Regulations.gov Comments

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The proposed rule must be withdrawn in its entirety.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, ...

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!

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...

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...

Please see attached file, &quot;Comment on FAR Proposed Rule - Docket ID OMB-2026-0034-0001&quot;

See attached file(s)

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-sharing and weaken the Unit...

To Whom It May Concern:<br/>I am a pediatric emergency medicine physician and researcher, 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/>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/>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.<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 open communication are essential for advancing public health and maintaining public trust.<br/>As a physician who cares for injured and ill children, I rely on high-quality research and effective public health programs to improve outcomes for my patie...

Why deny that a whole section of population exists? Why deny them health care and benefits they need to exist? It is incredibly fascist. This is supposed to be America, the land of the Free. Is it not within their God Given Rights to live? God&rsquo;s world is so full of amazing things and God created them to experience such a life of change. Just like how God creates Intersex creatures, God creates people who grow and change to experience life of different avenues. To deny them of this is to deny God and our American Right to live.

See attached file(s)

As a retired public school teacher, Returned Peace Corps Volunteer, parent and grandparent, Roman Catholic, and citizen, 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 ability of: a) educational and research institutions to provide the necessary scientific and technical knowledge for the integrity, effectiveness, and global competitiveness of the United States; b) religious and non -profit advocacy groups that serve the residents of this land who live on the margins; c) institutions that provide the medical research that advances remedies for the maladies of human life; d) groups that lawfully support free and fair elections.<br/><br/>The proposal has received strong condemnation from the scientific and research communities, with stated concerns that the rule would relegate traditional scientific peer review to a purely advisory role, giving senior political appointees final approval on grants. The proposed rule would also provide agency leaders with the authority to suspend or terminate grants with no path for recipient appeals, destroying the financial predictability that research relies on. The rule would also ban the use of grant funds to cover scientific publication costs unless explicitly required by statute, effe...

I submit this comment in strong opposition to the OMB Proposed Rule on Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance (91 FR 32198). My full comment, addressing sections 200.205, 200.202, 200.340, and 200.300, is attached as a file. I also request a 60-day extension of the comment period.

Please see attached pdf with comments regarding OMB-2026-0034.

See attached file(s)<br/>

Please see the attached file for my full comment.

<br/> To the U.S. Office of Management and Budget: <br/>Re: OMB-2026-0034, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance <br/>I oppose the U.S. Office of Management and Budget&rsquo;s (OMB) proposed changes to overhaul the set of rules, known as the Uniform Guidance, governing federal grants, cooperative agreements, and other monetary awards to nonprofits, state and local governments, and other grantees. <br/>If implemented, the OMB proposal would create significant financial risk and instability for federal grantees, making it more difficult to provide vital services to communities. If implemented, grantees will be faced with unpredictable financial, legal, and reputational risks that increase the costs of accepting federal awards while decreasing the benefits. Many effective and qualified grantees may be unable to accept those risks. This could lead to disruptions to essential services, including housing, community development, health, education, food, shelter, community services, disaster recovery, and more in communities and states nationwide. <br/>The proposal allows federal agencies to determine discretionary federal awards based on partisan ideology, not community needs or congressional intent. OMB proposes to create a pre-approval process that allows political appointees to exclude grant proposals from consideration if the proposal...

We cannot allow a politician to be put between science and the access to funding required to do that science under any circumstance. This opens the door for sweeping violation of first amendment rights by allowing government sanction of ideas and the results of good scientific tests. This exact ideology led to the catastrophic failure of the Chornobyl power plant under the Soviet Union, and the subsequent mismanagement of disaster response. Allowing unqualified, politically motivated, and otherwise corrupt or incompetent middlemen to decide what science gets funded will lead to excess deaths of American citizens, decrease our standing and the weight of our discoveries in the eyes of our global peers, and destroy the ability of any reasonable person to trust the work done by American scientists. This is not hypothetical. Weve seen this exact pattern before, and will happen again. We cannot allow it in this country.

