Regulations.gov Comments

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

Transparency, accountability, and oversight of taxpayer dollars, are ones I share, but this proposal does not serve those goals. They transfer the core decisions of federal research funding from qualified scientific experts to political appointees, at every stage of the funding lifecycle. Several provisions would raise administrative burden rather than reduce it, and the cumulative effect would be to make federally funded science less rigorous, less stable, and less responsive to the public interest. I urge OMB to withdraw or substantially revise the rule, and in particular to strike or rewrite the provisions identified below &mdash; most urgently [200.205], [200.300], [200.340], [200.432], [200.454], and [200.461].<br/>Provisions [200.205] and [200.300] are positioned to displace expert judgement and make categorical prohibitions on broad, loosely defined subject areas. This increases the chances that researchers will self-censor their work, rather then exploring legitimate lines of research as determined by peer researchers who have the background and expertise to judge its merit. The provisions also expands the authority to terminate active awards [200.340] in ways that essentially make all multi-year funding a guessing game. Ending projects midway through wastes federal funding, in terms of investing funding without getting final outcome reports that would make the expe...

RE: OMB-2026-0034-7432, Proposed Rule on Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance<br/><br/>Dear Director Vought,<br/><br/>Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Proposed Rule on Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance. I am writing as a concerned individual and as a scientist with a doctorate in Biology working in the sciences in the nonprofit sector. <br/><br/>I am deeply concerned about the overtly political limitations the Proposed Rule places on federal science funding and the collaborative activities of funded researchers. America&rsquo;s scientific leadership, built on the foundation of sustained public funding, is key to our economic success and global standing. Placing political pressure on research topics and stifling international collaboration and communication will have a chilling effect on US-based science. We already risk falling behind China and other competitors, and this Proposed Rule will ensure that the United States falters in its leadership in science, innovation, and economic prosperity for generations to come. <br/><br/>Specifically:<br/><br/>[200.205] I urge you to reconsider the &ldquo;pre-issuance review&rdquo; by senior appointees and instead follow standard independent peer review by the scientific community. <br/><br/>[200.220] The prohibition on multilateral collaboration is so broad that it will disrupt existing and foundational...

RE: OMB-2026-0034-7432, Proposed Rule on Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance<br/><br/>Dear Director Vought,<br/><br/>Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Proposed Rule on Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance. I am writing as a concerned individual and as a scientist with a doctorate in Biology working in the sciences in the nonprofit sector. <br/><br/>I am deeply concerned about the overtly political limitations the Proposed Rule places on federal science funding and the collaborative activities of funded researchers. America&rsquo;s scientific leadership, built on the foundation of sustained public funding, is key to our economic success and global standing. Placing political pressure on research topics and stifling international collaboration and communication will have a chilling effect on US-based science. We already risk falling behind China and other competitors, and this Proposed Rule will ensure that the United States falters in its leadership in science, innovation, and economic prosperity for generations to come. <br/><br/>Specifically:<br/><br/>[200.205] I urge you to reconsider the &ldquo;pre-issuance review&rdquo; by senior appointees and instead follow standard independent peer review by the scientific community. <br/><br/>[200.220] The prohibition on multilateral collaboration is so broad that it will disrupt existing and foundational...

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

I am writing to express concern regarding the proposed &quot;Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance&quot; (OMB-2026-0034).<br/><br/>While I support efforts to improve transparency, accountability, and stewardship of federal funds, I am concerned that several provisions in this proposed rule could undermine the effectiveness, fairness, and stability of federal grantmaking. The proposed revisions would significantly expand agency discretion in award decisions, grant termination, and program oversight, potentially reducing the role of independent merit review and creating uncertainty for recipients of federal assistance.<br/><br/>Federal financial assistance supports critical services provided by universities, nonprofit organizations, state and local governments, and community-based agencies. In fields such as education, health care, social services, workforce development, and scientific research, recipients rely on predictable and objective grantmaking processes to plan programs, retain qualified staff, and serve vulnerable populations. Changes that increase political or administrative discretion without clear standards could diminish confidence in the fairness and consistency of funding decisions.<br/><br/>I am particularly concerned about provisions that appear to allow greater flexibility to terminate or modify awards based on changing agency priorities after funds hav...

