Two major federal research agencies announced procedural shifts that affect grant timelines and review practices. The National Science Foundation told program officers to reduce external review burdens—allowing some proposals to proceed with two external reviews or an internal substitute—to process a backlog created by the government shutdown. NSF framed the move as a temporary, efficiency measure but warned PIs to expect longer, variable review paths. At the National Institutes of Health, internal guidance directed staff to use computational text‑analysis tools to flag proposals containing phrases the agency views as potentially misaligned with priorities; media coverage described this as part of a broader review of topics such as 'structural racism' and 'health equity.' NIH officials said the tools are intended to help identify programs that require closer administrative review or dialogue prior to funding. Researchers and university research offices said the changes increase uncertainty for competitive funding cycles and urged clear communication about how flagged proposals will be handled to avoid chilling lines of inquiry.