Regulations.gov Comments

As a physician and professor who does research I am very concerned about the OMB's proposal related to section 2.(200.205(d)) making Peer Review No Longer Binding in grant making decisions. Only scientists and researchers with training in scientific methodology should have the power to determine whether a grant uses sound science methodology and has the potential to address scientific knowledge gaps. Giving the ultimate power to a politician to decide grant funding is ridiculous and will lead to our amazing country falling behind on science that can save lives. Would you trust a politician to make decisions about your personal cancer treatment? or therapy for a chronic disease. Also in section (200.206) the proposal allows scientists to be denied funding based on their organizational affiliations. There are many amazing scientists who may have differing opinions on politics that me, but they are still amazing scientists whose work can save lives. Potentially disqualifying researchers who are affiliated with civil rights, environmental, or public health advocacy organizations is very concerning and can limit free speech. I am also concerned about (200.432) which will make it difficult for researchers to attend conferences to share their research findings with their peers and have peer review. Similarly not being able to use research funds for open access publicat...

This is a heinous, vile and undemocratic move from an autocratic and fascistic administration. Making federal aid contingent on compliance with this administration&#39;s narrow and unscientific gender ideology is illegal and adds barriers to care for some the most vulnerable Americans. Coersing ideological compliance is basely unamerican. The purpose of the first amendment of our Bill of Rights is to prevent this and similar coersions. Bostock v. Clayton County confirmed this in the court&#39;s conclusion that discrimination against Trans, Intersex, and Nonbinary individuals is a novel, but prohibited form of sex discrimination.<br/><br/>It&#39;s a bad enough rule that we already have case law ready to abolish it. You will lose this fight. Back off.

The proposed rule, formally titled &quot;Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance,&quot; rewrites the government-wide framework governing all federal grants across every agency. <br/><br/>Among its most consequential provisions, it requires that before a federal grant recipient can receive money, the award must pass a &quot;pre-issuance review&quot; conducted by a political appointee&mdash;not a career expert or peer reviewer&mdash;to ensure it is &quot;consistent with applicable law, Federal agency priorities, and the national interest.&quot; <br/><br/>The regulation explicitly instructs these appointees to screen for &quot;denial by the recipient of the sex binary in humans or the notion that sex is a chosen or mutable characteristic.&quot; [...] <br/><br/>An institution that acknowledges transgender people exist&mdash;through its policies, its training, its healthcare, its bathroom access, its HR procedures, its name-change processes&mdash;could be deemed to &quot;deny the sex binary&quot; or to &ldquo;support the notion that sex is mutable&rdquo; and have its federal funding blocked.<br/><br/>Importantly, the gender ideology prohibition has no age limitation&mdash;hospitals could be targeted not just for providing care to minors but for providing gender-affirming care to adults, because prescribing hormone therapy to a transgender patient of any age could be deemed pr...

Office of Management and Budget<br/>Re: Proposed Revisions to 2 CFR Part 200 (Uniform Guidance)<br/><br/>To Whom It May Concern:<br/><br/>I am writing to express my fervent opposition to the Office of Management and Budgets proposed revisions to the Uniform Guidance. The proposed changes would undermine the U.S. research enterprise, weaken America as a global scientific leader, and jeopardize the innovations that drive economic growth, improve public health, and strengthen national security.<br/><br/>The United States is a world leader in scientific discovery because of a research ecosystem built on rigorous peer review, stable federal investment, international collaboration, and the freedom to pursue evidence-based inquiry. OMBs proposed revisions threatens the viability of this enterprise.<br/><br/>Harm to research stability and scientific merit<br/><br/>Scientific discovery requires long-term investment and stability: researchers spend years developing projects, building collaborations, training personnel, and generating data before breakthroughs occur. The proposal would expand the government&#39;s authority to suspend, terminate, or otherwise disrupt research awards based on subjective criteria and priorities. This would create significant barriers to progress for researchers and institutions. <br/><br/>Project funding should not be interrupted for reasons unrelated to ...

Making federal aid contingent on compliance with this administration&#39;s narrow and unscientific gender ideology is illegal, and adds barriers to care for some the most vulnerable Americans. Coersing ideological compliance is profoundly unamerican. The purpose of the first amendment of our Bill of Rights is to prevent this and similar coersions. Bostock v. Clayton County confirmed this in the court&#39;s conclusion that discrimination against Trans, Intersex, and Nonbinary individuals is a novel, but prohibited form of sex discrimination.<br/><br/>It&#39;s a bad enough rule that we already have case law ready to abolish it. Save the taxpayer some money and don&#39;t litigate against the rights of American citizens.

As a resident of the state of New York, this proposed regulation violates my state constitution which prohibits all employers and organizations from discriminating against people on the basis of gender identity. The regulation would infringe upon rights not specifically enumerated in the constitution which are reserved for the states. These protections exist in the constitutions of a number of states, including Nevada and Montana; as such this proposed regulation effectively proposes disqualifying organizations serving more than half the population of the country from receiving Federal aid. It is unworkable and blatantly political in nature, and attempting to defend it is a waste of the tax dollars it would forbid spending in my home state.

