Regulations.gov Comments

[200.205, 200.340]<br/><br/>To Whom it May Concern:<br/><br/>I am a PhD Candidate at Boston University studying theoretical particle physics and cosmology, trying to understand the fundamental nature of the universe.<br/><br/>I am writing in my personal capacity to oppose the proposed revisions to sections 200.205 and 200.340 that would undermine the integrity of federal grant review processes and federal science agencies&#39; ability to identify and fund impactful research.<br/><br/>Research is a long process and requires intense effort to make substantive progress. If grants can be terminated for political reasons at any time, fewer discoveries will be made since researchers will not be able to take risks and work on bold ideas that take a long time to implement. For example, my past grant-funded research projects began as something completely different than what they evolved into. Ultimately, however, the end product was more impactful than our original proposal. If grants can be terminated at any time like Section 200.340 proposes, then this impactful research would not have succeeded. <br/><br/>Political interference in scientific grants will upend the scientific process and will greatly inhibit American innovation. The USA is currently a scientific leader, but political interference will cause researchers to take fewer risks and will risk the credibility of science. <b...

I am urging OMB not to adopt this rule. Scientific research must remain unbiased and rigorously peer reviewed. This rule will inject politics into the scientific process, allowing unqualified government officials who lack the training and expertise of actual scientists and researchers to judge the quality of research. As a result, Americans will lose out on significant advances in health care, new ways of treating diseases, and even better ways to grow our food. We will lose quality of life and become poorer and sicker as a result. As an everyday American citizen, I am not a scientific expert in any field, and neither are officials at the OMB. We all will be safer and healthier if science is left to the scientists. I urge the OMB not to implement this rule.

[200.432, 200.454, 200.461, 200.206, 200.450]<br/><br/>To Whom it May Concern:<br/><br/>I am a physicist and chair of my department, working on high-energy physics experiments of national importance.<br/><br/>I am writing in my personal capacity to oppose the proposed revisions to sections 200.432, 200.454, 200.461, 200.206, and 200.450 that would restrict typical professional expenses, curtail the communication of scientific results, and place excessive scrutiny on the activities of scientists.<br/><br/>I am a member of the American Physical Society. This organization has sponsored numerous opportunities for me to present my research at conference and in publication. It provides crucial information about research directions in physics and data and summaries of trends in physics employment and education which have enabled me to make educated decisions about my own career and in the leadership of my department.<br/><br/>Scientific conferences are excellent opportunities to drive results forward and learn of new trends in the field, and to provide a forum where future leaders in the field can emerge. The pace of science is fast, and it can be difficult to predict when a scientific result will be ready to be shown at conference or to know which venues might be the most important in a given year. Trusting scientists with making the decisions about how to use their travel dollars...

[200.205, 200.340]<br/><br/>To Whom it May Concern:<br/><br/>I am currently an adjunct professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at the University of Pennsylvania, culminating a 50 year career working at the research labs of private research companies (Exxon and General Atomics)<br/><br/>I am writing in my personal capacity to oppose the proposed revisions to sections 200.205 and 200.340 that would undermine the integrity of federal grant review processes and federal science agencies&#39; ability to identify and fund impactful research.<br/><br/>During that time I have on the one hand worked on government grants from the Naval Research Laboratory, the National Science Foundation, and the Department of Energy, and on the other reviewed proposals submitted to the NSF and DOE. From both sides I can see that scientific expertise is critical to judging scientific quality. As a reviewer I have seen far too many proposals hoping to get funded by incorporating current buzzwords into a bunch of nonsense. As a proposer I have worked hard to make sure every claim is tempered by evidence.<br/><br/>Serious researchers in science (and students choosing a field) will not choose a field where their developing expertise and knowledge is secondary to the inconstant winds of political fashion.<br/><br/>Political influences will cause the best and brightest of the current and future ...

I strongly urge the OMB to withdraw these new rules giving final grant decisions to political appointees. Science and research depend on independent, free individuals who are experts in very complicated fields. Years of painstaking efforts and careful research are crucial to advancements and data that help millions of people around the globe. A political appointee whose term might be short and whose perspective is narrowed to what political leaders believe is not qualified to evaluate grant requests for scientific research. I strongly object to this approach.

[200.205, 200.340]<br/><br/>To Whom it May Concern:<br/><br/>I am professor of Engineering at Brown University<br/><br/>I am writing in my personal capacity to oppose the proposed revisions to sections 200.205 and 200.340 that would undermine the integrity of federal grant review processes and federal science agencies&#39; ability to identify and fund impactful research.<br/><br/>I currently support a research group of approximately ten scientists preparing to enter the work force in the USA in industry, academic and government service. Terminating active grants will force these scientists to end their training and will prevent them from receiving their degrees, and from contributing to our country&#39;s scientific effort<br/><br/>The current grant review and monitoring has integrity, and has the trust of the scientific community. the proposed rule threatens that, and if adopted will undermine our ability to conduct research at the highest level<br/><br/>

I strongly oppose Russ Vought&#39;s proposed change to the federal grant program, submitted to the federal registry on May 29 of this year. His change to the way grants are awarded is biased and a political quid pro quo system. The current system utilizes experts, who rigorously score applications to select the organizations to be awarded grants that help the neediest of our society. Please do not approve Russ Vought&#39;s Machiavellian agenda.