I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed revisions to the Uniform Guidance governing federal financial assistance.<br/><br/>As a practitioner responsible for administering federal housing and community development programs, I support accountability and responsible stewardship of federal funds. However, I am concerned that several provisions within the proposed rule would increase administrative burden, delay project implementation, and reduce the flexibility necessary for recipients to effectively respond to community needs.<br/><br/>First, I oppose the proposed expansion of subaward reporting and oversight requirements. Recipients already devote significant resources to monitoring subrecipients and ensuring compliance with federal requirements. Requiring additional reporting to SAM.gov for every subaward will increase administrative costs and staff workload without a corresponding improvement in program outcomes. For smaller nonprofit partners, these requirements may discourage participation in federally funded programs altogether.<br/><br/>Second, I am concerned about the proposed pre-award review and political appointee review process. Affordable housing and community development projects often operate under strict financing, construction, and regulatory timelines. Additional layers of review create uncertainty and may delay the execution of grant agreement...

I am writing to express strong opposition to the proposed revisions under &sect; 200.202(d) and related risk-assessment provisions that allow Federal agencies to restrict eligibility among different types of nonprofit organizations and scrutinize institutional affiliations, and most importantly, their ability to terminate discretionary awards for discretionary reasons, akin to a &quot;termination for convenience&quot; clause.<br/><br/>Nonprofit organizations serve as the backbone of our communities, providing essential services, aid, and advocacy for the American people and those in the United States. While the preamble frames this as a tool for administrative efficiency and programmatic alignment, granting federal agencies broad discretion to end funding mid-stream introduces severe financial instability and regulatory risk for nonprofits and community organizations. Nonprofit initiatives&mdash;such as long-term community health programs, infrastructure development, and localized aid&mdash;rely on predictable, multi-year funding to maintain operations, hire staff, and fulfill commitments to those we serve who have a disorder.<br/><br/>Subjecting discretionary awards to the shifting programmatic priorities or discretionary whims of an agency undermines the integrity of the merit-based award process. It threatens to leave community organizations with stranded costs, disrupt e...

I write to strongly oppose the proposed revisions to the Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance.<br/><br/>The proposal is framed as an effort to improve transparency, accountability, oversight, and reduce recipient burden. Those are important goals. However, many of the proposed changes would do the opposite. They would introduce vague and politically variable standards into federal grantmaking, undermine the integrity of scientific and programmatic peer review, increase uncertainty for recipients, and create substantial new administrative burden and financial risk for universities, health systems, nonprofit organizations, and other entities that rely on federal awards to serve the public.<br/><br/>Federal grants should be awarded and managed based on statutory authority, scientific and technical merit, demonstrated public need, feasibility, fiscal responsibility, and compliance with existing law. The proposed rule appears to expand discretionary review based on broad concepts such as alignment with agency priorities, &ldquo;national interest,&rdquo; and administration-defined policy objectives. These standards are not sufficiently specific, stable, or objective. They risk allowing meritorious applications and ongoing awards to be approved, denied, suspended, or terminated based on political preferences rather than expertise, evidence, or the purposes authorized by Congre...

This is absolutely horrifying. I come from a background in nonprofit organizations that target underserved youth in a variety of populations and dangerous situations. The statement that any organization would need to &ldquo;prove&rdquo; they do not support any individual who does not fall into a gender binary is atrocious and dangerous. Critical care given out to these populations will be lost if organizations, nonprofits, and hospitals are unable to provide base care and support for people regardless of who they are. It will also GREATLY hurt and endanger those who do in fact fall under a binary definition of gender, as those individuals will also miss out on vital care and access to resources and information that these organizations relying on government funding need. Museums will shut down. History will be lost. Access to after school programs will diminish. This hurts everyone. Please do not allow this to move forward.

