Funding Pulse: Weekly Grant & Policy Outlook (Week of September 21, 2026)
Grant Management Associates Updated to include reporting on proposed White House oversight of NIH grants.
The White House is reportedly drafting an executive order that would give an outside committee authority to veto National Institutes of Health grants, adding a major question about who will control research funding even when Congress has provided the money (The New York Times). For Grant Management Associates clients, the immediate concern is not a confirmed cancellation of NIH funding: it is the possibility that additional approval requirements could change which projects receive awards and when.
Congress has meanwhile funded federal operations through December 11, and the House’s data-center legislation and Senate permitting negotiations put project costs and delivery firmly in the policy debate (Congressional Research Service, Congress.gov, Semafor). Taken together, our reading is that clients need to distinguish three questions: Is funding legally available? Who controls the award decision? Can the project meet the conditions and deliver its promised result?
NIH: The central issue is who controls the award decision
What is reported, and what is not yet established
The New York Times reports that officials are drafting an order to create an external committee with power to veto NIH awards that do not conform to the President’s political agenda, citing people familiar with the effort (The New York Times). Politico separately reports, citing two administration officials, that the proposed board would include White House budget director Russ Vought and NIH director Jay Bhattacharya and require unanimous agreement on grant awards (Politico).
These accounts describe a proposal being drafted, not a signed order establishing an operating board (The New York Times, Politico). They do not establish the final rules, effective date, or how the arrangement would apply to pending applications, renewals, or existing awards (Politico).
The administration’s responses also belong in the picture. An NIH spokesperson told the Times, “All NIH grant monies will be spent”; a White House official separately told The Washington Times that reports about unannounced policy decisions should be regarded as speculation (The New York Times, The Washington Times). Neither statement should be read as a guarantee of a particular client’s award, payment date, or future renewal.
What the activity on Capitol Hill tells us
Congress has already acted on a related issue: the temporary funding law blocks issuance or finalization of the May 29 proposed rewrite of government-wide grant rules, or a substantially similar rule, through December 11 (Congressional Research Service). Republican Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins has said an attempt to politicize grant decisions through an executive order or guidance would be contrary to congressional intent, while Democratic appropriations leader Patty Murray has also opposed the reported panel (The Washington Times).
Our interpretation is that this is a dispute over the use of money Congress has approved, not simply a disagreement over the size of NIH’s budget. Concern about the reported change crosses party lines, although that does not settle what the administration will issue or how Congress will respond (The Washington Times).
The lawmakers’ objections are not a court ruling on an executive order that has yet to be finalized in the reporting reviewed (The Washington Times). GMA would therefore not tell clients either that the proposal is already operative or that the existing congressional restriction guarantees it cannot proceed.
How this could affect GMA clients
If implemented as reported, unanimous approval by an additional board could create another point at which an otherwise competitive application is delayed or declined. That is a planning risk, not a finding that NIH has stopped awarding grants.
For universities, health organizations, research companies, and partners relying on NIH-supported work, we recommend separating decisions by the stage of the funding:
Our advice is to plan for uncertainty without presenting uncertainty as a confirmed loss. GMA should help clients identify the next decision they control, the agency clarification they need, and the spending commitments that should wait for written confirmation.
The peer-review changes still matter, but they are a separate development
NIH’s September 8 notice continues modified review procedures through the January 2027 Advisory Council round: most meetings will discuss 30–35% of applications rather than approximately 50%, and applications labeled “competitive but not discussed” remain under funding consideration (NIH, NOT-OD-26-114). This announced procedure is separate from the reported White House proposal, and the discussion percentage is not an award success rate (NIH, Politico).
NIH will retain the three assigned reviewers’ written critiques for all applications (NIH). Clients should use those critiques and conversations with program staff to decide whether revision or resubmission makes sense, rather than abandon an application because it was not discussed.
The next meaningful developments to watch are an actual order, NIH implementation instructions, clarification of which awards are covered, and any further congressional restrictions or court decisions. Until those appear, GMA’s recommendations should remain tied to confirmed requirements and each client’s written award status.