Infrastructure projects already take years to complete, and replacing independent peer reviewers with appointees to make broad decisions about federal funding for scientific grants would only extend timelines and increase project costs.<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-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 mainta...

I am concerned that the new federal grant rule of May 29 will not fairly fund important constituent services such as public schools teaching accurate history, necessary medical care from planned parenthood, voting rights and civil rights organizations, and climate research, and therefore, I oppose it.

Public Comment on Docket OMB-2026-0034<br/>Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance<br/><br/>I am a pediatric cardiologist and echocardiographer at a large free-standing children&#39;s hospital, and a clinician-scientist on a federally funded career-development pathway. My research builds and validates artificial intelligence tools for pediatric echocardiography, with a clinical focus on detecting anomalous aortic origin of a coronary artery (AAOCA), a rare congenital lesion that can cause sudden death in children and young athletes. I support accountability for taxpayer dollars, but several provisions would directly impair federally funded pediatric research in avoidable ways. I comment on four sections.<br/><br/>[200.340] Discretionary termination and suspension<br/>The proposed clause would let an agency terminate nearly any research award whenever it decides termination is in the agency&#39;s interest, including when an award no longer matches &quot;Federal agency priorities, or the national interest as they exist at the time of the termination,&quot; with stop-work suspensions of up to 90 days. Applied to prospective clinical research, this is not neutral. My program includes a multi-year, IRB-approved validation of an AI model for AAOCA detection. Such studies enroll and follow patients over years across multiple sites; their validity rests on completion. A study ha...

This proposal is completely unacceptable as one side maintains control over everything and that is antidemocratic and unconstitutional. <br/>There should be and needs to be separation of church and state as it has always been. Voting rights should not be challenged in this very quiet and sneaky way. We are a democracy and as a people we have voted to maintain a democracy.

To Whom It May Concern:<br/> <br/>I am a pediatric emergency medicine physician and researcher, 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, who have no training or expertise in the science being proposed, greater control over funding decisions, reducing the influence of peer review. Permitting the termination of active grants just based of political agenda alone, creates uncertainty for researchers and institutions working to improve the health and safety of children and families. <br/><br/>I am also deeply 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. <br/> <br/>Also, 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 open communication are essential for advancing public health and maintaining public trust.<br/><br/>I have dedicated my life t...

I strongly object to the Office of Management and Budget&rsquo;s (OMB) proposed rule, &quot;Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance&quot; (Docket OMB-2026-0034). This proposal does not &quot;reduce recipient burden&quot;; it establishes an unprecedented, unlawful mechanism for partisan overreach that replaces objective merit with ideological conformity. By subordinating statutory program goals to the shifting whims of political appointees, the OMB violates basic tenets of administrative law, exceeds its congressional mandate, and threatens to dismantle decades of American scientific and operational excellence.<br/>The following sections detail the core legal and factual fatal flaws of the proposed revisions to 2 CFR Part 200:<br/>1. The Separation of Powers Violation: Usurping Congressional Intent<br/>The proposed mandate requiring senior political appointees to conduct a &quot;pre-issuance review&quot; to ensure grants &quot;demonstrably advance the President&rsquo;s policy priorities&quot; (&sect; 200.205) is legally indefensible.<br/>&bull;<span style='padding-left: 30px'></span>Violation of Statutory Authority: When Congress appropriates public funds for agencies&mdash;whether for health research, infrastructure, or education&mdash;it establishes explicit statutory criteria for how those funds must be spent. OMB possesses no constitutional or statutory authority to r...

Please see the attached comments from the Exhibitions &amp; Conferences Alliance.

Re: Public Comment on Proposed Rule OMB-2026-0034<br/>To Whom It May Concern:<br/> <br/>I am a pediatric emergency medicine physician and researcher, 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/>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.<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 open communication are essential for advancing public health and maintaining public trust.<br/> <br/>As a physician who cares for injured and ill children, I rely on high-qu...

To Whom It May Concern:<br/><br/>I am a pediatric physician and researcher, 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/>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.<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 open communication are essential for advancing public health and maintaining public trust.<br/><br/>As a physician who cares for injured and ill children, I rely on high-quality research and effective public health programs to improve outcomes for my...