I oppose the proposed changes to Section 200.450 because they 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. Moreover, this administration has a clear record of weaponizing regulations against its political opponents. 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 oppose the proposed changes to Section 200.450 because they 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. Moreover, this administration has a clear record of weaponizing regulations against its political opponents. 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.

Re: OMB-2026-0034, Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance<br/><br/>I am submitting this comment in my individual capacity. While I work for the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM), a scientific membership association, the views expressed here are my own and do not represent the official position of my employer.<br/><br/>I am concerned about provisions in the proposed rule that reduce the role of peer review in federal research funding and about the proposed changes to &sect;200.461 regarding publication costs.<br/><br/>For more than 75 years, the United States has been a global leader in science because of a simple idea: research funding decisions should be guided by experts evaluating the quality of the science. Federal science policy was intentionally built around peer review, where researchers with relevant expertise assess grant proposals based on their scientific merit. This approach became the foundation of funding programs at agencies such as NIH, NSF, NASA, and DOE. It also became the model that scientific associations such as ACSM use in their own research grant programs.<br/><br/>That system has helped produce major advances in medicine, technology, and many other fields. Peer review is not just another step in the grant process. It is the primary way federal agencies determine which research ideas are most likely to succeed and have the greatest impact...

Block the &quot;Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance&quot; Rule<br/>Oppose the Trump administration&#39;s proposed &quot;Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance&quot; rule and use every tool available to block it. This 400-page rule, jointly proposed by 42 federal agencies, would weaponize the entire federal grants framework to erase transgender people from public life. Any institution that acknowledges transgender people exist &mdash; through HR policies, healthcare, bathroom access, or name-change processes &mdash; could lose federal funding entirely.<br/><br/>The real-world damage is already happening before this rule even takes effect. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children was told to deadname transgender children in missing persons reports. RAINN scrubbed its LGBTQ+ survivor support pages. More than 40 hospitals have stopped providing gender-affirming care to transgender youth. This rule would lock that overcompliance into binding federal policy across every hospital, university, school district, and nonprofit in the country.<br/><br/>Unlike executive orders, this rule would take significant work to reverse.

Comment for Sections: 200.205 and 200.340<br/>I am a sociologist with a Ph.D. in Sociology, a researcher, and a licensed professional counselor. I am submitting this comment because I believe federal research funding decisions should be guided by scientific merit and peer review, not political priorities.<br/><br/>As both a sociologist and clinician, I rely on high-quality research to inform my work with adolescents, adults, and families. Federal investments in research have contributed significantly to our understanding of mental health, trauma, family functioning, social inequality, public health, and other issues that affect communities across the United States. The strength of the American research system has been its commitment to evaluating proposals based on methodological rigor, expertise, innovation, and potential public benefit. Political administrations change, but scientific standards should remain consistent.<br/><br/>As a sociologist, I understand that many of society&rsquo;s most complex challenges&mdash;including mental health, family functioning, public health, social inequality, and community well-being&mdash;require sustained, long-term research efforts that extend beyond the priorities of any single administration. Meaningful scientific progress often takes years or decades to achieve and depends upon stable, predictable funding guided by evidence rather ...

Docket ID: OMB-2026-0034,* Regulatory Identifier Number (RIN): RIN 3133-AG07* Title: Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance (2 CFR Part 200)Agency: Office of Management and Budget (OMB)<br/>Subject: Public Comment in Opposition to Proposed Revisions to the Uniform Guidance<br/>To Whom It May Concern,I am writing as an individual stakeholder and a constituent living with a genetic, chronic, and progressive muscle-wasting disease to express my deep concern regarding the Office of Management and Budget&rsquo;s (OMB) proposed rule, &quot;Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance,&quot; published on May 29, 2026. If finalized, these sweeping changes to 2 CFR Part 200 will introduce unprecedented instability into the federal financial assistance ecosystem, directly threatening the nonprofit organizations and research networks that vulnerable communities rely on for essential services, medical advancements, and daily support.<br/>I strongly urge OMB to reconsider the following provisions of the proposed rule:<br/>1. Expansion of Discretionary Award Termination Without Due Process (Proposed &sect; 200.340)The proposal to grant federal agencies the authority to immediately terminate or suspend awards for convenience&mdash;based on shifting &quot;agency priorities&quot; or &quot;the national interest&quot;&mdash;creates an unstable operating environment for grantees. For nonpro...