Congress has bought time, not settled next year’s funding
The President signed the Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2027, on September 2; it generally continues federal operations from October 1 through December 11 using the funding levels and conditions of the previous fiscal year, with specified exceptions (Congressional Research Service). That means September 30 is not the immediate government-wide funding cliff it would have been without this law, although Congress still must act before the temporary funding expires to avoid a subsequent gap (Congressional Research Service).
Keeping agencies open is not the same as giving them a full year of spending authority. The law generally limits agencies to the funding actions necessary to continue existing activities, restricts programs or activities that were not conducted or funded in fiscal 2026, and limits certain early spending commitments that could preempt Congress’s final decisions (Congressional Research Service).
For clients, the distinction is between continuing a program and knowing when a particular award will be made. Our recommendation is not to suspend proposal work across the board, but to ask the responsible agency which approved funds support the specific competition and whether its announced schedule remains unchanged.
There is also an important grant-management provision: Section 157 blocks issuance or finalization of the May 29 proposed rewrite of the government-wide federal grant rules, or a substantially similar rule, through December 11 (Congressional Research Service). This is a temporary pause, not a permanent withdrawal of the proposal; GMA recommends continuing to follow applicable current requirements while identifying which procedures might need revision if a final rule eventually takes effect.
Our interpretation of the congressional activity is straightforward: lawmakers have preserved continuity while leaving major annual funding choices unresolved. Clients should use that time to improve applications, confirm matching funds where required, and resolve technical questions rather than build budgets around increases Congress has not yet approved.
Permitting negotiations are about making projects deliverable
September 18 reporting described Senate negotiators as close to an agreement on permitting legislation, but with other legislation competing for time, a scheduled October 2 recess, and no settled House voting plan complicating the path forward (Semafor). That reporting supports taking the negotiations seriously; it does not establish that an agreement has become law or that any particular project now faces a shorter approval process.
For GMA clients, this is a funding issue because a credible application needs a credible delivery plan. Our concern is the gap between a project that looks attractive in a proposal and one whose schedule, costs, and permissions have been examined closely enough to support a commitment.
The practical response is to prepare two schedules: one using the requirements that apply today, and a second showing what could change if specific reforms are enacted and actually apply to the project. Keep the first schedule as the basis for commitments until there is a defensible reason to change it.
For an energy, manufacturing, water, or transportation project, GMA would work with the client and its technical advisers to answer:
The last question is especially important. A broad promise to accelerate federal review should not become an assumption that every local approval, utility connection, or construction constraint will disappear.
The data-center vote says electricity costs are a political priority
The House passed H.R. 9340, the Ratepayer Protection Act, by 417–3 on September 16; the official record shows it was received in the Senate on September 17, not enacted into law (Congress.gov). The bill would require state utility regulators and certain utilities to consider a standard under which covered data-center customers, with peak demand of at least 100 megawatts at a site or campus, bear the added electricity-system costs needed to serve them (Congress.gov).
The key word is consider. The congressional summary does not describe a requirement that every state adopt that standard, and the proposal includes consideration of financial guarantees or contributions to cover upgrades and costs if a customer cancels its agreement or stops buying electricity (Congress.gov).
Our reading of the vote is that support for new technology does not eliminate concern about who pays for the infrastructure behind it. There is a strong political reason for large projects to demonstrate that their benefits are real and that households and smaller businesses are not being asked to absorb unexplained costs.
For clients developing data centers or supplying their power, GMA recommends obtaining a written allocation of responsibility for utility upgrades before describing the project as financially ready. The project budget should distinguish the facility itself from the electricity infrastructure needed to operate it, including costs that may remain if the development changes course.
For local governments, public utilities, and community-serving organizations, the useful question is not simply whether a development brings investment. Ask what the public is being asked to contribute, who benefits, and what protections remain if projected demand or promised investment does not materialize.
