Regulations.gov Comments

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

See attached file(s)

This proposed regulation is an incredibly dangerous step into the wrong direction for our country; for science, public health, social work, medicine, cancer research, clinical trials, mental health, environmental hazards, the opioid crisis, food insecurity, and on and on. I am a licensed social worker and a researcher with a Master's degree. I work for a large scale behavioral health nonprofit in the Midwest. Research is held up by federal grants, and the world of public health, science, and medicine - in it's entirety - is held up by research. Research is not something that is or should ever be politicized. Research is FACTUAL, SCIENTIFIC, and EVIDENCE-BASED. These are not things that should ever be held to political standards or agendas. In our world, now more than ever, people face so many crises and injustices that require research backed solutions. How do you think medical advancements get made? How do cures for cancer get discovered? How do life saving interventions get tested and implemented? Why, genuinely, would any of these things be politicized? Following the federal administration's agenda to fight against "diversity equity and inclusion" makes no sense when we are talking about advancing scientific research. It is an absolute disgrace that we even have to submit public comment for this proposed regulation. As a young scholar, researcher, an...

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.

I vehemently oppose these changes in policy because they will devastate scientific and biomedical research that is vital to the health, wellbeing, and security of our country. Specifically: <br/><br/>&sect;200.340: The suggestion that active research studies could be canceled at any time would waste all money already invested in projects, leave people on clinical trials devastated part way through treatments, and does not present a good faith agreement for investment in our future.<br/><br/>&sect;200.205: The proposition that political appointees would have final say over which research gets funded is ridiculous if those individuals do not have the expertise to evaluate the work, the potential results, and/or the impacts of that work. Politicians would make decisions based on biased agendas rather than merit of the proposed work. Politicians should not be making biomedical decisions on people&#39;s lives.<br/><br/>&sect;200.333: Proposing that small pilot grants would be eliminated. The simple, flexible grants that small labs, patient registries, and nonprofit biobanks depend on would no longer be allowed. This is because smaller organizations often don&rsquo;t have the accounting infrastructure to handle the more complex grant format the rule would require instead.<br/><br/>

Please see the attached file for my full comment.

Comment on Docket OMB&ndash;2026&ndash;0034<br/>Submitted by: Clinical Research Manager, Nonprofit Pediatric Hospital<br/><br/>1<span style='padding-left: 30px'></span>INTRODUCTION<br/>I manage clinical research operations at a nonprofit private hospital serving patients across a broad geographic region. My prior experience includes research in state-run academic medical centers.<br/>My role includes:<br/>&bull;<span style='padding-left: 30px'></span>oversight of federally funded clinical trials<br/>&bull;<span style='padding-left: 30px'></span>regulatory compliance<br/>&bull;<span style='padding-left: 30px'></span>operational execution of grant-funded research<br/>This comment reflects direct, practical experience with how federal policy functions in real-world clinical research settings.<br/>2<span style='padding-left: 30px'></span>OVERALL POSITION<br/>The proposal correctly identifies the need for stronger oversight and consistency in federal grantmaking. However, it introduces significant operational risk, legal ambiguity, and instability for clinical research programs. In several areas, it is likely to undermine&mdash;not strengthen&mdash;the effective use of federal research funding.<br/>3<span style='padding-left: 30px'></span>KEY CONCERNS<br/>3.1<span style='padding-left: 30px'></span>BROAD, VAGUE PROHIBITIONS WILL DISRUPT CLINICAL RESEARCH<br/>The proposal restricts...

As someone with a 50-year career in the nonprofit and public sectors I have seen firsthand the critical role that federal funding plays in the ability of nonprofit agencies to deliver services essential to their communities. I have many objections to this proposal, but chief among them is that senior political appointees would be required to conduct a &quot;pre-issuance review&quot; of every discretionary grant prior to awarding the grant. Specifically, the rule clearly indicates that peer review recommendations would be considered only advisory in nature, while the appointees should rely upon their own &quot;independent judgment&quot; and not merely accept expert recommendations. Political appointees often have no direct experience or professional expertise in the subject matter of their appointment; they come to those roles determined to advance the political objectives of whatever administration appoints them. To make funding decisions without due consideration of expert recommendations would mean basing federal awards on partisan ideology, rather than objective criteria, community needs, and congressional intent, while decreasing public transparency throughout the process. And as administration control moves back and forth from one political party to another and the rationale for funding decisions changes accordingly, grantees would be operating in an ever-shifting envir...