[200.432, 200.454, 200.461, 200.206, 200.450]<br/><br/>To Whom it May Concern:<br/><br/>I am a graduate student in plasma physics.<br/><br/>I am writing in my personal capacity to oppose the proposed revisions to sections 200.432, 200.454, 200.461, 200.206, and 200.450 that would restrict typical professional expenses, curtail the communication of scientific results, and place excessive scrutiny on the activities of scientists.<br/><br/>Professional societies like the American Physical Society have jump started my career and led me to make meaningful and lasting connections with peer and senior researchers. This network will lead me into a productive research career that will advance science. For example, my leadership on the executive committee of an American Physical Society unit has given me valuable experience in organizing an invited session at the 2026 APS Global Physics Summit, which is the largest gathering of physicists in the world. The proposed changes to Sec. 200.454 would make it harder for me to connect with other researchers through this involvement, since membership would not be as common or widespread as it is now, since the cost is included in grant funding.<br/><br/>Conferences have allowed me to connect with many researchers and get feedback on my work from experts. Without attending these conferences, my research would not be in the state that it is in t...

This proposal would create significant uncertainty for federal grant applicants and awardees and increase administrative and compliance costs for recipients. Additionally, the changes proposed raise questions about expanded potential for political involvement in federal grantmaking by Administrations of either party, which may create greater instability in federal programs. Placing all grantees (including formula grants) under constant threat of penalty or termination, would increase the coercive power of the executive branch over its grantees.Taken together, these two changes would allow a grantmaking process so political as to render it unrecognizable and unfit to effectively deliver for our nation&rsquo;s needs.

[200.205, 200.340]<br/><br/>To Whom it May Concern:<br/><br/>My name is Dr. Kassahun Betre. I am assistant professor of physics at San Jose State University. <br/><br/>I am writing in my personal capacity to oppose the proposed revisions to sections 200.205 and 200.340 that would undermine the integrity of federal grant review processes and federal science agencies&#39; ability to identify and fund impactful research.<br/><br/>If political appointees have authority to override peer review, I have no confidence that the grants I have now supporting my research in quantum gravity would have been funded.<br/><br/>I currently have, and had in the past active grants that supported my research in quantum gravity. If that were to suddenly be terminated, not only will it be disruptive to my research and my career trajectory, it would cause severe hardship to my students supported by the grant. In short that will mean drastic reduction of my research agenda.<br/><br/>Giving political appointees oversight power over scientific review process will lead to a dangerous erosion of scientific merit harkening the times of the communist soviet union. If this were to happen, it will lead me to conclude that I might as well not submit a grant proposal unless the political party of my choice is in power. This will make science a partisan issue. Science can not flourish in such an atmosphere.<b...

[200.205, 200.340]<br/><br/>To Whom it May Concern:<br/><br/>I am a physicist and chair of my department, working on high-energy physics projects of national importance.<br/><br/>I am writing in my personal capacity to oppose the proposed revisions to sections 200.205 and 200.340 that would undermine the integrity of federal grant review processes and federal science agencies&#39; ability to identify and fund impactful research.<br/><br/>Peer review in an essential component to ensure the highest quality of scientific research and the best use of federal funding dollars. Peer review naturally imposes quality control because the reviewers are motivated to see only the most promising research proposals funded as funding for weak proposals reduces the overall pool of funding available for the most promising research. Increasing the role of political appointees is likely to increase centralization which has proven to undermine innovation and slow the process of grant renewals. Likely this undermines the efficiency to which federal research dollars are spent, but also would slow the ability of researchers to respond to new research directions. In my opinion, Section 2 CFR 200.205 moves our processes towards this centralization.<br/><br/>The impacts of research can take years to unfold with many projects requiring a decade or more to yield conclusive results. If the research proce...

[200.300, 200.218]<br/><br/>To Whom it May Concern:<br/><br/>I am a PhD Candidate at Boston University studying theoretical particle physics and cosmology, trying to understand the fundamental nature of the universe.<br/><br/>I am writing in my personal capacity to oppose the proposed revisions to sections 200.300 and 200.218 that would impede STEM recruitment and retention initiatives and restrict certain research fields vital to broadening participation in STEM.<br/><br/>I am currently on the leadership team of Boston University OStem, a group that is open to all and is focused on promoting collaboration and networking between LGBT graduate students. If this organization stopped, there would be fewer opportunities for students like myself to meet other graduate students. These forms of networking and collaboration are crucial to development as scientists and help us improve our work. We are exposed to new ideas and we build new research connections, which substantially improves our work. If such initiatives were stopped, we would become less strong scientists and our work would suffer. <br/><br/>