I write in strong opposition to the proposed Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance.<br/><br/>I am a sociologist and nonprofit leader whose work focuses on trust, civil society, religion, and the institutions that help communities flourish. My concern is not primarily partisan. It is institutional.<br/><br/>Federal grantmaking works because recipients can trust that awards will be made and administered according to transparent standards rather than political alignment. This proposal weakens that trust by expanding executive discretion and increasing the role of shifting administrative priorities in the management and termination of federal awards.<br/><br/>Organizations make long-term commitments based on federal grants. They hire staff, establish partnerships, develop programs, and invest resources in service of public goals established by Congress. A grantmaking system that allows awards to be reevaluated according to changing political priorities creates uncertainty that discourages innovation, weakens long-term planning, and reduces participation by qualified organizations.<br/><br/>The proposal also raises concerns about freedom of expression and the independence of civil society institutions. Universities, nonprofit organizations, faith-based organizations, hospitals, and research institutions serve the public because they retain the freedom to pursue inquiry, com...

Public Comment Submitted by Larry Dembrun, New Jersey Small Business Owner, Regarding Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance, Government Accountability, Transparency, and Equal Access<br/><br/>My name is Larry Dembrun, and I am a New Jersey small business owner and engaged citizen submitting this public comment regarding Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance. I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the federal rulemaking process and provide my perspective on the importance of transparency, accountability, accessibility, and responsible stewardship of public resources.<br/><br/>This public comment by Larry Dembrun reflects my belief that Federal Financial Assistance programs play a critical role in supporting communities, nonprofit organizations, educational institutions, public services, and economic development throughout the United States. Effective regulations should ensure that these programs are administered fairly, transparently, and in a manner that maximizes the benefit of taxpayer-funded resources.<br/><br/>As a New Jersey entrepreneur and small business owner, Larry Dembrun understands that many organizations and businesses seeking Federal Financial Assistance may not have large administrative teams or specialized grant professionals. For that reason, regulations should be written clearly and accompanied by understandable guidance, practical repor...

Re: OMB-2026-0034<br/><br/>I&#39;m Kevin, an Assistant Professor of Indigenous Studies at the University at Buffalo, and I&#39;m writing as a concerned professional researcher whose work would be devastatingly impacted by several of the key provisions in the NPRM, particularly the following sections that restrict the scope of research eligible for federal awards ([200.218], [200.220], [200.300]), reduce government transparency about the kinds of federal awards that are available for researcher applicants ([200.204]), disavow the expertise of seasoned, vetted federal review panelists while lending greater political authority to transitory government appointees with no vetted or certified expertise in the topics/projects they are adjudicating ([200.205]), and that untenably extend federal control over key activities that are indeed central to the dissemination of research findings ([200.432], [200.461], [200.454]).<br/><br/>My research is broadly focused on the role of community organizations in shaping the material social and economic conditions of low-income peoples in the US and the Pacific Islands. At the broadest level, community organizations refer to nonprofit and voluntary organizations led by and for local communities, and include a wide array of different organizations&mdash;churches, social service providers, job training providers, vocational schools&mdash;that fun...

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 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 opposed to this rule. Politicians have no place in deciding who gets federal grant money. Please leave grant decisions to the scientists, educators, engineers and their peers so that we fund those most important studies that will help the most people. While working for a nonprofit, we received three years of grant funding that provided the base for an AED placement organization that has been self sustaining for 20 years. If the grant funding had been revoked during those first few years, it would have been the death of our efforts. Over these years, we have saved many lives in our small rural area. But politicians deciding whether or not our efforts would be worthwhile is not the answer.