This also changes how we would present a funding request. Rather than argue only that a project supports economic growth, show the public benefit, identify the private beneficiary’s contribution, and explain how the proposed public support serves a purpose beyond reducing that beneficiary’s expenses.
Illinois offers a concrete example of where future support is taking shape
Illinois has moved beyond discussion: regulators approved contracts supporting 600 megawatts of new energy storage on September 1, following a competitive purchasing process that sought 1,038 megawatts (Illinois Power Agency). The agency says additional purchases will occur in 2027, with further activity possible in 2028, and cautions that future requirements may differ from the initial round (Illinois Power Agency).
This is not an open construction-grant announcement: the initial competition used 20-year contracts with a defined pricing structure (Illinois Power Agency). The financial question is how the contract’s payments and obligations support a project over time rather than how much grant reimbursement a developer can request.
For storage developers, equipment suppliers, and participating landowners or facilities, our recommendation is to prepare for the announced future purchases rather than treat the completed round as still available. Review the right to use the proposed site, utility connection requirements, project costs, operating assumptions, and the ability to meet a long-term contract.
The shortfall between the initial target and awarded capacity is worth investigating, but it does not prove that the next competition will be easy or that every remaining megawatt is already available to new bidders. The agency plans fall stakeholder feedback to identify barriers and inform future purchases, creating an opportunity for developers to raise documented obstacles before the next requirements are settled (Illinois Power Agency).
For GMA, the broader lesson is to examine state purchasing programs and long-term support arrangements alongside grants. A project may need several kinds of support, but we should evaluate each separately and check whether combining them is permitted.
Nuclear and offshore wind point to the same question: What happens after the announcement?
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has scheduled a September 23 hearing on updating America’s nuclear-waste management policy (Committee hearing schedule). Our interpretation is that congressional attention to nuclear power includes the responsibilities that follow deployment, not just the construction of new reactors; the hearing itself is not a funding award or a new application opportunity.
For clients considering nuclear-related development, workforce partnerships, or supporting infrastructure, GMA recommends defining the exact role they can perform. A credible near-term proposal should identify a customer or public need, the responsible partners, and a realistic work package rather than rely on general enthusiasm for the sector.
Revolution Wind provides a different example of the distance between a major announcement and full delivery: all 65 turbines have been installed, but the September 18 report said full 704-megawatt output was expected later in 2026, after partial generation began in March; the project also faced two stop-work orders during development (CT Mirror). Our takeaway is neither that offshore wind is secure nor that it is unworkable, but that clients must distinguish construction progress from full operation and allow for interruptions even after substantial investment.
GMA recommends separating milestones for approvals, construction, testing, and sustained performance. Budget assumptions and promised public benefits should be tied to the milestone that actually delivers them.
Climate Week is useful for partnerships, not proof that funding is available
The September 21 ClearPath–API Carbon Innovation Forum emphasizes electricity demand, manufacturing, infrastructure, energy security, and the capital needed to bring technologies into commercial use (ClearPath). Our reading is that clients will be better served by explaining a practical customer need, reliable performance, and a workable delivery plan than by relying on broad climate language alone.
For clients attending these events, the best outcome is a specific next step: an identified project partner, a customer willing to examine a purchase, a technical collaborator, or a financing discussion with clear requirements. A conference appearance, expression of interest, or conversation with an agency official should not be described as an endorsement, selection decision, or funding commitment.
What GMA clients should do now
This week’s developments argue for disciplined preparation rather than either waiting for Washington or rushing into every opportunity. GMA’s role is to turn the policy activity into a project-specific decision about what is worth pursuing, what must be resolved first, and what should not yet enter the budget.
The central question is not whether Washington is talking about a client’s industry. It is whether the client has a project that fits a real funding program or contract, can meet its requirements, and can deliver the promised result.
GMA’s recommendation is to use the coming weeks to close those gaps. That work remains valuable whether Congress moves quickly, delays a decision, or changes the terms.