See attached file(s)

As a public health professional, federal grant administrator, researcher, educator, and nonprofit leader, I am writing in opposition to OMB&#39;s proposed rule, OMB-2026-0034, Office of Management and Budget Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance.<br/> Throughout my career, I have worked directly with federal, state, and local grant-funded initiatives supporting public health preparedness, workforce development, disease prevention, emergency response, quality improvement, and community health programs. Federal grants are among the most important tools available to state and local agencies, universities, researchers, and nonprofit organizations for addressing critical public health needs. My primary concern is that this proposal would introduce uncertainty into a system that depends on long-term planning, accountability, and evidence-based decision-making. Public health agencies and community organizations often develop multi-year work plans, hire personnel, purchase equipment, establish partnerships, and implement programs based on approved grant awards. Allowing grants to be modified, suspended, or terminated at any time for reasons unrelated to performance would create significant operational and financial risks for organizations that are responsibly managing taxpayer-funded programs. I am also concerned about the proposal&#39;s potential impact on the peer review pro...

See attached file(s)

<br/><br/>The proposed revisions to the Uniform Guidance are concerning because they introduce significant uncertainty, reduce transparency, and shift federal grantmaking decisions away from congressional intent and community need.<br/><br/>Federal grants should be awarded and managed based on objective criteria, including program quality, demonstrated outcomes, fiscal responsibility, and the needs of the communities served. The proposed changes would allow grants to be awarded, modified, suspended, or terminated based on changing political priorities and broadly defined concepts such as the &quot;national interest&quot; or &quot;anti-American values.&quot; These terms are vague and subjective, creating instability for nonprofit organizations that provide essential services.<br/><br/>The proposal would also allow federal agencies to impose new requirements after awards are made and shift payments from advance funding to reimbursement models, creating financial hardship for nonprofit organizations that often lack the resources to absorb significant upfront costs.<br/><br/>For programs like Head Start and Community Action Agencies, long-term planning and consistent funding are essential. Frequent changes in grant requirements or funding priorities disrupt services for children and families, increase administrative burden, and divert resources away from direct services.<br/><br...

Re: Docket OMB-2026-0034 &ndash; Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance<br/><br/>I submit this comment as both a United States citizen and taxpayer and as a research administration professional with more than fourteen years of experience supporting federally funded research and the stewardship of public funds.<br/><br/>I support accountability, transparency, and responsible oversight of federal financial assistance programs. However, I am concerned that several provisions within the proposed revisions to 2 CFR Part 200 may unintentionally increase administrative burden, reduce funding predictability, create implementation challenges, and diminish the public benefit generated by federal investments.<br/><br/>In particular, I am concerned about proposed changes related to merit review and award selection (&sect;200.205), expanded termination and suspension authority (&sect;200.340), applicant risk screening (&sect;200.206), restrictions affecting collaboration and dissemination (&sect;&sect;200.220, 200.432, 200.450, and 200.461), and the cumulative administrative burden these changes may create for recipients across the federal financial assistance ecosystem.<br/><br/>These concerns extend beyond the research enterprise. Because the Uniform Guidance governs federal financial assistance across numerous sectors, the proposed changes may affect public health programs, educa...

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

Please see attached comments on &sect;&sect; 200.202, 200.204, 200.205, 200.218, 200.220, 200.300, 200.340, 200.432, 200.454, and 200.461, from Mark Suchman, Professor of Sociology at Purdue University, former NSF Program Director in Cyber-Infrastructure, and former Executive Director of the American Bar Foundation. [Comments submitted in individual capacity; institutional affiliations provided for identification only]

I am concerned that the proposed changes in Section 200.450 will create confusion and discourage nonprofits from engaging in lawful, nonpartisan voter registration and civic engagement activities. Existing grant rules already provide sufficient accountability and oversight. Additional restrictions risk creating unnecessary administrative burdens and could lead organizations to scale back important services that help people participate in our democracy. Any final rule should be consistent with existing federal laws, including the National Voter Registration Act which requires some nonprofits administering certain federal programs to offer voter registration, and should not create a chilling effect on lawful nonprofit activities.