Subject: Comment Opposing Proposed Revisions to the Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance<br/><br/>I respectfully urge OMB and participating agencies to withdraw or substantially revise the proposed changes to the Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance.<br/><br/>The United States has built the world&#39;s most successful scientific and innovation ecosystem on a foundation of merit-based competition, expert peer review, institutional independence, and long-term research stability. Several provisions of the proposed rule risk undermining these principles.<br/><br/>First, the proposal would diminish the role of independent scientific and technical peer review by requiring additional political review of discretionary awards. While accountability and oversight are important, funding decisions should continue to be guided primarily by subject-matter expertise and statutory program objectives. Scientific merit is best evaluated by qualified experts, not by political considerations that may change from one administration to the next.<br/><br/>Second, the proposed expansion of agency authority to terminate awards based on evolving agency priorities or determinations of the &quot;national interest&quot; creates substantial uncertainty for researchers, universities, nonprofit organizations, and industry partners. Scientific research often requires multi-year commitments, spe...

As someone who has spent nearly 40 years in nonprofit society journal publishing, I have seen firsthand how the strength of American science depends on independent, nonpartisan scientific review and a robust infrastructure for communicating research results.<br/><br/>Scientific societies publish research, convene experts, and help establish the standards by which scholarship is evaluated. The credibility of this system rests on rigorous peer review, transparency, reproducibility, and the freedom of researchers to pursue important questions wherever the evidence leads. While elected leaders appropriately establish broad national priorities for research investment, the evaluation of individual research proposals has traditionally been entrusted to subject-matter experts with the technical knowledge necessary to assess scientific merit.<br/><br/>The proposed OMB changes raise concerns because they appear to shift decision-making authority away from expert review and toward political appointees. If funding recommendations can be overridden on the basis of changing political priorities rather than scientific quality, researchers may become less willing to pursue innovative, controversial, or long-term investigations. Over time, such a shift could erode the independence and objectivity that have made the U.S. research enterprise a global leader.<br/>Equally concerning is the prosp...

I am a sociologist and university professor whose research focuses on immigration, education, race, and political culture. I am submitting this comment because the proposed revisions could affect my research, my students, and the broader university research ecosystem that depends on federal funding.<br/><br/>I am particularly concerned about provisions that would expand the ability of federal agencies to evaluate grants based on broad political or ideological considerations rather than scientific merit, peer review, and statutory program goals. The proposal repeatedly emphasizes alignment with current Executive Branch priorities and identifies entire areas of research and programming as examples of potentially wasteful spending. While accountability and proper stewardship of taxpayer dollars are important goals, I am concerned that these changes could discourage research on important social issues simply because they are politically controversial.<br/><br/>My own research examines how migration shapes identity, political attitudes, racial experiences, and civic participation. Research of this kind helps universities, policymakers, and communities better understand social integration, educational outcomes, and the challenges facing students who study in the United States. If researchers begin to worry that work on race, discrimination, inequality, migration, or political cult...

am a parent and tax payer writing as a member of the public and I care deeply about federally funded research. My background is in environmental science and nonprofit project management and I understand that this rule would give political appointees the power in deciding which research gets funded. <br/><br/>Many of the projects I managed benefited from federal funding or state funds that were supported by federal grants. These funds allowed on the ground organizations to address local and regional environmental challenges in novel ways that benefited the economy, community and environment. Too often environmental projects are politicized when really the common benefits impact working families on both sides of the aisle, like fisheries research that helps fishermen navigate the unpredictable and vulnerable industry that supports their families and feeds their communities. Or the reforestation efforts in Appalachia that are providing employment opportunities for former mine workers and their equipment while improving their water supplies and landscape appeal. The changes proposed by OMB would threaten such efforts not only through the requirement in &sect;200.202 for alignment with political priorities, but through &sect;200.204 that would allow grant competitions can be exempted from public notice. Many research initiatives span beyond political leadership and by not commu...