To Whom It May Concern:<br/>I am a pediatric emergency medicine physician and researcher at Nationwide Children&#39;s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, and I am concerned that several provisions in the proposed rule OMB‑2026‑0034 would significantly undermine the integrity and effectiveness of federally funded research.<br/>Federal funding decisions should be grounded in scientific merit and rigorous peer review. Expanding the authority of political appointees in grant decision-making, weakening the role of peer review, and allowing termination of active grants introduce instability into the research environment. These changes would make it more difficult for institutions to sustain high-quality research programs and for investigators to carry out work that improves outcomes for children and families.<br/>I am also concerned about provisions that could allow funding decisions to be influenced by applicants&rsquo; professional affiliations, including involvement in civil rights or public health activities. Funding decisions should remain focused on the quality, rigor, and potential impact of the proposed science, not on lawful professional engagement.<br/>In addition, restrictions on public communication and outreach would limit the ability of researchers and clinicians to share evidence-based information with the communities they serve. Transparency and open dissemination of findi...

I am an Associate Professor of Food Science &amp; Technology at Virginia Tech. I write as a scienstist at a land-grant public institution and as a concerned citizen. I strongly oppose this proposed change and urge the Office of Management and Budget to drop it in its entirety. <br/><br/>As a Principal Investigator of federally funded research, I am very concerned with the proposed change&#39;s impact on American science. Specifically, throughout the proposed rule changes, political appointees and priorities are given legal and decision-making preference over scientific expertise for the awarding and supervision of federal funds. This is contrary to the best principles of unbiased scientific research, and will severely and negatively impact American science. This is an attack on science driven by ideological concerns, and will result in worse and less American science, and consequently to an impoverished and endangered world. The United States will suffer a loss of prestige in fields it has typically led, and become increasingly isolated and less influential on the cutting edge of science and technology.<br/><br/>As a citizen, I am also concerned that the rule is written so broadly that it in fact puts political appointees with specific ideological agendas in a position to deny or cancel ANY federal grant, which include programs that are critical to millions--if not al...

[Docket No. OMB-2026-0034]<br/><br/>Statement of Objection to Proposed Revisions to Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance<br/><br/>We submit this formal objection to the Office of Management and Budget&rsquo;s (OMB) proposed rule, *Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance*, published on May 29, 2026. While we support the foundational principles of fiscal responsibility, reducing administrative burden, and preventing waste, fraud, and abuse, we strongly object to the highly politicized framework, structural overreach, and damaging regulatory restrictions embedded within this proposal.<br/><br/>1. Politicization of Neutral Grantmaking and Civil Rights<br/><br/>The proposal introduces highly subjective, politically charged rhetoric into the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), referencing a &quot;woke policy agenda,&quot; &quot;anti-American ideologies,&quot; and &quot;radical doctrines.&quot; Codifying ideological grievances into federal regulations undermines the historically neutral, data-driven, and merit-based nature of federal financial assistance.<br/><br/>Furthermore, the wholesale prohibition of targeted Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) metrics misconstrues federal initiatives designed to ensure compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Eliminating comprehensive outreach and equity-focused data collection will severely limit federal agencies&...

This proposed change is not good for older Americans OR the future generations of Americans. This rule takes away human rights and dignity. This is bad policy and will harm our most vulnerable neighbors. Please dont imnplement this.

I am writing as an individual taxpayer and citizen to express my strong opposition to the Office of Management and Budget&rsquo;s (OMB) proposed changes to federal grant regulations. Federal financial assistance should be awarded based on objective merit, community need, and technical expertise&mdash;not political alignment. I object to this proposal based on the following critical concerns: Politicization of Public Funds: Allowing political appointees to override career experts introduces severe bias into grantmaking. Taxpayer dollars should support the most qualified projects, not organizations chosen to advance a specific administration&#39;s political agenda. Harm to Local Communities: Expanding an agency&#39;s power to terminate grants mid-cycle creates extreme instability. Local projects&mdash;such as infrastructure, medical research, and community safety initiatives&mdash;could see their funding abruptly pulled. This risks leaving critical projects half-finished and wasting the public funds already invested. Infringement on Civic Participation: Restricting grant eligibility for organizations that engage in &quot;issue advocacy&quot; is deeply troubling. Many of our nation&#39;s most effective nonprofits advocate for vulnerable populations, environmental protections, or civic engagement. Barring these groups stifles public discourse and penalizes organizations for exer...