I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance.<br/><br/>As a former USAID employee, I helped administer humanitarian assistance programs in Africa that provided emergency food aid to people facing starvation due to war and famine. I witnessed how expert-led, evidence-based funding decisions saved lives, advanced U.S. interests abroad, and strengthened America&#39;s reputation as a reliable partner.<br/><br/>I was among the thousands of experienced USAID staff who lost their jobs when the agency was dismantled. Those programs worked because funding decisions were informed by seasoned technical experts with decades of experience, not by political considerations. I am concerned that this proposed rule would further erode the expertise, independence, and accountability that make federal assistance effective. The consequences would be felt not only by grant recipients, but by the communities, institutions, and national interests those programs serve.<br/><br/>This rule would significantly increase the discretion of political appointees over the awarding, administration, and continuation of federal grants. Federal grant programs exist to support research, education, public health, community services, humanitarian assistance, and other activities based on established criteria, expertise, and public need.<br/><br/>Concentrating gre...

Comment from Victoria Lebrun

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...

The proposed Office of Management and Budget Uniform Guidance rules threaten the stability of U.S. science by politicizing funding, eliminating essential support for small labs, and giving the government unilateral power to cancel, restrict, or defund active studies, scientific publications, and conferences. <br/>&sect;200.340: The government would be granted the power to terminate active research studies at any time if political priorities change, even if the project is successful and properly managed.<br/>&sect;200.205: Scientific peer-review recommendations would become merely advisory, requiring final sign-off from political appointees for every single research grant. <br/>&sect;200.333: Small, flexible pilot grants that small labs, nonprofit biobanks, and patient registries depend on would be eliminated by imposing overly complex accounting rules.<br/>&sect;200.461: Grant funding could no longer be used to pay for publishing research findings in scientific journals, except under strict prior approval or agency contracts. <br/>&sect;200.454: Researchers would face significant new administrative hurdles and require special prior government approval to use grant funds to pay for subscriptions to necessary scientific literature. <br/>&sect;200.432: Researchers would be barred from using grant funds to attend important scientific meetings unless that specific conference was ...

Public Comment in Opposition to Proposed Changes to 2 CFR Part 200 (Uniform Guidance)<br/><br/>My father, Dr. Donald R. Hague, was a tenured professor and research scientist at the University of Oregon, nationally recognized in plant biology and genetics for work aimed at improving agricultural outcomes. Federal grant funding made it possible for him to collaborate with researchers at Rockefeller University and the French National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS). That kind of cross-institutional, international science depends entirely on stable, merit-based funding structures. These proposed rule changes would dismantle exactly that.<br/><br/>Political override of scientific judgment (&sect;200.205) is the most alarming provision. Requiring political appointee sign-off on every grant &mdash; while explicitly instructing agencies not to defer to peer reviewers &mdash; removes scientific merit from funding decisions. Peer review exists because evaluating research requires expertise. Replacing that with political approval is not reform; it&rsquo;s corruption of the process.<br/><br/>Arbitrary cancellation authority (&sect;200.340) would make long-term research impossible to plan or conduct. Cancer trials, longitudinal studies, and multi-year basic science cannot be designed around the possibility that funding vanishes mid-study because priorities shifted in Washington. Ma...

Comment on Proposed Rule: Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance (RIN 0348-AB92)<br/><br/>I respectfully submit this comment in opposition to the proposed revisions to the regulations governing federal financial assistance.<br/><br/>Federal grant programs are most effective when funding decisions are made through transparent, merit-based processes administered by experienced career professionals who possess subject-matter expertise and are accountable to established statutory and regulatory standards. The proposed rule raises concerns because it appears to increase the role of political leadership in discretionary award decisions and ongoing award oversight.<br/><br/>While elected administrations appropriately establish broad policy priorities, individual grant decisions should remain grounded in objective evaluation criteria, programmatic expertise, and the intent established by Congress. Introducing additional political review requirements risks creating uncertainty for applicants, reducing confidence in the fairness and impartiality of award decisions, and increasing the perception that funding outcomes may be influenced by changing political considerations rather than merit and program effectiveness.<br/><br/>The proposal also appears to expand the government&#39;s authority to suspend, terminate, or modify awards based on evolving agency priorities or broader polic...