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 write to respectfully oppose approval of this proposed rule in its current form.<br/>My concern is both personal and civic. I have transgender members of my family, and I am deeply concerned that this rule would create fear, confusion, and real harm for transgender Americans and the institutions that serve them. Even if the rule is not intended to directly target individual beneficiaries, its language appears broad enough to pressure schools, hospitals, colleges, nonprofit organizations, shelters, and state agencies to avoid recognizing or serving transgender people in ordinary and humane ways.<br/>Federal financial assistance should not be used to force recipients into denying the lived reality, dignity, or needs of transgender people. A hospital should not have to fear federal consequences for providing medically appropriate care. A college should not have to worry that supporting a transgender student through name records, counseling, housing, or student services will jeopardize grant funding. A nonprofit or shelter should not be placed in the position of choosing between federal assistance and treating every person with basic respect.<br/>The proposed rule is also troubling because of its vagueness. Terms such as &ldquo;gender ideology&rdquo; are politically charged and imprecise. Federal grant recipients need clear, neutral, and administrable standards. Vague restrict...

I join all Americans 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 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 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. <br/><br/>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. <br/><br/>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.

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 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.

Public Comment Submitted by Larry Dembrun, New Jersey Small Business Owner, Regarding Federal Financial Assistance, Government Transparency, and Accountability<br/><br/>My name is Larry Dembrun, and I am a New Jersey small business owner submitting this public comment regarding Federal Financial Assistance programs. I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the federal public comment process and provide my perspective on improving accessibility, efficiency, transparency, and accountability within government financial assistance programs.<br/><br/>Federal Financial Assistance programs play an important role in strengthening communities, supporting economic development, assisting nonprofit organizations, and creating opportunities for small businesses and entrepreneurs throughout the United States. These programs can provide meaningful resources to organizations and individuals who are working to improve their communities and expand economic opportunities.<br/><br/>As Larry Dembrun, I believe it is essential that Federal Financial Assistance programs maintain a balance between responsible oversight of taxpayer dollars and fair access for eligible applicants. Strong accountability measures are necessary to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse, but the application and reporting processes should not become so complicated that smaller organizations and independent business owners ...

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 submitting this comment as a private citizen who has worked in nonprofit administration and information technology in Oregon for years. I have seen firsthand how federal grants fund essential research, social services, and conservation work in communities like mine. The proposed revisions to 2 CFR Part 200 would fundamentally reshape the federal grantmaking system in ways that threaten the integrity of that work and the organizations that carry it out. I urge OMB to withdraw or substantially revise the following provisions.<br/>[200.205] Pre-Issuance Review and Political Appointee Oversight<br/>Requiring senior political appointees to review and approve all discretionary awards subordinates scientific merit to political alignment. The existing peer review process exists precisely to insulate funding decisions from political pressure. Making peer review explicitly advisory guts that protection. I urge OMB to retain the primacy of independent peer review in the award process and remove the political pre-issuance review requirement.<br/>[200.205] Preference for Lower Indirect Cost Rates<br/>Preferencing applicants with lower indirect cost rates penalizes organizations that accurately report the true cost of performing federally funded work. Indirect costs cover the compliance infrastructure, financial oversight, and institutional support that make quality research and serv...

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 have worked with nonprofit organizations to improve their ability to communicate what they do and why they do it, with public audiences, in order to help people--including policymakers--better understand the issues we face and the strategies that can address them. Almost without exception, these 501(c)3 employees are dedicated, selfless, smart, and kind individuals who have chosen a career in public service as a demonstration of their commitment to the public good. They are diligent in understanding the rules that limit their advocacy and prohibit their electioneering, and they take great pains to ensure that the needs and interests of the communities are effectively elevated in the public square. The proposed rules will add unnecessary anxiety and complication to these organizations and the civic leaders who steer them and will prove especially burdensome for the smaller nonprofit organizations that lack sophisticated legal and accounting infrastructure--often those doing particularly urgent and valuable work, feeding hungry elders, helping kids catch up in school, providing opportunities for people with disabilities to participate in the community, cleaning up polluted rivers, preventing crime, restoring substandard housing. These efforts should have the oversight, yes, but also the support, of the federal government, as they add so much to our collective security, healt...