[200.205, 200.340]<br/><br/>To Whom it May Concern:<br/><br/>I am a retired scientific programmer.<br/><br/>I am writing in my personal capacity to oppose the proposed revisions to sections 200.205 and 200.340 that would undermine the integrity of federal grant review processes and federal science agencies&#39; ability to identify and fund impactful research.<br/><br/>I worked in the healthcare sector, and healthcare is already being broadly impacted by the administration meddling in scientific endeavor. This would just broaden the damage.<br/><br/>Since I am retired, I will not be impacted. But professionals currently doing serious work will be.<br/><br/>Grants should be evaluated by scientists. They should not be subject to the whims of politicians. In addition, research cannot succeed when funds can be withdrawn at any time without notice.<br/><br/>

[200.205, 200.340]<br/><br/>To Whom it May Concern:<br/><br/>I am a PhD Candidate at Boston University studying theoretical particle physics and cosmology, trying to understand the fundamental nature of the universe. <br/><br/>I am writing in my personal capacity to oppose the proposed revisions to sections 200.202(e) and 200.220 that would restrict international scientific collaboration and isolate American scientists.<br/><br/>The U.S. has invested substantially in international infrastructure like the Large Hadron Collider at CERN, the South Pole Telescope, the Atacama Cosmology Telescope, the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope, the Hydrogen Epoch of Reionization Array, and many more. These are the most impactful experiments to my own work, which aims to better understand some of the most fundamental mysteries of Nature. Without US investment, these experiments would not exists and would greatly limit our ability to study the world around us. Also, scientists like myself would lose access to international collaborations, which substantially improves our training and helps us become scientific and technological leaders. <br/><br/>Collaboration is the hallmark of modern science and helps Americans become scientific innovators. Much modern physics infrastructure (see above for a few examples) relies on large collaborations and is necessary to achieve scientific goals. Without...

[200.205, 200.340]<br/><br/>To Whom it May Concern:<br/><br/>I am a full professor of mechanical engineering. <br/><br/>I am writing in my personal capacity to oppose the proposed revisions to sections 200.205 and 200.340 that would undermine the integrity of federal grant review processes and federal science agencies&#39; ability to identify and fund impactful research.<br/><br/>If political appointees have the authority to override peer review, my research in energy storage and energy efficiency might be rejected or cancelled. <br/><br/>If active grants can be terminated at any time for political reasons, the faculty, research staff, postdoc, and student researchers who are supported partly or fully by my grants might suddenly be out of a job and would probably halt their research careers. <br/><br/>Political appointees lack the training to evaluate scientific proposals or projects. The president of the United States is not a king and should not have carte blanche authority over the research that makes our nation prosperous and secure. Checks and balances are fundamental to American democracy. The founding fathers would fiercely condemn the proposed rule. <br/><br/>

Boo! Thumbs down.

[200.205, 200.340]<br/><br/>To Whom it May Concern:<br/><br/>I am Mark Wilson, experimental research phycist (ret.). While at the National Institute of Stadards &amp; Technology, I reviewed an electron beam ring project, studying high current beam instabilities. A graduate student from another country contributed greatly to the project &amp; expressed interest in remaining here. I wrote a letter supporting his intentions.<br/><br/>I am writing in my personal capacity to oppose the proposed revisions to sections 200.205 and 200.340 that would undermine the integrity of federal grant review processes and federal science agencies&#39; ability to identify and fund impactful research.<br/><br/>Termination of beam instability research at NIST would have affected similar work at university &amp; national labs<br/><br/>At present, grant requests are reviewed by experts in the field. Knowing that the grant could be unfunded at any time would make their review process much more difficult. <br/><br/>

I disapprove. Political figures should have no say on what science gets funded. Science benefits us all, and there is no reason for a politician to have the ability to decide against science being done.

[200.205, 200.340]<br/><br/>To Whom it May Concern:<br/><br/>My name is Mauro Rodriguez, I am an assistant professor in engineering working in the area of fluid dynamics.<br/><br/>I am writing in my personal capacity to oppose the proposed revisions to sections 200.205 and 200.340 that would undermine the integrity of federal grant review processes and federal science agencies&#39; ability to identify and fund impactful research.<br/><br/>My fundamental research projects may be shut down despite being approved through a scientific review. Thus, this would limit my ability to produce research outcomes that benefit the protection of the American warfighter, further advance therapies to treat pathogenic tissues (e.g., cancer), and/or investigate fluid mechanics in the human body (e.g., blood through arteries and cerebrospinal fluid in the brain). <br/><br/>Significant research productivity may be delayed, if not stopped, and graduate students would be unable to continue their educational training towards being part of the American workforce.<br/><br/>This rule would undermine the evaluation process that the current scientific community undergoes to align with the national priorities to fund projects that produce valuable results for Americans. The rule will lead to an unstable relationship between scientific researchers and federal agencies for funded projects which may delay,...