Public comment opposing OMB&rsquo;s proposed grants rule<br/><br/>I oppose the proposed grants rule.<br/><br/>I rely on a local nonprofit that runs a subsidized after‑school program and connects families to food assistance. That nonprofit receives a federal pass‑through grant from the county (in a MAGA state).<br/><br/>Under the proposed rule, the county would face new, detailed reporting, audit, and documentation requirements for all subrecipients. To comply, the county demands stricter invoicing, timekeeping, and financial controls from the nonprofit and requires more frequent outcome data tied to individual participants.<br/><br/>Immediate effects:<br/>- The nonprofit must hire a full‑time compliance coordinator and purchase a new accounting system, consuming 10 - 15% of its budget.<br/>- To cover those costs, the nonprofit cuts program hours and reduces transportation support, so fewer children can attend.<br/>- The county, wary of added liability and oversight burden, stops subcontracting with several very small neighborhood groups that previously ran specialized tutoring and outreach.<br/><br/>My experience:<br/>- My child&rsquo;s after‑school slot would be eliminated because the program reduced capacity.<br/>- The nonprofit would be less able to provide food‑assistance referrals and stops home‑visiting outreach, so I would face longer waits and travel farther for serv...

I respectfully oppose the proposed rule and urge OMB to withdraw or substantially revise it. My primary concerns are with &sect;&sect; 200.340, 200.205, and 200.333. These provisions would make federally funded research less stable, less scientifically grounded, and less accessible to smaller institutions and nonprofit partners.<br/><br/>[200.340] I oppose the proposed expansion of discretionary termination authority.<br/><br/>Federal research grants should not be cancellable midstream simply because an agency later determines that the project no longer fits current agency priorities or a newly defined national interest. Research studies often require years of planning, recruitment, data collection, and analysis. Abrupt termination can waste money already spent, strand participants, damage longitudinal datasets, disrupt patient registries, and prevent the public from receiving the knowledge the grant was intended to produce.<br/><br/>The government already has appropriate tools to address fraud, noncompliance, poor performance, misuse of funds, or failure to meet stated milestones. Those are valid reasons to suspend or terminate an award. But termination based on shifting priorities is different. It creates uncertainty even when the recipient is complying with the award, the science is sound, and the project is on track.<br/><br/>This would also harm the government&rsquo;s o...

As a mother, school volunteer, and daughter of a cancer patient, I am deeply concerned about the proposed changes to OMBs Uniform Guidance. My family has seen firsthand how communities depend on federally funded research, education programs, and nonprofit services that are most effective when decisions are guided by expertise, evidence, and public need rather than political influence. The proposed revisions would make it easier for federal grants and contracts to be terminated or redirected based on shifting political priorities, creating uncertainty for organizations that serve families, students, patients, and local communities. These changes risk undermining public trust in federal programs and could discourage important scientific research and community partnerships. I urge OMB to reject these revisions and preserve transparent, merit-based safeguards that ensure federal funding serves the public interest.

Not only is this a cruel decision that targets the most vulnerable Americans and will inflict unintended consequences on many others the grantees institutions serve, it is also reflective of the ineffectiveness of the &ldquo;department of governmental efficiency ethos&rdquo; and increases governmental overreach into the private and nonprofit sector. This will clog up our government with additional bureaucracy conducted by political appointees who do not understand the programs they are overseeing rather than the rank and file employees who know the systems in place to process grants far more efficiently.

I do not believe it is advisable to remove grant award decision-making authority from the subject-matter experts and career professionals who possess the relevant expertise in their respective fields and transfer that authority to political appointees within the Office of Management and Budget under Russell Vought. Determinations regarding the allocation of grant funding for research institutions and nonprofit organizations should be based on established evaluation criteria, technical expertise, and programmatic priorities rather than political considerations. Preserving the role of qualified experts in the grant review and selection process is essential to maintaining the integrity, effectiveness, and credibility of federal funding programs.