Transgender people should be entitled to all the same rights the rest of the population enjoy. They contribute to society, and they pay tax. It is wrong and unchristian to discriminate against them just because they are born different.

As a civil engineer deeply invested in the future of our infrastructure and innovation, I&rsquo;m concerned that the proposed changes to the Uniform Guidance will undermine the technical rigor and long-term vision that federal R&amp;D demands. Peer review exists for a reason &mdash; it ensures that funding goes to the most qualified teams, not the most politically convenient. Shifting decision-making power to non-technical appointees risks turning critical research into a political tool, which could delay or derail projects essential to public safety, climate resilience, and technological advancement. We need stewards of science, not gatekeepers of ideology. Let&rsquo;s keep the cooks in the kitchen who actually know how to follow the recipe &mdash; and improve it.<br/><br/>As a civil engineer, I strongly oppose the proposed rule titled &ldquo;Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance,&rdquo; recently issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), as it would significantly undermine the integrity, effectiveness, and global competitiveness of the United States&rsquo; scientific and engineering enterprise.<br/><br/>If adopted, the transformative rule would grant political appointees sweeping authority over the approval of active and pending federal grants, diminishing the critical role of independent peer review in federal funding decisions. It would also impose restri...

As a taxpaying, law-abiding American citizen, I strongly oppose this proposed regulation and demand immediate reconsideration due to the multiple civil rights this violates. Your only sources and citations for each and every claim is based on only the language and content of an executive order less than two years old. This does not fill me with confidence as for the underlying purposes and goals of this regulation.<br/><br/>&quot;These [DEI] policies were inconsistent with basic American values and civil rights laws, including the equal protection principles of the U.S. Constitution.&quot; The demand of appraisal for non-DEI ideologies and policies in order to allow a federal grant is, by definition, unequal and a violation of civil law and equal opportunity.<br/><br/>&quot;All together, these policies wasted a large amount of American taxpayer resources and significantly undermined public trust in government across the country.&quot; What is the direct source of this statement? What are the statistics on the amount of taxpayer dollars that went to DEI programs versus how many of those funded programs were considered &#39;wasteful&#39;? How much sustained financial support did these programs receive in direct comparison to other similarly, federally funded grants NOT DEI focused? <br/><br/>&quot;This rulemaking proposes to institutionalize needed reforms in the Federal grant...

Another example of this administration really going all in on fascism. The people behind this are truly the worst our species has to offer. Trans people deserve the same rights as everyone else, and to mandate that people have to publicly denounce them to get federal funding is truly a nightmare. We are living in the darkest timeline and this administration is just making it darker and darker. Shame on them.

As a civil engineer, I strongly oppose the proposed rule titled &ldquo;Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance,&rdquo; recently issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), as it would significantly undermine the integrity, effectiveness, and global competitiveness of the United States&rsquo; scientific and engineering enterprise.<br/><br/>If adopted, the transformative rule would grant political appointees sweeping authority over the approval of active and pending federal grants, diminishing the critical role of independent peer review in federal funding decisions. It would also impose restrictions on international collaboration and threaten the financial sustainability of organizations that administer independent scientific review and disseminate research findings. Collectively, these changes would erode the independence, evidence-based evaluation, and outcome-driven focus that are foundational to scientific progress.<br/><br/>Civil engineers are stewards of the nation&rsquo;s built environment. To protect public safety and do our work effectively, we rely on rigorous, peer-reviewed research to design, build, and maintain safe, resilient infrastructure. Scientific and engineering progress also depends on global collaboration that draws on the best expertise and innovation. By limiting international partnerships, the proposed rule would restrict knowledge-sharin...

I absolutely disagree with this regulation. It denys our rights to liberty, freedom of speech, and bodily autonomy.

I am writing as a concerned citizen of the United States of America regarding the Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance. The proposed rule claims to end federal funding to &quot;unlawful and discriminatory&quot; DEI programs across the country, but fails to recognize that these programs are dedicated to protecting the essential civil liberties of all citizens, not just those that the GOP approves of. <br/><br/>I am most concerned about the provisions regarding &quot;gender ideology&quot;, essentially forcing institutions to deny the existence of transgender and intersex individuals in order to receive federal grants. Countless scientific studies have proven not only the legitimacy of gender dysphoria and transgender identity, but that social and medical transition are highly effective in improving the lives of those who chose to utilize it. Furthermore, the inclusion of statements about the immutability of the sex binary explicitly counters the established fact that human anatomy is far more varied than a simple checkbox, allowing those with sexual characteristics outside of the established binary to receive medical care that is tailored to their unique needs. To deny the existence of transgender identity, and to compel independent organizations to do so as well, refutes decades of research and scientific advancement in order to advance conservative dogma. <br/><br/>T...

