Two major federal research funders moved this week to reshape grant review and oversight. The National Science Foundation issued internal guidance allowing program officers to expedite decisions by reducing external reviews to a minimum of two reviewers or substituting internal review for one external assessment, citing a shutdown‑related backlog and staffing shortfalls. Separately, the National Institutes of Health circulated guidance directing staff to use a computational text‑analysis tool to search grant applications for phrases the agency views as misaligned with priorities, and to flag proposals for additional review or potential termination. These procedural changes—reported by Science and STAT—could speed award actions but raise concerns among researchers about consistency, review rigor and the politicization of discretionary funding priorities.