I am vehemently opposed to this proposed regulation. I have a PhD in physics, and during my time in graduate school, much of our funding came from the federal government. This type of funding should only be regulated by people who are knowledgeable about the research. It&rsquo;s difficult to take claims of neutral oversight seriously when an official regulatory document reads like a political campaign statement. Terms such as &ldquo;woke agenda,&rdquo; &ldquo;far-left activists,&rdquo; and &ldquo;anti-American ideologies&rdquo; are ideological characterizations, not regulatory findings. Federal rulemaking should be grounded in evidence, legality, and measurable performance, and not partisan language.

I respectfully oppose the proposed revision to 2 CFR &sect;200.432 that would limit allowable conference costs to those that are expressly approved by the Federal agency and included in the terms and conditions of the Federal award.<br/><br/>While accountability for federal funds is important, this proposed change would create significant administrative burden for school districts without a corresponding improvement in fiscal stewardship. Districts already operate under extensive federal, state, and local oversight requirements and must demonstrate that all expenditures are reasonable, necessary, allocable, and aligned with program objectives.<br/><br/>Requiring explicit Federal agency approval for conference attendance would add another layer of review and documentation, increasing the workload of grant managers, fiscal officers, and program administrators. District personnel would be required to review award conditions, seek additional guidance from state and federal agencies, document approvals, and potentially amend budgets or grant applications before participating in professional development activities. These administrative requirements would divert limited staff time and resources away from serving students and implementing federally funded programs.<br/><br/>The proposal would also delay access to professional development opportunities that are essential to the effec...

[200.205, 200.340]<br/><br/>To Whom it May Concern:<br/><br/>I am an Assistant Professor in Energy Materials <br/><br/>I am writing in my personal capacity to oppose the proposed revisions to sections 200.202(e) and 200.220 that would restrict international scientific collaboration and isolate American scientists.<br/><br/>Many international collaborations with leading researchers from across the globe; UK, Japan, France, Germany, Ireland, Canada, China, Spain... These have led to major scientific breakthroughs (such as the achievement of world-record solar cell efficiencies)<br/><br/>CERN as the obvious one. Many world-leading scientific facilities reside outside the US. Goodwill and collaboration are key to ensuring the US remains at the forefront of global science &ndash; China is catching up by being more open to collaboration<br/><br/>Depends on the country. There are good people and excellent scientists in countries like China and Russia, who do not support the regime and whose collaborative research efforts benefit humanity. Of course, care should be taken that collaboration is not deceptively used for nefarious purposes (e.g. weapons), but blanket bans are silly<br/><br/>This rule will further damage the US position as the global leader in science, pushing global partners to collaborate with China and other adversaries. <br/><br/>

To: Office of Management and Budget (OMB)<br/>Re: Public Comment in Strong Opposition to Docket ID: OMB-2026-0034 (Proposed Revisions to 2 CFR Part 200)<br/><br/>I am submitting this comment to express my unequivocal opposition to the proposed revisions to the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Docket OMB-2026-0034).<br/><br/>While the stated goal of this proposal is to improve transparency and accountability, the actual text of the rule fundamentally corrupts the federal grant-making process. By stripping decision-making power from subject-matter experts and placing it in the hands of political appointees, this regulation institutionalizes severe conflicts of interest and blatantly violates existing statutory and constitutional law.<br/><br/>The proposed rule must be withdrawn in its entirety.<br/><br/>I. Institutionalized Conflicts of Interest and the Destruction of Peer Review<br/><br/>The proposed changes to &sect;200.205(b) &mdash; which would allow senior political appointees to control competitive award decisions and disregard peer-review recommendations &mdash; represent a catastrophic introduction of conflict of interest into the federal research enterprise.<br/><br/>* **Political Patronage Over Merit:** Federal research grants are funded by taxpayer dollars and are meant to advance objective scientific, ...

I oppose to handing political appointees the power to cancel or deny grants without independent appeal !!!! Ending merit-based peer review will specifically harm our education, healthcare and science fields impacting our community. It is crucial that objective criteria and nonpartisan scientific consensus remain the foundation for federal funding. All people involved in this type of actions should be processed. This type of political scheme is seen in dictorship where is the democracy our country has provided for so long ..... gone . Demonstrate we are still in democracy by blocking this federal grant rule now!!!