Comment on Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance (Docket OMB-2026-0034, 91 FR 32198)<br/>I am a physician and researcher whose work focuses on patient safety and quality of care for patients who speak a language other than English, including the measurement of clinician language proficiency and the reduction of preventable harm caused by language barriers in cancer care. My federally supported research includes a two-site study with collaborators at another institution. I am writing as an individual to raise specific concerns about provisions of this proposed rule that would impede this work and, with it, the safety of patients who depend on accurate clinical communication.<br/>[200.205] Pre-issuance review and the substitution of policy alignment for scientific merit. The proposed pre-issuance review would require senior appointees to evaluate discretionary awards for alignment with policy priorities and the &quot;national interest,&quot; and would forbid them from deferring to scientific peer reviewers. My research addresses a documented patient-safety problem: when clinicians and patients cannot communicate accurately, the result is measurable harm, including diagnostic errors, missed elements of informed consent, and worse cancer outcomes. Determining how to measure clinician language proficiency reliably, and how to deploy interpreters and language-concordant care...

Comment on Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance (Docket OMB-2026-0034 / RIN, 91 FR 32198)<br/>I am a practicing gastroenterologist and physician-scientist whose clinical and research work focuses on cancer genetics, including the identification and management of patients at hereditary risk for gastrointestinal and other cancers. My research is supported in part by federal funding, and the patients I care for benefit directly from discoveries that federal research dollars make possible. I am writing as an individual to express serious concerns about specific provisions of this proposed rule, which I believe would harm both the scientific enterprise and the patients it ultimately serves.<br/><br/>[200.205] Pre-issuance review and the displacement of scientific peer review. The proposed pre-issuance review process would require senior appointees to evaluate discretionary awards for alignment with policy priorities and would forbid them from deferring to or routinely ratifying the judgments of scientific peer reviewers. Peer review by subject-matter experts is the mechanism that has allowed federal science funding to identify the most rigorous and promising work for decades. In my own field, the cancer-genetics advances that now let me tell a patient whether their family carries a pathogenic variant, and what surveillance can prevent a fatal cancer, came from work selecte...

I am a Ph.D. scientist with decades of experience at academic institutions and start-ups. I strongly oppose five provisions that would lower the quality of publicly funded science, narrow the base of Americans able to contribute to it, substitute ideology for evidence, destabilize research careers, and erode continuity across administrations.<br/><br/>[200.205] Requiring senior political appointees to approve every discretionary award and reducing scientific peer review to &quot;advisory&quot; status replaces expert judgment with political conformity. Peer review is how the research enterprise measures merit: independent experts assess whether work is rigorous and likely to succeed. This also exposes a contradiction. OMB invokes &quot;merit&quot; to justify the prohibitions in 200.218 and 200.300, yet 200.205 dismantles the very mechanism that measures it. The rule uses &quot;merit&quot; in two senses, an expert assessment of scientific quality and selection without regard to protected characteristics, and relies on the second to claim it defends merit while discarding the first. If OMB wants awards made on the merits, it should strengthen peer review, not subordinate it.<br/><br/>[200.218] By prohibiting federal support for &quot;disparate-impact studies&quot; and related activities, this section reaches past a legal standard into research itself. Understanding how a facial...

I am writing to submit my formal public comment in absolute opposition to the proposed regulatory revisions to the Uniform Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance (2 C.F.R. Part 200), published on May 29, 2026. As a veteran who has sworn an oath to uphold the constitutional frameworks of this nation, I am deeply alarmed by this administrative attempt to substitute rigorous, peer-reviewed scientific evaluation with ideological censorship and political gatekeeping.The proposed rule threatens American global competitiveness, introduces extreme economic inefficiency, and paralyzes vital fields of biological, environmental, and ecological research. I strongly urge the OMB to withdraw these specific revisions before the July 13, 2026, deadline.I. The Severe Economic and Operational Impacts of Political Grant FilteringThe proposal to grant senior political appointees the discretionary authority to approve, deny, or terminate active federal scientific grants mid-project based on fluid &quot;administrative priorities&quot; is an existential threat to the integrity of American research.Destruction of Peer-Reviewed Neutrality: For decades, the United States has led global innovation because federal grantmaking agencies (such as the NSF and NIH) have relied on independent, blind peer-review panels of scientific experts rather than partisan directives. Introducing political litmus test...

The Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance declares that its aim is to &ldquo;improve transparency, accountability, and oversight for Federal awards across the Federal Government.&rdquo; What it is is a far-reaching regulation which lays a legal path to making the lives of a small subset of Americans, those who are transgender, miserable. It would prevent transgender Americans from gaining employment, getting loans, getting housing, getting a fair education, medical attention, doing research&hellip; in short, prevents them from being active and productive in vast aspects of American life. This Regulation is an expression of the current administration&rsquo;s culture war against our nation&rsquo;s LGBTQ population.<br/><br/>What is the point of targeting transgender Americans? Why not try to lift up the lives of all Americans? Why not concentrate on laws and regulations that would improve our housing crisis, make healthcare affordable, do something meaningful about gun violence, strengthen K-12 education, create a rigorous vocational apprenticeship system, ensure safe drinking water, improve infrastructure, and reduce inflation?<br/><br/>But instead, the proposed Regulation would codify the administration&#39;s anti-trans executive orders into binding federal policy, imposing a blanket prohibition on federal funds going toward &quot;gender ideology&quot;&mdash;with terms...

