we have a monopoly on knowledge," said Tobin Smith, senior vice president for government relations at the Association of American Universities. "We are no longer the leader in many areas of science."

OMB did not respond to a request for comment. Unless Congress acts again before December, the rule takes effect without further legislative approval, forcing every federally funded lab to audit its international partnerships and project pipelines.