[200.205, 200.340]<br/><br/>To Whom it May Concern:<br/><br/>I am a retired physicist/climate scientist.<br/><br/>I am writing in my personal capacity to oppose the proposed revisions to sections 200.205 and 200.340 that would undermine the integrity of federal grant review processes and federal science agencies&#39; ability to identify and fund impactful research.<br/><br/>It very possible many grants in my career would not have been approved.<br/><br/>My past research likely would not have been done. If grants can be terminated for political reasons, American science severely suffers. Science is NOT political. It is based solely on data.<br/><br/>Political interference threatens scientific integrity by putting partisan agendas above objective data. When funding depends on ideology rather than peer review, vital public health and environmental research stalls. This focus on political convenience ultimately erodes public trust and delays life-saving breakthroughs.<br/><br/>

I am submitting this comment in strong opposition to the proposed rule published by the Office of Management and Budget on May 29, 2026 (Docket OMB-2026-0034).<br/>I am a Senior Program Manager at the Institute for Public Health Innovation (IPHI), a regional public health institute serving communities across Washington, DC, Maryland, and Virginia. My portfolio includes federally funded programs spanning lead poisoning prevention, gun violence prevention, community health worker workforce development, nursing pipeline initiatives, and coalition-based primary care access. In each of these areas, federal grants are not just a funding source &mdash; they are the infrastructure that allows us to hire staff, build community trust, and sustain evidence-based interventions in communities that have been historically underserved.<br/>Political appointees should not override scientific peer review.<br/>The provision requiring senior political appointee review and approval of discretionary awards &mdash; with appointees explicitly empowered to disregard peer review recommendations &mdash; is a fundamental departure from evidence-based grantmaking. The integrity of expert review is what makes federal awards defensible and effective. Giving political appointees authority to override that process does not improve accountability. It politicizes it.<br/>Grant stability is essential to progra...

Federal grants support the work behind medical progress, clinical trials, student training, and discoveries that eventually help patients and families.<br/>But this is not only about scientists or universities. Federal grants also support health care, education, housing, transportation, nonprofits, community programs, and public services that affect millions of Americans!!

As a scientist, researcher, and teacher, I urge you to reject this proposal. It is imperative that review of scientific funding, peer review, and publication decisions are controlled by unbiased experts who understand the science and make decisions based on evidence and data, rather than on political considerations. Science helps everyone live better lives, and should be free to continue to do so without fear or favor of political control or censorship.

It is inappropriate, short sighted, and ultimately does not serve the public when a political litmus test becomes the overriding factor in deciding which research gets conducted. As a scientist it is appalling that this regressive proposal would make it this far. The Soviets failed miserably when they instituted centralized policies like this. The progress of our great United States would also be set back decades by stifling critical research just because a politician felt it didn&rsquo;t march in lock step with their personal ideology.

I am a researcher in astrophysics and strongly oppose the proposed changes to federal grant regulations. My work depends on competitive peer-reviewed funding, access to scientific conferences, publication of research results, and collaboration with researchers across institutions and countries. The proposed rules would undermine these fundamental components of the scientific enterprise.<br/><br/>I am particularly concerned about provisions that would allow political appointees to override peer-review recommendations and permit grants to be terminated after awards have been made. Scientific funding should be based on scientific merit, technical feasibility, and potential impact, not changing political priorities. The possibility of discretionary grant termination would create uncertainty for ongoing research programs and discourage long-term scientific projects.<br/><br/>I am also concerned by restrictions on conference participation, publication costs, and international collaboration. Scientific conferences are essential for sharing results, obtaining feedback, building collaborations, and training the next generation of researchers. Likewise, publications are the primary mechanism by which scientific knowledge is disseminated and evaluated. Limiting support for these activities would reduce the impact and visibility of federally funded research.<br/><br/>Modern scientific r...

&quot;...to instead support favored identity groups and left-wing activists.&quot; Just stop with this sick joke and let adults with actual intellectual capacity and social responsibility handle research funding. History will not look kindly back on your best efforts to impose your right-wing fever dream on the rigorous knowledge production process. In plain words: &quot;Have some sense of shame. Or at least, start getting educated on what shame means.&quot;

As a physician practicing medicine for 40 years I have witnessed first hand the impact evidence-based research has had on my patients disease outcomes I am alarmed at what transpired at the ADA meeting this month! Academic freedom and first amendment rights must be protected Innovation, creativity, collaboration with our international colleagues, and freedom to pursue research initiatives is mandatory of our country and her people Give political appointees veto power over any federally funded science awards, which would subvert all scientific merit and program priority reviews Will these appointees have the expertise in specific areas competing for awards? Will they have advanced degrees in science such as PhD or MD ?If not how can the objectively evaluate proposals? Without objectivity there is no science. Politics has not place in science! Granting research awards based on it demonstrably advance the President&#39;s policy &quot; must NOT be a requirement of a scientific study There is not reason other than suppression of advancement of science. Science gives us objective conclusions based on data not on loyalty to a particular person or party!

Hey this is an absolutely awful rule. Please do NOT pass it. This would destroy all DEI related initiatives, and researchers will not be able to publish without permission and important topics could be completely restricted at a whim. This goes against our right to free speech and equality. I am disabled, a college student, and am directly, negatively affected by this. I could very well be completely shut out of every job I ever apply to because DEI would be functionally useless. I would stop being able to afford college. Please stop this. So many people are going to lose everything.