[200.421] The changes proposed in this section should not be implemented because advertising and public relations costs are essential to research. Research with human subjects often requires recruitment. Research projects require personnel and therefore hiring. Communication with the public about research findings plays a critical role in making research practically meaningful.<br/><br/>[200.454] &ldquo;Necessary to fulfill the award requirements&rdquo; is a vague and unnecessarily strong condition. Presenting findings at conferences for feedback from the academic community is an essential research activity because it improves the analysis and interpretation of findings and clarifies the policy and practice implications of the research. Conference attendance often requires presenters to have a professional association membership or costs less with membership. Therefore, research awards should cover professional association membership as long as conference attendance furthers the aims of the funded project.<br/><br/>[200.461] Publication and printing costs should be allowable under federal awards because research reports are more valuable when they can be accessed easily by the academic community and the public.<br/><br/>[200.205] Pre-issuance review of proposed research by political appointees is contrary to the purpose of the federal agencies that fund science&ndash;to supp...

[200.421] The changes proposed in this section should not be implemented because advertising and public relations costs are essential to research. Research with human subjects often requires recruitment. Research projects require personnel and therefore hiring. Communication with the public about research findings plays a critical role in making research practically meaningful.<br/><br/>[200.454] &ldquo;Necessary to fulfill the award requirements&rdquo; is a vague and unnecessarily strong condition. Presenting findings at conferences for feedback from the academic community is an essential research activity because it improves the analysis and interpretation of findings and clarifies the policy and practice implications of the research. Conference attendance often requires presenters to have a professional association membership or costs less with membership. Therefore, research awards should cover professional association membership as long as conference attendance furthers the aims of the funded project.<br/><br/>[200.461] Publication and printing costs should be allowable under federal awards because research reports are more valuable when they can be accessed easily by the academic community and the public.<br/><br/>[200.205] Pre-issuance review of proposed research by political appointees is contrary to the purpose of the federal agencies that fund science&ndash;to supp...

I submit this comment as a physician-scientist, educator, and taxpayer who relies on federally supported science to improve patient care, train the next generation, and strengthen American innovation. I respectfully urge OMB to withdraw or substantially revise the proposed rule. This is not partisan; it is civic and practical. The United States cannot remain safe, healthy, prosperous, or globally competitive if scientific decisions are subordinated to political preference rather than evidence, expert review, transparency, and reproducibility.<br/><br/>[200.205] Peer review. Making peer review merely advisory, and directing senior appointees not to routinely defer to peer-review recommendations, would weaken a central safeguard of American science. Peer review is not perfect, but it is the best available system for evaluating technical merit, rigor, feasibility, innovation, and risk across fields too specialized for any single political official to judge. Research on cancer, traumatic brain injury, quantum materials, pandemic preparedness, rural health, or advanced computing should be evaluated by people with the expertise to understand the methods and implications.<br/>Science is not a political party, religious position, or ideology. It is a disciplined process for learning what is true even when the answer is inconvenient. We do not decide whether a bridge is safe by askin...

[200.421] The changes proposed in this section should not be implemented because advertising and public relations costs are essential to research. Research with human subjects often requires recruitment. Research projects require personnel and therefore hiring. Communication with the public about research findings plays a critical role in making research practically meaningful.<br/><br/>[200.454] &ldquo;Necessary to fulfill the award requirements&rdquo; is a vague and unnecessarily strong condition. Presenting findings at conferences for feedback from the academic community is an essential research activity because it improves the analysis and interpretation of findings and clarifies the policy and practice implications of the research. Conference attendance often requires presenters to have a professional association membership or costs less with membership. Therefore, research awards should cover professional association membership as long as conference attendance furthers the aims of the funded project.<br/><br/>[200.461] Publication and printing costs should be allowable under federal awards because research reports are more valuable when they can be accessed easily by the academic community and the public.<br/><br/>[200.205] Pre-issuance review of proposed research by political appointees is contrary to the purpose of the federal agencies that fund science&ndash;to supp...

[200.421] The changes proposed in this section should not be implemented because advertising and public relations costs are essential to research. Research with human subjects often requires recruitment. Research projects require personnel and therefore hiring. Communication with the public about research findings plays a critical role in making research practically meaningful.<br/><br/>[200.454] &ldquo;Necessary to fulfill the award requirements&rdquo; is a vague and unnecessarily strong condition. Presenting findings at conferences for feedback from the academic community is an essential research activity because it improves the analysis and interpretation of findings and clarifies the policy and practice implications of the research. Conference attendance often requires presenters to have a professional association membership or costs less with membership. Therefore, research awards should cover professional association membership as long as conference attendance furthers the aims of the funded project.<br/><br/>[200.461] Publication and printing costs should be allowable under federal awards because research reports are more valuable when they can be accessed easily by the academic community and the public.<br/><br/>[200.205] Pre-issuance review of proposed research by political appointees is contrary to the purpose of the federal agencies that fund science&ndash;to supp...