I run a small arts nonprofit, and government grants are a key part (and valued part!) of our budget. Once we have a grant, we plan our budget judiciously, taking those funds into account when we make commitments to people and programs. If a grant were suddenly revoked, all of our planning would be thrown into disarray. Unlike big business, we don&#39;t have large cash reserves. If we had a grant revoked, we would suddenly not be able to pay staff, vendors, and artists who rely on that money. We&#39;d have to cancel programs that had been contracted to people and venues. <br/><br/>It also erodes trust. Once you make a commitment--as a nonprofit to a program/person, as a government agency to a grantee--you stick to it!. That reliability and trust underpins our system. A society can&#39;t function when contracts are not adhered to. I urge the federal government to cancel these proposed rule changes.

I am submitting this comment as a technology and operations professional who works on large-scale enterprise systems and long-term implementation programs.<br/><br/>My primary concern is with the proposed provisions that would allow discretionary federal awards to be terminated or suspended based on changing agency priorities or determinations regarding the &quot;national interest,&quot; as well as provisions that require awards to align with current presidential priorities.<br/><br/>Organizations that receive federal funding frequently make significant long-term investments based on those awards. They hire staff, enter into vendor contracts, build technology infrastructure, develop operational processes, and commit resources over multi-year periods. When funding can be withdrawn because priorities change after an award has already been granted, it introduces a level of uncertainty that makes responsible planning substantially more difficult.<br/><br/>Even organizations that are not directly involved in research can be affected. State agencies, local governments, educational institutions, healthcare providers, and nonprofit organizations all depend on predictable funding environments to make sound operational decisions. Stability and predictability are essential components of effective program management.<br/><br/>I am also concerned about expanding political review of discr...

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Proposed Rule: Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance (OMB-2026-0034; FR Doc. 2026-10817). I write in my capacity as a historian of the United States with expertise in the nonprofit sector and its relationship to government. I am currently an Associate Professor at the University of Maryland&rsquo;s School of Public Policy. My published research considers how the rise of government grantmaking to nonprofit organizations in the decades after World War II shaped the sector as a whole and the communities nonprofits serve. Because the federal government has been funding nonprofits for so long, ample evidence exists to help anticipate the impact of the proposed rule changes. The proposed changes, however, represent a marked &ndash; and dangerous &ndash; departure from the history of federal grantmaking in the United States by expanding federal control and politicizing decision making that will ultimately undermine stated goals and erode public trust in the government and the nonprofit sector. As a result, I advise against the proposed changes. Please review the attached document which contains the full version of my comment. <br/><br/>

I am writing in opposition of this proposed regulation. This regulation violates the First Ammendment and lacks a legal basis. It would censor political views that conflict with current leadership. It seeks to make private and nonprofit entities enforce the current leadership&#39;s political views regarding diversity. It would encourage discrimination. Please reject this regulation and protect the First Ammendment.

I am writing in opposition to several provisions in OMB-2026-0034 because they would create significant uncertainty and instability for nonprofit organizations that provide essential services to survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault and human trafficking.<br/><br/>As a grants professional working for a nonprofit organization serving vulnerable populations, I am particularly conner about provisions that would allow federal awards to be terminated based on changing agency priorities rather than recipient performance or compliance. Many survivor service programs rely on multi-year federal funding commitments to maintain staffing, housing assistance, legal advocacy, counseling, and crisis response services. The ability to terminate awards during the project period creates substantial operational risk and could disrupt services for survivors who depend on the continuity of care and support,<br/><br/>I am also concerned about provisions that increase political review of discretionary grant awards. Federal funding decisions should continue to be based on statutory purpose, demonstrated community needs, program effectiveness, and established review processes. Nonprofit organizations serving survivors need confidence that funding decisions will be transparent, consistent and grounded in objective criteria. Proposed changes that diminish the role of professional and technical...

Please see the attached letter for my comment.

