Earlier quoted context omitted.
This thinking is completely backward. If there is an established threshold, and you want to change it, it is on you to do the homework to determine that the lower threshold will be sufficient and won't cause harm. It's not the responsibility of the people currently doing research (the way they've done so for years) to justify the current threshold.
The executive in charge of the grant-giving agencies changed policy — after looking at rates from other grants, which fell in the 10-15% range. If you want the public to believe that was wrong, you’ll need to make that case.
Is there actual evidence that shows there was an issue that needed to be immediately addressed the way it was? Some evidence of "fraud" perhaps ?