[200.421] The changes proposed in this section should not be implemented because advertising and public relations costs are essential to research. Research with human subjects often requires recruitment. Research projects require personnel and therefore hiring. Communication with the public about research findings plays a critical role in making research practically meaningful.<br/><br/>[200.454] &ldquo;Necessary to fulfill the award requirements&rdquo; is a vague and unnecessarily strong condition. Presenting findings at conferences for feedback from the academic community is an essential research activity because it improves the analysis and interpretation of findings and clarifies the policy and practice implications of the research. Conference attendance often requires presenters to have a professional association membership or costs less with membership. Therefore, research awards should cover professional association membership as long as conference attendance furthers the aims of the funded project.<br/><br/>[200.461] Publication and printing costs should be allowable under federal awards because research reports are more valuable when they can be accessed easily by the academic community and the public.<br/><br/>[200.205] Pre-issuance review of proposed research by political appointees is contrary to the purpose of the federal agencies that fund science&ndash;to supp...

[200.205]. Placing grant decisions in the hands of politicians and requiring that scientists adhere to the Administration&rsquo;s ideology is a serious limitation on civil liberties and would diminish the development of high-quality research. Dramatically restricting scientists&rsquo; ability to collaborate and share their findings through conferences, journals and public communications would grind scientific progress to a halt and erode the transparency of federally supported research findings.

I oppose the proposed regulatory changes.<br/><br/>In particular, I believe the proposed rules give political appointees unreasonable control over federal financing and that the stated goals would be better achieved through different mechanisms.<br/><br/>I fear that subjecting the federal grant processes to the authority of political appointees will have a &quot;whipsaw&quot; effect where grants approved by one administration are reviewed and rejected by the next. This will disrupt the critical work being funded and diminish the government&#39;s ability to work over long timescales.<br/><br/>Further, I believe the increased role of political appointees in the decision making process will encourage applicants to tailor their applications to the political leanings of whatever administration is in office. Should a future administration favor &quot;woke&quot; programs, these rules would likely increase such programs. This is contrary to the stated goals.<br/><br/>As a former OMB employee I know first hand the wealth of knowledge career civil servant experts provide. Bypassing their judgment will result in worse outcomes for the American people.<br/><br/>As I do not believe the proposed rules will achieve the stated goals, I encourage OMB not to implement the proposed rules and to explore alternate approaches.

[General]<br/>I urge OMB to withdraw this proposal. A government-wide regulation governing grants across more than forty agencies should rest on administrative findings, not political characterization. Much of the preamble&#39;s justification is framed in contested ideological terms rather than documented, program-level evidence. That is an unstable foundation for binding rules that states, universities, hospitals, tribes, and nonprofits must follow for years. I also object that a 45-day comment period for a 108-page rule affecting nearly every federal grant program is inadequate for meaningful public input, and I ask OMB to extend it.<br/>[200.218]<br/>The prohibition on &quot;theories of disparate-impact liability&quot; is both too vague for straightforward compliance and substantively harmful. Disparate-impact analysis is embedded in decades of civil rights enforcement; barring it through grant conditions, without a precise definition, will chill lawful activity and invite inconsistent enforcement and litigation.<br/>More fundamentally, disparate-impact analysis is the primary tool for identifying facially neutral policies that actually produce unequal and often life-threatening outcomes across housing, lending, environmental exposure, employment, and access to health care. Prohibiting federal grantees from examining these effects does not make the underlying disparities ...

I am a public health professional, and I write to express deep concern about &sect;200.218, which would prohibit federally funded work from using disparate‑impact research, analysis, or program design. This is a completely new provision with no current regulatory counterpart, and its consequences would be far‑reaching.<br/>Disparate‑impact analysis is not a political concept. It is a core tool of modern public health, civil rights enforcement, environmental justice, housing policy, and labor economics. In public health specifically, one of our most basic responsibilities is to identify the communities experiencing the greatest burden of disease and direct resources where they will save the most lives. That is how we maximize efficiency, impact, and return on federal investment.<br/>Banning disparate‑impact methods would make it harder to understand where disease, injury, and environmental hazards are having the greatest impact. It would undermine decades of evidence‑based research and prevent federal grantees from designing interventions that actually reach the populations most affected. In practice, this provision would reduce the effectiveness of federally funded programs and weaken accountability for outcomes.<br/>For these reasons, I urge the removal of &sect;200.218. Federal grant policy should support rather than prohibit the analytic tools that allow us to target reso...

This rule change should be abandoned immediately. The following paragraph: &quot;Federal awards were often used during those years to promote a &ldquo;woke&rdquo; policy agenda that did not reflect the values of the vast majority of the American public. (2) For example, Federal programs and funding opportunities were designed to advance unlawful identity-based &ldquo;Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion&rdquo; (DEI) policies and preferences across the country. (3) These policies were inconsistent with basic American values and civil rights laws, including the equal protection principles of the U.S. Constitution. (4) They were also misaligned in many cases with underlying public purposes authorized by law. (5) Collectively, these policies wasted a great amount of taxpayer resources and caused great harm to public trust in government.&quot; is itself a political statement rather than a statement of any facts.<br/><br/>Overall, these rules purport to insulate decision-making from explicitly &#39;far left&#39; political influence, but fail to contemplate the possibility of &#39;far left&#39; appointees with grant-making authority in the future.

