Federal research agencies adjusted grant-review practices after the government shutdown and amid shifting policy priorities. The National Science Foundation issued internal guidance reducing the minimum external reviews for full proposals to two reviewers and permitting an internal review to substitute for an external review in some cases—moves intended to clear pandemic- and shutdown-related backlogs. Separately, NIH circulated guidance encouraging staff to use computational text-analysis tools to flag proposals for phrases or themes potentially misaligned with agency priorities, prompting debate over algorithmic triage and academic freedom. Researchers and research administrators cautioned that these operational changes could affect award fairness, peer-review robustness and interdisciplinary proposals that use emerging terminology. Sponsored-research offices should track agency guidance closely, document review outcomes, and prepare appeals or rebuttals where computational filters or reduced review panels could disadvantage complex, cross-disciplinary grant applications.