[200.340] Comment on Proposed Rule OMB-2026-0034<br/>I oppose the discretionary termination and political-appointee-control provisions in this rule &mdash; not on partisan grounds, but because of what they set up long-term.<br/>Federal grants have historically run on merit review and fixed, public criteria so recipients can plan multi-year work with confidence. Once funding can be pulled mid-project because a political appointee decides a grantee no longer fits current priorities, that stability disappears for everyone, not just today&#39;s targets. Whatever tool this creates, the next administration inherits it too &mdash; just pointed at different recipients. Today it might hit diversity offices; tomorrow it could hit faith-based grantees, gun-rights research, or fossil fuel programs, depending on who&#39;s in office.<br/>This is a rule-of-law issue, not just a policy one. Discretionary, after-the-fact termination based on shifting political judgment, rather than fixed contract terms, undermines the predictability that due process is meant to protect.<br/>I urge OMB to withdraw or narrow &sect;200.340&#39;s discretionary termination authority and retain merit-based, viewpoint-neutral criteria with transparent, written justification subject to judicial review. A grants system that depends on who currently holds power isn&#39;t more accountable &mdash; it&#39;s less so, and ...

You must continue to award federal grants to the proposals that a panel of experts have deemed the best ones. Please do not abandon independent reviews by experts. They are essential. We can clearly see what is happening in our society when we place people with little to no experience in jobs they cannot preform. It does not serve the American people to place people with no prior experience or knowledge in positions of power. <br/><br/>Continue to fund voting and civil rights organizations - they are essential to the backbone of our democracy.<br/><br/>Public schools are just that - PUBLIC schools and should serve ALL children from All walks of life, all cultures and all religions!! This is non-negotiable. <br/><br/>Science is real. Period. It is real and so is climate change. If you continue to dismiss what hundreds of experts are telling us about climate change our children and grandchildren will be living in a dystopian landscape with no clean air or water.<br/><br/>

The proposed changes would grant the executive branch seemingly unlimited discretion over federal grants, contrary to federal law. Federal law makes clear that the executive branch does not have the authority to add across-the-board terms and conditions to federal grants beyond those that Congress has authorized. With this proposal, the administration is<br/>attempting to use the OMB Uniform Guidance to impose terms and conditions that have been blocked by federal judges for violating federal law or the U.S. Constitution.<br/><br/>The proposal would force grantees to operate in a shifting environment, making it more difficult to provide vital services to their communities. Under the proposal, each newadministration could make significant, substantive changes to federal grants, creating uncertainty for grantees. Federal agencies would be authorized to terminate or suspend discretionary grants without cause, and to change grant terms and conditions mid-performance. Agencies could terminate grants if subrecipients &ldquo;damage the reputation&rdquo; of the<br/>federal government, a term that is not defined. Onerous oversight and monitoring<br/>requirements could be applied across entire programs, regardless of the grantee&rsquo;s individual performance.<br/>Moreover, under the proposal, grantees would have limited ability to challenge certain funding disruptions. When a grant i...

​I am submitting this formal comment anonymously to record my categorical opposition to the proposed sweeping revisions to 2 CFR Part 200 (Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance), published on May 29, 2026. While the stated objectives of this 400-page overhaul are framed around transparency and reducing recipient burden, an objective structural analysis reveals a deeply concerning paradigm shift: the systemic de-professionalization of public administration and the construction of an administrative framework ripe for autocratic consolidation.<br/>​By weaponizing federal financial assistance, this rule establishes dangerous structural precursors to authoritarian governance, fundamentally undermining the integrity of American scientific research, public health, and local infrastructure stability.<br/>​I. The Subversion of Meritocracy and Civil Service Autonomy (2 CFR &sect; 200.205)<br/>​A foundational pillar of a stable constitutional democracy is an autonomous, insulated civil service that administers public resources based on objective merit rather than partisan fealty. The proposed amendments to 2 CFR &sect; 200.205 radically dismantle this safeguard by implementing a mandatory &quot;pre-issuance review&quot; conducted by designated senior political appointees.<br/>​Eradication of Empirical Safeguards: This structural intervention strips career scientists, technical ex...