Re: Comments on Proposed Rule, &quot;Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance,&quot; 91 FR 32198 (May 29, 2026)<br/><br/>I submit these comments as a concerned member of the public and a recipient of federal grant support myself. While I support accountable use of federal grant funds, several provisions of this proposed rule would cause serious harm to grantees and the communities they serve.<br/><br/>[200.340] &mdash; Termination authority is dangerously overbroad<br/><br/>The proposed rule allows termination whenever an award &quot;no longer effectuates agency priorities&quot; &mdash; with no requirement that the recipient have done anything wrong. Grantees hire staff, sign leases, and make long-term commitments in reliance on awarded funds. Mid-grant terminations based on shifting priorities leave organizations unable to pay employees or recover sunk costs. OMB should retain noncompliance as the standard for termination, require 90 days&#39; advance notice for any priority-based termination, and mandate reimbursement of all costs committed prior to notice.<br/><br/>[200.208] &mdash; Specific conditions must remain risk-based<br/><br/>Current rules limit specific conditions to recipients with documented risk factors. The proposed revision allows conditions based on undefined &quot;agency priorities,&quot; giving program officers unchecked discretion to impose enhanced r...

According to the American Public Health Association, this proposed Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance <br/>&ldquo; Published on May 29, the proposed OMB Federal Financial Assistance Rule would require political appointees to review discretionary grant awards before they are issued, potentially overriding the scientific peer review process. The rule would prohibit federal funding for programs deemed to promote DEI, gender ideology and certain international collaborations, and it could allow agencies to deny funding based on an applicant&#39;s affiliations, such as civil rights and public health advocacy. Because the proposal applies broadly across federal funding programs, including research, Medicaid, education, and food assistance, critics warn of far-reaching consequences. The public comment period closes July 13, and OMB aims to finalize the regulation by Oct. 1.&rdquo;<br/>https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/05/29/2026-10817/regulation-for-federal-financial-assistance<br/><br/>As a physician and epidemiologist who has worked on both sides of the Atlantic (including reviewing Scientific and other federal funding proposals) for over 40 years, I oppose this proposed regulation since it would contravene and subvert the scientific peer reviewed process for scientific federal funding as well as make all federal funding under political rather than best pract...

Science is already too political. Subjecting grant approval to political appointees would only make it worse. I would be fine with some of what is in here if the people in charge of approving grants were independent. There are good reasons to have a professional civil service and this is one instance where we should have one.

This &quot;Uniform Guidance&quot; is nothing more than a method to stifle first amendment rights of academics. Most of the guidance outlined here are threats to grant holders for stepping out of line. There is no substance or meaningful justification behind these individual regulations other than forcing a political bias against grant recipients that cross lines that aren&#39;t even being well defined. To implement these recommendations is a admission that the &quot;Gold Standard Science&quot; is a meaningless platitude. However, if your goal is to end the scientific intellectual community here in the United States of America, then I understand.

I am a county-level Public Health Emergency Preparedness Coordinator in Montana. I am issuing a comment OPPOSING REVISIONS to the Rule &ldquo;Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance&rdquo; (OMB-2026-0034) posted on May 29, 2026, proposing to revise parts of the OMB Guidance for Federal Financial<br/>Assistance located in title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) (the Rule). I OPPOSE what these revisions would mean in practice: Political appointees who can override expert judgment and block science grants that don&rsquo;t advance the President&rsquo;s priorities would have that same power over transportation awards, housing funds, public health initiatives, and more. Any active grant could be canceled mid-project because it no longer serves &lsquo;the national interest.&rsquo; A highway already under construction. A tribal health program mid-delivery. A city still rebuilding from a flood. And every new grant program must align with administration priorities before a single application is even solicited. Entire categories of funding can be quietly discontinued without a public announcement or a vote. Federal grants are not peripheral to how states and communities function. They represent, on average, 36 cents of every dollar a state spends. This rule puts that entire financial partnership between the federal government and the states under political control, without...

As a civil engineer, I strongly oppose the proposed rule titled &ldquo;Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance,&rdquo; recently issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), as it would significantly undermine the integrity, effectiveness, and global competitiveness of the United States&rsquo; scientific and engineering enterprise.<br/><br/>If adopted, the transformative rule would grant political appointees sweeping authority over the approval of active and pending federal grants, diminishing the critical role of independent peer review in federal funding decisions. It would also impose restrictions on international collaboration and threaten the financial sustainability of organizations that administer independent scientific review and disseminate research findings. Collectively, these changes would erode the independence, evidence-based evaluation, and outcome-driven focus that are foundational to scientific progress.<br/><br/>Civil engineers are stewards of the nation&rsquo;s built environment. To protect public safety and do our work effectively, we rely on rigorous, peer-reviewed research to design, build, and maintain safe, resilient infrastructure. Scientific and engineering progress also depends on global collaboration that draws on the best expertise and innovation. By limiting international partnerships, the proposed rule would restrict knowledge-sharin...