Below is a professional, policy-focused public comment that emphasizes concerns about the proposed changes without being overly partisan. It is written in a format appropriate for submission during the public comment period.<br/><br/>**Public Comment Regarding the Proposed OMB Uniform Guidance Revisions**<br/><br/>I respectfully urge the Office of Management and Budget to withdraw or substantially revise the proposed changes to the Uniform Guidance governing federal grants.<br/><br/>For nonprofit organizations, educational institutions, healthcare providers, and community-based organizations, federal grants are essential tools for delivering critical services. These proposed revisions would significantly increase uncertainty, reduce transparency, and undermine the stable administration of federally funded programs.<br/><br/>First, the proposal appears to grant the executive branch broad discretion over federal grant administration beyond what Congress has authorized. Federal grant requirements should be established through law and applied consistently across administrations&mdash;not subject to sweeping changes based on shifting executive priorities. Allowing agencies to impose broad new conditions through administrative guidance creates legal uncertainty and risks exceeding the authority established by federal statute.<br/><br/>Second, the proposed changes would make it sub...

I have many problems with this proposal. Section 200.111-English Language will make processes more difficult not less. Section 200.113&mdash;Mandatory Disclosures will make it more difficult to ensure that funds aren&rsquo;t being used fraudulently. &ldquo; In response to public comments on the 2024 rulemaking, OMB attempted to establish additional standards and provisions related to fixed amount awards in the 2024 revisions. OMB now proposes to change course, and eliminate this type of award from part 200.&rdquo; I find it repulsive that it is proposed to go AGAINST public wishes and previous decisions in this case. &ldquo; OMB also proposes to clarify that goals and objectives must be consistent with the public purpose of Federal authorizing legislation and aligned with administration policies and priorities.&rdquo; We should not be aligned with only the current administration&rsquo;s policies and priorities. &ldquo; OMB proposes to include an example related to ensuring that program funds are not used to subsidize political activities or initiatives unrelated to authorized public purposes.&rdquo; The proposed example is fascist. In &sect;&thinsp;200.202(d), OMB proposes to add a paragraph explaining that Federal agencies may, to the extent permitted by law, restrict eligibility among different types of nonprofit organizations.This is biased against democracy and science. ...

I&rsquo;ve worked as a grant manager for 15 years in both government and nonprofit contexts and I have deep concerns about the proposed rule changes and the deleterious effect they would have on the American people if implemented. Roughly 30-50% of Americans rely on federal assistance which is delivered through a network of nongovernmental organizations which would be directly harmed by these proposed changes.<br/><br/>The proposed changes center the political agenda of the current executive without regard to the direct harm they would cause to the people of this country. The insertion of white supremacist and anti trans talking points into the text and content of the proposed rule making is furthermore extremely chilling and disgusts me at the deepest level. As an American, it&rsquo;s my duty to use my voice to stand up for those being scapegoated for political gain. <br/><br/>Furthermore the power granted to the executive branch under these proposed changes would undermine congressional intent by giving unlimited power to the executive branch to arbitrarily defund programs based on partisan ideology. These types of actions have been blocked by the judicial branch because they are illegal and counter to our American values of government for the people by the people.

I strongly oppose these proposed revisions.<br/>I am a researcher who has participated in American scientific funding both as a recipient of awards from the DOE, EPA, and HUD, and as a former federal employee awarding funding to private, public, and nonprofit organizations. These awards were based on scientific merit, methodological rigor, innovation, feasibility, and public benefit, not political ideology.<br/>The U.S. leads the world in science and innovation because research funding decisions are guided by expert peer review insulated from partisan political control. This system produced extraordinary advances in technology, medicine, computing, engineering, genomics, and more. The proposed rule threatens that foundation by weakening the role of independent scientific expertise on grantmaking in favor of political gatekeeping.<br/>200.205, the requirement that senior appointees review discretionary awards is deeply concerning and should be withdrawn.<br/>Federal scientific grants should be awarded based on objective scientific merit and expert peer review, not political ideology. Political appointees generally lack the specialized expertise necessary to evaluate highly technical proposals across wide-reaching fields. The proposal explicitly states that peer review &ldquo;remains advisory and does not replace agency discretion.&rdquo; This invites political interference in...

No taxpayer money should be going to any NGO or nonprofit. While the exclusions listed are helpful, the entire practice needs to be abolished.