Re: Public Comment on Proposed Rule OMB-2026-0034<br/><br/>To Whom It May Concern:<br/><br/> <br/><br/>I am a Pediatric Emergency Medicine Physician, and I am concerned about several provisions in OMB-2026-0034 that could undermine the integrity and effectiveness of federally funded research and public health programs. <br/><br/>Federal grant funding should be awarded based on scientific merit and expert peer review. Allowing political appointees greater control over funding decisions, reducing the influence of peer review, and permitting the termination of active grants creates uncertainty for researchers and institutions working to improve the health and safety of children and families.<br/><br/> <br/><br/>I am also concerned that applicants could be denied funding based on affiliations related to civil rights or public health activities. Grant decisions should be based on the quality and potential impact of the proposed work, not on lawful professional affiliations or advocacy efforts. Politicizing this process will undermine the rigor and quality that is so necessary to produce sound recommendations that impact children&#39;s lives.<br/><br/> <br/><br/>In addition, restrictions on public communication and outreach could limit the ability of researchers and public health professionals to share evidence-based information with the communities they serve. Transparency and op...

Hello, physician and scientist here. The proposed OMB rule is a complete disaster, and could mean the end of American science dominance as we know it. 10,000 PhD&rsquo;s have already left their jobs or been fired, and 75% of those remaining are considering moving abroad. This will worsen substantially if this rule is passed. It will have an adverse effect on young and talented Americans choosing to pursue PhD&rsquo;s. Young investigators cannot deal with more funding uncertainty than there already is. Federal bureaucrats who are not MD or PhD themselves should not be deciding what gets funded and not. Collaboration with science teams in other countries should not be unnecessarily restricted. Scientists should also be able to pursue the topics they think will bear the most fruit, and not have to change their pursuits to line up with the government priorities of whomever happens to be in office at the time. <br/><br/>This is a highly foolish proposal that will do irreparable harm to American science and medicine. I urge you to NOT proceed with this. Please consult actual American physicians and scientists about how to best proceed. This needs canceled and re done immediately.<br/><br/>Thank You<br/><br/>Dr Aaron Persinger MD

, June 17, 2026 at 12:36:12<br/>Changes proposed under &sect;&thinsp;200.421 badly misunderand the role of scientific publications. These are very important for conducting science, as they are the main method for making results known so that others can refute them, expand upon them, contact the scientist-authors in order to plan future studies or to correct errors, and countless other aspects. Publications in peer-review articles are the main means for scientists to learn about errors in methods or in inference that they do not recognize in their own work. This proposed change does the opposite of what is intended &ndash; it will not &ldquo;ensure that Federal financial assistance is directed toward achieving the programmatic objectives of the award,&rdquo; but rather it will diminish the effectiveness, accuracy and quality of the research grant award. Exactly contrary to what is stated, publication costs are in fact both inherent and necessary to carry out the core programmatic objectives of most Federal awards. Likewise for changes under Section 200.432&mdash;Conferences; it is unworkable for the scientific team to know years in advance which specific conferences will be most suitable, or even which meetings will be held, when they prepare their funding application and determine the terms and conditions of the award; to obtain permission retroactively is both an infri...

To &quot;Make America Healthy Again&quot; there must be funding for health research to be able to keep and make America healthy. Not only is cancer research critical, there are many many important diseases and studies to be done that will be highly impacted by this rule. We need to prevent this from happening!

[200.205, 200.340]<br/><br/>To Whom it May Concern:<br/><br/>I am an assistant professor in biophysics.<br/><br/>I am writing in my personal capacity to oppose the proposed revisions to sections 200.205 and 200.340 that would undermine the integrity of federal grant review processes and federal science agencies&rsquo; ability to identify and fund impactful research.<br/><br/>If political appointees have the authority to override peer review, it will amount to censorship of science and will introduce a degree of partisan control over what and where grants gets funded. There will be no stopping political appointees from rejecting grants from institutions they don&#39;t like or states that are governed by political opponents. Peer review has its flaws, but it is the best system we have that has led to science in the US flourishing over the last many decades. This change will be a self-inflicted wound at a time when Chinese scientific enterprise is already getting ahead of the US in many fields, including in fundamental biology and biophysics. <br/><br/>If grants can be terminated at any time for political reasons, it would make it impossible to plan and execute long term projects and to hire trainees for the duration of those projects. PhD students and postdocs need stable funding outlook to invest their time and energy into specific research projects, and this change would mak...

I am a faculty member at an R1 university. I work in the social sciences on issues of housing affordability, residential mobility programs, and expanding access to homeownership. My research has been supported by the National Science Foundation, and my institution receives around $500 million in active federal awards each year. <br/>I write to share my grave concerns with the proposed Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance. If implemented, the revised OMB guidance will politicize the grant-making process and irreparably harm American science. The following provisions, in my view, are the most urgent to remove or rewrite. <br/>200.205 inserts senior political appointees into every stage of the award process, effectively overriding scientific peer review. The proposed provision will bypass merit-based assessments and independent, technical judgment. The highest quality science follows wherever the data and most rigorous research designs lead them and is not constrained by a priori determinations of legitimate or illegitimate lines of inquiry based on political priorities. I urge the OMB to strike all subsections subordinating expert peer review. <br/>200.340 would allow agencies to terminate active awards on the basis of changing agency priorities. The threat of terminating an award would make it extremely difficult for me to plan for and pursue longer-term projects&mdash;w...