As a structural engineer my work depends on impartial, scientific information. This change will make money decisions more political and risks jeopardizing the safety of the public, which as a Professional Engineer is my first obligation as a professional.<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-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 desig...

Trans people are people. Period. Full stop. They get the same rights as everyone else. I will accept nothing less.

What&rsquo;s described here is exactly the kind of policy direction I cannot support. I believe in an America where public funding is distributed fairly, based on need and evidence &mdash; not ideology. When government rules start rewarding certain beliefs while punishing others, we move away from the constitutional principles that protect freedom, equality, and pluralism. Cutting resources for public schools, civil rights organizations, scientific research, and non‑aligned community institutions doesn&rsquo;t strengthen our country. It narrows it. It undermines the idea that every American deserves access to unbiased education, equal rights, and fact‑based public policy. This is not what I stand for, and it&rsquo;s not what&rsquo;s good for America. We are strongest when we support diverse communities, protect individual freedoms, and ensure that public institutions serve all people &mdash; not just those who fit a preferred political or religious mold.

I fear for our country. I fear it will head further into becoming the part of my family I feel the least accepted by, hyper-critical, rigid, ideological conservatives. Acceptance by one&rsquo;s family, community, and the larger civil system is key to well being. This policy change restricts acceptance to the few among us. It will contribute to illness. Take it from me, a mental health therapist who practices from a fundamental therapy principle of acceptance, positive, unconditional warm regard for my clients. Acceptance is where healing happens for people- being accompanied, witnessed without judgement or criticism, empowers a persons natural ability to heal themselves. Acceptance is a universally agreed upon necessity to effectively helping someone to regain mental well being in the therapy arena. Please take a page from those who are helping people on a micro level when deciding how to take care of all of our people through policy and fund distribution- prioritize acceptance for all organizations that have proven to help people of all identities.

I am voicing my total disagreement with this proposal for the OMB to allow political appointees to have full rights to sign off on all federal grant funding. This is completely unacceptable.

Subject: Public Comment on Proposed Revisions to 2 CFR Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance (Docket OMB-2026-0034)<br/><br/>I am writing to express concern regarding the proposed revisions to the Office of Management and Budget&rsquo;s Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance.<br/><br/>While transparency, accountability, and responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars are essential goals, several aspects of the proposal risk creating unintended harms for vulnerable communities, including Black and Brown Americans, rural populations, people with disabilities, and working families with low incomes.<br/><br/>The proposal repeatedly characterizes diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives as inherently wasteful or unlawful without adequately recognizing the longstanding purpose of these efforts: addressing documented disparities in access to education, healthcare, housing, employment, disaster relief, and economic opportunity.<br/><br/>Federal programs frequently rely on targeted outreach and data collection to ensure that historically underserved populations can access resources for which they are already eligible. Eliminating or discouraging these practices may reduce participation among communities that have historically faced barriers to receiving government services.<br/><br/>The proposed revisions may also create uncertainty among grant recipients regarding w...

Im leaving a comment to stop this attack on American science. This proposed funding plan is ridiculous, and will harm SO MANY AMERICANS.<br/><br/>I try to be professional, I try to have kindness and understanding in my heart for others, but how could you possibly be so evil to potentially let so many Americans suffer from the lack of scientific research? How can you be so evil to let so many Americans DIE, because you dont want to fund scientific research that YOU DONT AGREE WITH. You say you all want to make America healthy again, but this is the complete opposite of that.<br/><br/>People will suffer. And I care more about the average American than I do about your feelings. I care more about a person in a rural community who is now struggling even more because of the hospital funding being cut than your feelings. This proposal is pure evil, and you all will have the blood of many Americans on your hands just because of some arbitrary reason you made up in your head. How does that not weigh on you?<br/><br/>I hope you all make the right decision and not approve of this plan. Maybe this comment did nothing but make you angry, but IM angry. AMERICA is angry. We dont want our health and agriculture and whatever else would have to go through a political appointee or whatever youre calling it, to suffer. We just want to live our lives and know that there will be research done to ...