This comment is submitted by The Optimum Department, LLC, an independent research infrastructure strategy consultancy, drawing on nearly twenty years of experience in research administration, grant finance, and compliance at research-intensive universities. It is submitted on behalf of the firm and the commenter individually, not on behalf of any institution, client, or employer. The full analysis is provided in the attached document.<br/><br/>The comment opposes the proposed rule and urges OMB to withdraw it. It raises a threshold objection that OMB lacks statutory authority for the rulemaking, and provides provision-specific analysis of the most serious legal and implementation defects.<br/><br/>Threshold authority: OMB grounds the rule in 31 U.S.C. &sect; 503(a)(2), a financial-management coordination authority that OMB has administered as guidance for four decades. The proposal would convert that framework into binding regulation imposing substantive conditions directly on recipients, a power &sect; 503(a)(2) does not confer. Unlike the Federal Acquisition Regulation, which Congress expressly authorized, no statute authorizes direct government-wide regulation of grant recipients. The proposed agency co-issuance is ceremonial; the adopting provisions reserve all substance and amendment authority to OMB.<br/>Procedural objection: the 45-day comment period is inadequate for...

See attached file(s)

I respectfully oppose the proposed Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance (OMB-2026-0034). While accountability and oversight of federal funds are important, I am concerned that this proposal could create barriers for organizations that provide essential services to communities across the country.<br/><br/>For example, increased compliance requirements and restrictions on funding eligibility may disproportionately affect smaller nonprofit organizations, rural providers, community health centers, and local agencies that often operate with limited administrative capacity. These organizations play a critical role in connecting individuals and families to healthcare, education, housing, food assistance, and other vital services. If they are unable to access or manage federal funding effectively, the people who depend on those services will be negatively impacted.<br/><br/>I am also concerned that the proposal reflects a partisan approach to policymaking rather than a collaborative effort to strengthen federal programs. Regulations governing public resources should be developed in a manner that builds trust and broad consensus. As written, this proposal risks deepening divisions and limiting access to opportunities and services for many Americans, particularly those from historically underserved communities.<br/><br/>I urge OMB to revise this proposal to ensure that federal ...

I am submitting this comment in my individual capacity as a public health professional with experience in epidemiology, public health research, program evaluation, and policy analysis related to housing, homelessness, behavioral health, healthcare access, and workforce development.<br/><br/>I support efforts to strengthen accountability, improve oversight, and ensure that federal funds are used efficiently and consistent with congressional intent. However, I am concerned that several provisions of the proposed Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance may unintentionally make it more difficult to achieve those goals.<br/><br/>Many public health and human service programs rely on braided funding structures that combine federal, state, local, Medicaid, and private funding sources. These programs operate within complex systems of statutory requirements, performance measures, audits, reporting obligations, and contractual commitments. Changes to one funding stream often create operational, financial, and compliance impacts across multiple programs, contracts, and partners. As a result, increased uncertainty regarding federal awards, grant conditions, or agency priorities may increase administrative costs, reduce efficiency, and divert resources away from direct services and measurable outcomes.<br/><br/>I am particularly concerned that the proposed rule may make it more diffic...

I am writing to oppose provisions in the proposed revisions to 2 CFR Part 200 that would allow federal grant awards to be conditioned on alignment with the policy agenda of a particular presidential administration.<br/>Federal grants should be awarded based on statutory authority, demonstrated need, scientific evidence, program effectiveness, and the qualifications of applicants&mdash;not on political ideology or support for the priorities of any individual president. Taxpayer-funded grant programs exist to serve the public interest and fulfill objectives established by Congress. Grantmaking decisions should remain fair, transparent, and merit-based so that recipients can compete on equal terms regardless of political considerations.<br/>I am particularly concerned that these changes could discourage or reduce funding for environmental protection, climate resilience, scientific research, educational enrichment programs, and other initiatives that provide significant public benefits. States, local governments, universities, nonprofit organizations, and community groups depend on federal assistance to address challenges that affect public health, economic development, infrastructure, education, and environmental sustainability.<br/>Scientific research should be evaluated according to scientific merit, peer review, and the potential to advance knowledge and solve real-world pro...