This proposed funding change is awful for maintaining science research in the US. As a researcher, seeing that research grants no longer being decided by researcher peers and instead will be decided by government officials undermines all of US research (&sect;200.205), (&sect;200.205(d)). The ability for grants to be taken away with minimal notice will also devastate labs looking to secure funding for graduate students, postdocs, and research staff as they can no longer make long term plans for future projects (&sect;200.340). These propose changes, including many not mentioned, will ruin publicly funded research in the US.

Let me begin by saying I am young. I&#39;m a college student studying the sciences, studying conservation and Entomology. Insects are my passion. I love creatures and the natural world like so many proud Americans before me. How can such important research survive in a world where the peer to peer system of science is replaced by one based on political agendas? Politics needs to be distinctly separate. If Americans want to create advancements that make us the best scientists in the world, not just in conversation or Entomology but in every field out there, with so much more groundbreaking research to be done, how can we expect to do so in a world where a biased cabinet on any part of the political spectrum can strike down research they don&#39;t like, or worse, have a stake in stopping?

After reviewing a summary on these proposed changes, a few things are concerning to me. 200.111 seems as if it will no longer allow documents to be in any other language in addition to English. This seems like a limitation to many of the public that has a different first language. It takes at least 5 years in immersion to get a good grasp on a new language, let alone one as difficult as English. Where would many of us be if our ancestors had not had that help of thing being translated? The next thing that I question is 200.204 (a)(1). What could potential threat could possibly be had from simply listing the federal funding opportunities on grants.gov, where many non-profits and other institutions go to get additional funding to help with programs that benefit the citizens of our nation? It made me wonder if this could be a way for other government agencies to ensure that they would get the funds as they would not have any competition due to the opportunity being unknown. 200.205 list the President&rsquo;s policy priorities as the first criteria, which seems very self-serving and not in the interest of the nation, and (iv) verbiage &quot;promote anti-American values&quot; is not only vague, but not a realistic criteria as many Americans have different values. This leaves an opening for bias and potential civil unrest. The way 200.300 is worded- &lsquo;diversity, equity, inclu...

As an academic library director, I am interested in this regulation because it has the potential to distort and censor scholarly communication.<br/>In particular, I am concerned about the to turn what is currently guidance into politically restrictive censorship and unstable funding for already federally approved research, along with restricting federal funding from being used to support publication of federally funded research. Research has shown that the United States research outputs are already in decline due to research federal policy changes. This reduces the global influence of the United States and our reputation for academic excellence. Here are a couple of citations to evidence showing this decline: https://www.aau.edu/newsroom/leading-research-universities-report/university-leaders-sound-alarm-over-slow-release<br/>Before the Exodus? Young Scientists and the Future of US Science https://www.nber.org/papers/w35330<br/><br/>Your own guidelines for Public Comment (https://www.regulations.gov/assets/files/Public-Comment-on-Federal-Regulations_Final.pdf) requests &quot;citations to any helpful research)&mdash;for example, how the action impacts you and what you care about; whether the agency anticipated or estimated these impacts correctly and any unintended consequences of this approach that the agency did not consider&quot;. If research is stifled and censored per ...

This comment is in response to section 200.205. This provision requires senior political appointees to conduct review of grants, along with prohibiting them to defer to peer reviewers, and conflicts with the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 289a), which establishes peer review by qualified experts as the basis for NIH funding decisions. I am an early-career researcher and student that has worked under multiple NIH grants in a variety of disciplines, including cardiovascular health, psychophysiology, aging, and metabolic health. I am also a young person that loves his country very much, and now I fear greatly for the future of our healthcare and public health research with the threat of these provisions being active. The unmatched stature of our nation&#39;s biomedical research will vanish with the removal of peer-review practices that omit any political biases. Not only will we fall deeply behind in the global landscape of research, but we are putting citizens in harms way under the guidance of uninformed political actors. When we push away the young talent that believe in scientific integrity with these abhorrent premises, Americans will suffer. When we put the future of US biomedical research in the hands of politicians with crooked incentives, Americans will suffer. When we actively destroy the credibility of American science in the global stage, which has been an abs...

