DES MOINES, IOWA (October 15, 2026) – United for Cures, a collaborative network of patient advocacy organizations, today released new polling data in battleground Senate states that shows 76% of voters oppose giving political appointees the final authority to award or cancel federal research grants, as proposed by the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in a rulemaking earlier this year. This survey included N=400 interviews with registered voters in Iowa, where 77% of voters oppose the proposal, and demonstrates widespread support for protecting federal medical research funding.

Conducted by Public Opinion Strategies for United for Cures Action between September 30 and October 8, the poll surveyed 1,200 registered voters across Iowa, Kansas, and Ohio, including 400 voters in Iowa. 

Key findings include:

• 77% of Iowa voters oppose allowing any President – Democrat or Republican, now or in the future – and their political appointees to have the final word on canceling or awarding medical research grants, consistent with the 76% of voters across the three states surveyed who oppose the proposal.

• 92% of voters express concern about the proposed Office of Management and Budget (OMB) rule that could allow federally funded clinical trials to be canceled at any time. 66% of voters say they are very concerned.

• 94% of voters say it is important for the federal government to fund medical research in the U.S.

• 9 in 10 voters (90%) believe federal medical research funding meaningfully impacts the development of breakthrough cures and treatments.

“Iowa has one of the highest cancer rates in the country, making the need for continued medical research especially urgent for patients and families across the state,” said Erika Sward, Executive Director of United for Cures. “At a time when researchers are working to better understand what is driving these high rates, while also developing new treatments and cures for diseases like Alzheimer’s, heart and lung diseases, and diabetes, the last thing we should be doing is creating more uncertainty around medical research funding. These findings send a clear message to Iowa’s elected leaders in Washington: Protect research from political interference and ensure scientists have the resources and stability they need to advance lifesaving treatments and cures.”

“The findings in Iowa are consistent with what we are seeing in Ohio and Kansas,” said Jarrett Lewis, Partner at Public Opinion Strategies. “More than three in four Iowa voters (77%) oppose giving political appointees the final say over federal research grants, with similarly strong opposition in Kansas (77%) and Ohio (75%). At a time when Americans are divided on so many issues, these results show widespread opposition to putting medical research decisions in the hands of political appointees.”

In May, the White House Office of Management and Budget proposed changing how federal grants across 42 federal departments and agencies are handled. Currently, federal medical research grant applications undergo independent scientific merit-based review, with final funding decisions made by the directors of the respective research institutes and centers, such as the National Cancer Institute. Under the new proposal, political appointees would have to approve grants to state and local governments, non-profit organizations such as hospitals, and colleges and universities for medical research, and they could cancel them at any time.

Read the full memo here.