See attached file(s)

Hello. It has come to my attention that you are proposing several changes to vetting candidates who receive federal funding. While such vetting is necessary, one particular stipulation is troubling. The regulation states that any orgnaization that &quot;promotes gender ideology&quot; by &quot;denying the binary and immutable nature of sex&quot; in any of their policies can be denied federal funding. <br/><br/>Firstly, sex isn&#39;t really binary in that thousands of babies are born every year with non-standard or ambiguous sexual characteristics, Also, while the current administration might find the practice morally dubious, the truth is that people have been medically transitioning longer than most people in this country have been alive, and there are over a million individual in this country who have medically altered sex characteristics, many to the point that they can no longer return to the way they were, along with altered paperwork. And regardless of how certain politicians might feel about that, those million people still have to be accounted for in policy.<br/><br/>So not only is it a gross violation of civil rights to mandate that organizations maintain policies that unfairly stigmatize a particular group of people, but it&#39;s also impractical for any operating organizations not to have policies in place to handle that.

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...

See attached file(s)

This is a violation of both human rights generally and our specific rights to free speech as US citizens.

I am writing to urge you to stop dismantling our FDA. Please dont let RFK continue his gutting of our funding and rights.

I am an MD/PhD candidate in aging biology, with prior training in chemical engineering, writing in my personal capacity. I support several of the rule&rsquo;s stated goals and oppose specific provisions that undermine those same goals. Comments are organized by section.<br/>Support for rigor and burden reduction. The emphasis on reproducibility and on streamlining funding notices addresses real problems, and I encourage OMB to retain those provisions. My concerns below are refinements meant to make the rule more effective at its own purpose: stewarding taxpayer dollars toward high-value science.<br/>&sect;200.205 &mdash; Advisory peer review plus pre-issuance political review. Discretion in funding is not inherently the problem; the best federal science funders (DARPA, ARPA-H) run on empowered, discretionary program managers. The difference is what the discretion optimizes for and who exercises it. A reviewer selected for policy alignment, applied after expert scientific review, will reduce portfolio quality, not improve it. Recommendation: vest any added review layer in subject-matter experts, and require that overriding a favorable scientific review be documented in writing with a stated, reviewable rationale.<br/>&sect;200.218 &mdash; The disparate-impact restriction would exclude rigorous science. As drafted, the bar on &ldquo;disparate-impact studies&rdquo; and activity...

I am an MD/PhD candidate in aging biology, with prior training in chemical engineering, writing in my personal capacity. I support several of the rule&rsquo;s stated goals and oppose specific provisions that undermine those same goals. Comments are organized by section.<br/>Support for rigor and burden reduction. The emphasis on reproducibility and on streamlining funding notices addresses real problems, and I encourage OMB to retain those provisions. My concerns below are refinements meant to make the rule more effective at its own purpose: stewarding taxpayer dollars toward high-value science.<br/>&sect;200.205 &mdash; Advisory peer review plus pre-issuance political review. Discretion in funding is not inherently the problem; the best federal science funders (DARPA, ARPA-H) run on empowered, discretionary program managers. The difference is what the discretion optimizes for and who exercises it. A reviewer selected for policy alignment, applied after expert scientific review, will reduce portfolio quality, not improve it. Recommendation: vest any added review layer in subject-matter experts, and require that overriding a favorable scientific review be documented in writing with a stated, reviewable rationale.<br/>&sect;200.218 &mdash; The disparate-impact restriction would exclude rigorous science. As drafted, the bar on &ldquo;disparate-impact studies&rdquo; and activity...