I am writing to comment on the U.S. Office of Management and Budget proposed rule to make journal publication costs unallowable under federal awards, among other outcomes. I am writing as an individual scholar and museum anthropologist.<br/>Federal research funding represents a substantial public investment. Its value is realized not when research is &ldquo;completed,&rdquo; but when findings are shared and therefore open to critique and to build upon. I believe prohibiting the use of federal grant funds for publication-related expenses would create new barriers to disseminating federally supported research, especially for scholars and the interested public with fewer resources; early-career researchers; and those working in disciplines where grant funding is already modest.<br/>The proposal also risks narrowing the range of publication options available to researchers, siloing research and concentrating commercial publishers&rsquo; power. Decisions about where and how to publish should be guided by fit, audience, and peer review, not by whether an individual scholar, or particular publisher, can subsidize costs of dissemination.<br/>Federal agencies invest in research because new knowledge benefits society. Publication is not superficial to that goal. It is the principal means by which that goal is achieved. For that reason, I urge OMB to reconsider this proposed restrictio...

As a woman who is 75, I have developed a renewed appreciation for the science/medicine that continues to improve my life and the lives of so many of my peers who are in a similar age group. The value of the research necessary for these medical improvements is immeasurable. I fully support funding these resources and am saddened to frequently see some of this funding politicized. I strongly believe that politics has NO place in this arena. The research needed to improve all lives needs to be a priority for all of us.

June 17, 2026<br/><br/>My name is Julia Sterkovsky. I&rsquo;m 65 years old and live in Ohio. Without federally funded medical research I would have died at the age of 38 when my kidneys failed. I&rsquo;m commenting because I am worried about the negative impact of proposed changes to federal research funding.<br/><br/>These three things would change under the proposed rules and these three things would severely undermine the effectiveness of federally funded research.<br/><br/>1)<span style='padding-left: 30px'></span>Political appointees without an understanding of science would decide which science gets funded, and peer review would be explicitly sidelined or ignored. (&bull; &sect;200.205)<br/><br/>2)<span style='padding-left: 30px'></span>Grants could be canceled at any point, without warning, in the middle of ongoing work which is a disincentive to begin work under those conditions and which will waste years of work already done, but which is without scientific value at that incomplete stage. (&bull; &sect;200.340)<br/><br/>3)<span style='padding-left: 30px'></span>Researchers would have a harder time communicating their findings without pre-approval from the federal government which would: <br/>&bull;<span style='padding-left: 30px'></span>Make it more difficult for scientists to widely share their findings in scientific journals. <br/>&bull;<span style='padding-left: ...

As a scientific researcher with over 20 years of experience in my field, I strongly oppose this change to the policies governing review and award of NIH extramural funding. Scientific research must always be pursued in service to the public good. This unassailable mission requires a balance of exploratory and incremental research, of basic and translational research. It also requires a long-term view, where we invest in meritorious scientific proposals, done rigorously by capable individuals and teams, beyond the mercurial whims of political actors. Placing political oversight at the level of individual grants, with few or no restrictions upon why these grants may be terminated, threatens the future of scientific research. It is not hyperbole to say that this change will cost human lives, as it will place important scientific projects (such as curing cancer, detecting and treating neurodegenerative disease, and preventing the next pandemic) at the mercy of politics. This is particularly dangerous at our current moment, when this policy will no doubt be used to silence scientists and academics by threatening their work in response to what should be protected speech.

Proposed &sect;&thinsp;200.220 languages prohibits recipients will chill recipient&rsquo;s ability and willingness to engage in support bilateral or multilateral collaborations, agreements, programs, or activities outside of the US. This is said to apply whether the funds are used directly, or whether they are used &ldquo;indirectly,&rdquo; the latter being a completely ill defined and hard-to-understand criterion. It specifically says that &ldquo;The prohibition would apply regardless of whether Federal funds are used for direct programmatic activities, research, technical assistance, travel, or indirect costs allocable to such collaborations.&rdquo; This is clearly an unwise and unworkable policy as it would seem to prohibit freedom of association, freedom of communication, and exchange of ideas, technologies and materials even for projects that fall outside of the scope of the federally funded project. Staff and faculty of research institutions are almost always partially funded through federal and other governmental support, and also through non-grant funds including student tuition, endowments and investment income, clinical income to the medical center, etc. They are not employees of the government nor is it possible for each of their activities, written statements, speeches, presentations, conference-organizing activities, and the like to fully and clearly attri...

The last OMB revisions largely supported streamlining funding, eliminating administrative burden, simplification, and standardization. Those updates were incredibly helpful and focused on ensuring citizens in the community received the greatest impact. These new proposed revisions are entirely political and do more to hurt communities than they do to help them. This effort to ratify questionable and unfavorable executive orders through law is a weak attempt at forcing one president&#39;s opinion onto the entire country. I strongly oppose these revisions as outlined below:<br/><br/>[&sect; 200.206] Federal agency review of risk posed by applicants: While assessing risk IS necessary and required, the new factors for risk review are overreaching and do not align with the requirements for the risk assessments of subrecipients. While financial capacity is important and I agree with a shift more towards output and goals instead of just compliance, an organization&#39;s affiliations, goals, or practices when spending general fund/ local dollars should in no way impact their ability to receive federal funding. In addition, a risk assessment is not used to determine funding eligibility and should only be used to determine the level of support or supervision required by the grantor. The goal for grant funding is to help the community and a part of doing this is building capacity for ...