This proposed rule is inhumane and should not even exist as a proposal. Trans people are once again being singled out when they are just trying to live their lives like every other American. This is not the way we treat others. Our country needs more compassion and grace. It is hard enough for folks to come out as Trans. They should not have to fight for basic human rights. They need more support from our community, not hateful rules and legislation.

We don&#39;t need more political appointees making decisions. Career civil servants are being scapegoated while appointees do Trump&#39;s dirty work. Protect trans people.

This is a government overreach that infringes on the rights of individuals and further limits scientific process and research, and an attempt to make big government bigger. This is America, the land of the free, and this didn&#39;t feel free at all. This is a choke point of rights, and freedoms, and growth for this beautiful nation.

To whom it may concern, <br/><br/>I am writing this as an MD-PhD Physician Scientist with decades of training and research expertise. I am writing on behalf of my team, my colleagues, my coworkers, and my patients, who have cancer and whose lives are dependent upon scientific advances. I implore you to reject OMB-2026-0034. <br/><br/>This proposed rule makes sweeping changes across government grant-making agencies and undermines decades of scientific progress. Peer-review by independent experts has been the primary measure of scientific merit. This rule will allow a political appointee to simply override the scientific community&rsquo;s judgement without cause (&sect;200.205(d)).<br/><br/>Further, this rule creates budgetary uncertainty by expanding authority to terminate existing multi-year active grants mid-award if they are found to be &ldquo;inconsistent with program goals or agency priorities&rdquo; (&sect;200.340). This allows termination for reasons outside of noncompliance or fraud, and retroactively threatens ongoing projects, jeopardizing institutional commitment to programs.<br/><br/>Increasingly alarming is the restriction on organizational affiliations. Grant applications may be denied based on applicant&rsquo;s association with groups that &ldquo;undermine public safety or national security&rdquo; and or harbor anti-American sentiment (&sect;200.206). Placed in...

As a civil engineer, I strongly oppose the proposed rule titled &ldquo;Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance,&rdquo; recently issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), as it would significantly undermine the integrity, effectiveness, and global competitiveness of the United States&rsquo; scientific and engineering enterprise.<br/><br/>If adopted, the transformative rule would grant political appointees sweeping authority over the approval of active and pending federal grants, diminishing the critical role of independent peer review in federal funding decisions. It would also impose restrictions on international collaboration and threaten the financial sustainability of organizations that administer independent scientific review and disseminate research findings. Collectively, these changes would erode the independence, evidence-based evaluation, and outcome-driven focus that are foundational to scientific progress.<br/><br/>Civil engineers are stewards of the nation&rsquo;s built environment. To protect public safety and do our work effectively, we rely on rigorous, peer-reviewed research to design, build, and maintain safe, resilient infrastructure. Scientific and engineering progress also depends on global collaboration that draws on the best expertise and innovation. By limiting international partnerships, the proposed rule would restrict knowledge-sharin...

This is a clearly fascistic attempt to further silence the free speech and rights of the American people and the institutions that serve them. These regulations cannot be allowed to be put into place or there will no longer be any denying that the current administration is not a legal democratic leader but an authoritarian mockery of the principals of America.

As a civil engineer, I strongly oppose the proposed rule titled &ldquo;Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance,&rdquo; recently issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), as it would significantly undermine the integrity, effectiveness, and global competitiveness of the United States&rsquo; scientific and engineering enterprise.<br/><br/>If adopted, the transformative rule would grant political appointees sweeping authority over the approval of active and pending federal grants, diminishing the critical role of independent peer review in federal funding decisions. It would also impose restrictions on international collaboration and threaten the financial sustainability of organizations that administer independent scientific review and disseminate research findings. Collectively, these changes would erode the independence, evidence-based evaluation, and outcome-driven focus that are foundational to scientific progress.<br/><br/>Civil engineers are stewards of the nation&rsquo;s built environment. To protect public safety and do our work effectively, we rely on rigorous, peer-reviewed research to design, build, and maintain safe, resilient infrastructure. Scientific and engineering progress also depends on global collaboration that draws on the best expertise and innovation. By limiting international partnerships, the proposed rule would restrict knowledge-sharin...

This violates the first amendment right to Free Speech! If the government is allowed to censor gender ideology, who knows how far things will go? It&#39;s a slippery slope towards eroding the rights and freedoms the Founding Fathers set in place for the good people of our American nation!

Office of Management and Budget<br/>Re: Proposed Revisions to 2 CFR Part 200 (Uniform Guidance)<br/><br/>To Whom It May Concern:<br/><br/>I am writing to express my fervent opposition to the Office of Management and Budgets proposed revisions to the Uniform Guidance. The proposed changes would undermine the U.S. research enterprise, weaken America as a global scientific leader, and jeopardize the innovations that drive economic growth, improve public health, and strengthen national security.<br/><br/>The United States is a world leader in scientific discovery because of a research ecosystem built on rigorous peer review, stable federal investment, international collaboration, and the freedom to pursue evidence-based inquiry. OMBs proposed revisions threatens the viability of this enterprise.<br/><br/>Harm to research stability and scientific merit<br/><br/>Scientific discovery requires long-term investment and stability: researchers spend years developing projects, building collaborations, training personnel, and generating data before breakthroughs occur. The proposal would expand the government&#39;s authority to suspend, terminate, or otherwise disrupt research awards based on subjective criteria and priorities. This would create significant barriers to progress for researchers and institutions. <br/><br/>Project funding should not be interrupted for reasons unrelated to ...

