Carlo Ratti argues that while peer review has flaws, the Trump administration’s proposed fix is worse. A regulation under review by the Office of Management and Budget would require a political appointee to certify that every federal research grant 'demonstrably advances the President’s policy priorities' before funding is awarded. The rule could allow funding to be withdrawn whenever political priorities shift.

He notes that the post‑war Vannevar Bush model—government funding, expert judgment, societal benefit—has driven US scientific leadership. Peer review can suffer from herd behavior and ideological bias, but replacing expert judgment with political alignment would encourage researchers to pursue safe, politically palatable projects rather than ambitious, high‑risk ideas that often yield breakthroughs.

Ratti suggests alternatives: splitting peer review into a first stage that checks methodological soundness—potentially aided by AI—and a second stage where findings are debated openly. He points to grant‑lottery systems used in New Zealand and Switzerland for proposals that pass a methodological screen, and to open‑access journals that prioritize sound methods over editorial gatekeeping. The National Science Foundation could support a more heterogeneous set of ideas under this approach.

If the OMB rule stands, the US risks eroding its research advantage. Politicized funding could divert capital from high‑potential areas such as biotech and advanced manufacturing, slowing the pipeline of innovations that underpin productivity gains and long‑term market growth.