Chelsea Campbell, LLMSW <br/>New Baltimore, MI <br/>Chelsea.campbell33@yahoo.com<br/><br/>Re: OMB-2026-0034, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance. <br/><br/>To Whom It May Concern, <br/>Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the proposal to revise several parts of the OMB Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance located in title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), subtitle A (OMB-2026-0034, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance). My name is Chelsea Campbell, and I am a social worker at a substance abuse treatment nonprofit in Macomb County, MI. My organization provides services free of charge to anyone in Michigan who needs support. Whether that is getting into treatment, getting tested and treated for infectious diseases, utilizing peer recovery coaching or family recovery coaching services, working with law enforcement throughout the state to ensure that the best outcomes are met for both the police and the community member, handing out survival kits and warm clothes to vulnerable community members throughout the year, and so much more. We have been able to accomplish all of this through grant funding, primarily federal grant funding. Due to the uncertain times over the past year, we have seen funding pulled and a decrease in opportunities that fit our organiza...

Public Comment on Docket OMB-2026-0034<br/><br/>I am writing to express concern about how this proposal could impact nonprofit organizations delivering Mental Health First Aid and other community-based mental health programs.<br/><br/>Our organization has firsthand experience with the instability federal funding can create. Through a SAMHSA-funded initiative, our funding was cut overnight with no warning, only to be reinstated less than 48 hours later. Even in that short window, the impact was significant. It caused immediate stress for staff, disrupted programming, and created real frustration and uncertainty for the communities we serve. We had to pause planning, question commitments, and manage confusion across partners.<br/><br/>This proposal appears to increase that level of uncertainty. Allowing federal agencies to exclude grant applications based on shifting &ldquo;agency priorities&rdquo; or the &ldquo;national interest,&rdquo; without transparency or explanation, creates a system where organizations cannot plan effectively. It raises a critical question: what happens when funding decisions change suddenly again? How do nonprofits protect themselves, their staff, and the communities relying on them?<br/><br/>Running a nonprofit is already challenging. Adding ongoing uncertainty about whether funding will be approved, maintained, or withdrawn makes it even harder to o...

To Whom It May Concern:<br/><br/>I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed changes to the OMB Uniform Guidance. Through my work supporting nonprofit organizations and the important services they provide, I have seen firsthand how critical stable and reliable funding is to ensuring that organizations can continue meeting the needs of the communities they serve.<br/><br/>I am concerned that these proposed changes could create unnecessary uncertainty for nonprofits that depend on federal grants to operate programs, support their staff, and provide essential services. Organizations cannot effectively plan for the future, retain qualified employees, or fully serve their communities when there is uncertainty around whether funding could be suspended, terminated, or changed based on shifting priorities.<br/><br/>The work being done by community organizations is often focused on helping individuals who may have nowhere else to turn. Whether providing healthcare services, support resources, education, housing assistance, or other critical programs, nonprofits play a vital role in strengthening communities and reaching underserved populations. Changes that make federal funding less predictable could directly impact the people who rely on these services the most.<br/><br/>I believe federal grant decisions should be based on community needs, program effectiveness, accountabi...

Marites MacLean<br/>Massachusetts<br/>June 18, 2026<br/>Re: OMB-2026-0034 &ndash; Proposed Revisions to Federal Financial Assistance Regulations<br/>Dear OMB Review Committee,<br/>I appreciate the opportunity to submit comments regarding the proposed revisions to the Office of Management and Budget&rsquo;s regulations governing federal financial assistance. As a grant professional working closely with nonprofit organizations, I am concerned about the significant negative implications these changes could have on organizations that serve communities across the United States.<br/><br/>The proposed revisions appear to expand executive branch authority over federal grants in ways that may exceed statutory limits. Federal law establishes clear boundaries on the conditions that may be applied to grant funding, and those conditions must be rooted in congressional authorization. The proposal raises concerns that new requirements could be introduced through administrative action, even where courts have previously ruled similar provisions unlawful or unconstitutional. This has the potential to undermine established legal frameworks governing federal assistance.<br/><br/>Equally concerning is the level of uncertainty these changes could introduce for grantees. Nonprofits rely on predictable funding structures to deliver essential services. If each administration is able to significantly...