Transgender people are people. It&#39;s outrageous to remove their access to care and support by organizations and agencies that receive federal funding. Removing their rights to receive what they need is discrimination. Trans people aren&#39;t choosing to be &#39;different.&#39; They&#39;ve had the often very difficult task of being who they are in spite of how difficult it is to live safely in our current world. Trans people make up a very small percentage of the US population. They are being unfairly targeted. They are already up against many negative biases that lead to challenges in securing housing, moving safely through the world, and working in fields they are qualified to work in. Mental health challenges, suicidality, gender-based violence are prevalent for many trans people because of prevailing negative attitudes and bias. This will only be compounded if new federal rules to exclude their participation in programs and/or &#39;erased&#39; from existence.

I have been involved in federal contracting of engineering studies both as a member of a private consulting firms and as a federal employee and know how those not in the engineering profession have very limited understanding of this type of research and are unable to make knowledgeable decisions and should not be put in this position. This proposed rule is an obvious means of making more of government serve the radical and ignorant policies of this administration, instead of the American people.<br/><br/>As a civil engineer, I strongly oppose the proposed rule titled &ldquo;Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance,&rdquo; recently issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), as it would significantly undermine the integrity, effectiveness, and global competitiveness of the United States&rsquo; scientific and engineering enterprise.<br/><br/>If adopted, the transformative rule would grant political appointees sweeping authority over the approval of active and pending federal grants, diminishing the critical role of independent peer review in federal funding decisions. It would also impose restrictions on international collaboration and threaten the financial sustainability of organizations that administer independent scientific review and disseminate research findings. Collectively, these changes would erode the independence, evidence-based evaluation, and outcome-...

I feel very strongly that this regulation should not take effect. It represents an unnecessary infringement on the rights of states which provides no meaningful benefit to the average American.

As a civil engineer, I strongly oppose the proposed rule titled &ldquo;Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance,&rdquo; recently issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), as it would significantly undermine the integrity, effectiveness, and global competitiveness of the United States&rsquo; scientific and engineering enterprise.<br/><br/>If adopted, the transformative rule would grant political appointees sweeping authority over the approval of active and pending federal grants, diminishing the critical role of independent peer review in federal funding decisions. It would also impose restrictions on international collaboration and threaten the financial sustainability of organizations that administer independent scientific review and disseminate research findings. Collectively, these changes would erode the independence, evidence-based evaluation, and outcome-driven focus that are foundational to scientific progress.<br/><br/>Civil engineers are stewards of the nation&rsquo;s built environment. To protect public safety and do our work effectively, we rely on rigorous, peer-reviewed research to design, build, and maintain safe, resilient infrastructure. Scientific and engineering progress also depends on global collaboration that draws on the best expertise and innovation. By limiting international partnerships, the proposed rule would restrict knowledge-sharin...

As a civil engineer, I strongly oppose the proposed rule titled &ldquo;Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance,&rdquo; recently issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), as it would significantly undermine the integrity, effectiveness, and global competitiveness of the United States&rsquo; scientific and engineering enterprise.<br/><br/>If adopted, the transformative rule would grant political appointees sweeping authority over the approval of active and pending federal grants, diminishing the critical role of independent peer review in federal funding decisions. It would also impose restrictions on international collaboration and threaten the financial sustainability of organizations that administer independent scientific review and disseminate research findings. Collectively, these changes would erode the independence, evidence-based evaluation, and outcome-driven focus that are foundational to scientific progress.<br/><br/>Civil engineers are stewards of the nation&rsquo;s built environment. To protect public safety and do our work effectively, we rely on rigorous, peer-reviewed research to design, build, and maintain safe, resilient infrastructure. Scientific and engineering progress also depends on global collaboration that draws on the best expertise and innovation. By limiting international partnerships, the proposed rule would restrict knowledge-sharin...

As a civil engineer, I strongly oppose the proposed rule titled &ldquo;Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance,&rdquo; recently issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), as it would significantly undermine the integrity, effectiveness, and global competitiveness of the United States&rsquo; scientific and engineering enterprise.<br/><br/>If adopted, the transformative rule would grant political appointees sweeping authority over the approval of active and pending federal grants, diminishing the critical role of independent peer review in federal funding decisions. It would also impose restrictions on international collaboration and threaten the financial sustainability of organizations that administer independent scientific review and disseminate research findings. Collectively, these changes would erode the independence, evidence-based evaluation, and outcome-driven focus that are foundational to scientific progress.<br/><br/>Civil engineers are stewards of the nation&rsquo;s built environment. To protect public safety and do our work effectively, we rely on rigorous, peer-reviewed research to design, build, and maintain safe, resilient infrastructure. Scientific and engineering progress also depends on global collaboration that draws on the best expertise and innovation. By limiting international partnerships, the proposed rule would restrict knowledge-sharin...