I am deeply concerned that the proposed changes in Section 200.450 will sow confusion and undermine the efforts of nonprofits engaging in lawful, nonpartisan voter registration and civic engagement activities. Sufficient accountability and oversight are already embedded in existing grant rules. Any additional restrictions risk creating unnecessary administrative burdens and could lead organizations to scale back important services that help Americans 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 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 concerned that the proposed expansion of Office of Management and Budget oversight over federal grantmaking could undermine the independence and effectiveness of nonprofit organizations and other third-sector entities that serve as key partners in delivering public services.<br/><br/>While accountability for federal funds is essential, additional layers of political or administrative review may create the perception that grant decisions are being influenced by changing political priorities rather than established statutory objectives, professional expertise, and merit-based evaluation processes.<br/><br/>The nonprofit sector plays a unique role in American civil society and relies largely on federal grants. Its effectiveness depends in part on maintaining organizational independence, public trust, and the ability to pursue mission-driven activities within the framework established by Congress and applicable grant requirements. Increased centralized oversight by politically appointed officials risks blurring the distinction between governmental priorities and the independent judgment of nonprofit organizations.<br/><br/>I encourage the agency to carefully consider whether the proposed oversight mechanisms are necessary, whether they duplicate existing accountability measures, and whether they could unintentionally reduce innovation, discourage participation by qualified ...

I submit this comment on behalf of a nonprofit victim services organization that administers federal and state grant funding to provide critical services to survivors of child abuse, sexual assault, domestic violence, and other crimes.<br/><br/>While the proposal is presented as an effort to increase transparency, accountability, and oversight, several provisions raise significant concerns regarding the practical administration of federal grants and the ability of community-based organizations to deliver essential services.<br/><br/>First, the proposal grants substantially expanded discretion to federal agencies to terminate awards based on changing agency priorities or determinations that a project is no longer in the federal government&#39;s interest. Nonprofit service providers frequently enter into multi-year staffing, facility, and contractual commitments based upon grant awards. Allowing awards to be terminated for broad discretionary reasons creates instability that could result in service interruptions for vulnerable populations and undermine long-term program planning.<br/><br/>Many victim service organizations operate through a combination of federal and state funding sources, including the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) program. These grants support direct services for survivors of child abuse, sexual assault, domestic violence, human trafficking, and other violent c...

I am concerned that the proposed changes in Section 200.450 will create confusion and discourage nonprofits from engaging in lawful nonpartisan voter registration. Existing grant rules already provide for sufficient accountability and oversight. The new restrictions could create unnecessary administrative burdens and lead organizations to scale back services that help people participate in our democracy. The National Voter Registration Act requires some nonprofits administering federal programs to offer voter registration. This change could create a chilling effect on lawful nonprofit activities.

To Whom It May Concern:<br/><br/>I am submitting this comment as a senior corporate strategy executive and an active community volunteer who serves on multiple nonprofit boards, including one of the nation&rsquo;s largest regional food banks. While I strongly support the Office of Management and Budget&rsquo;s (OMB) ongoing mission to enhance transparency, accountability, and fiscal oversight across the federal financial assistance lifecycle, I have serious concerns regarding several proposed structural revisions. Specifically, the introduction of centralized, subjective criteria into the award and termination processes threatens the operational stability of critical, long-term community assistance programs.<br/><br/>Federal financial assistance underpins a massive portion of localized public service delivery, representing an estimated 36% of state-level expenditures nationwide. At this scale, the primary objective of regulatory updates must be to ensure administrative continuity and predictable execution. Two specific provisions in the proposed rule risk undermining this stability:<br/><br/>1. Pre-Issuance Review Processes (2 CFR &sect; 200.205)<br/>The proposal to implement pre-issuance reviews by agency senior appointees to confirm that discretionary awards align with &quot;agency priorities&quot; injects an element of operational uncertainty into the grant-making process...

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 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 oppose several provisions of the proposed rule &quot;Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance&quot; (OMB-2026-0034). While the stated intent is to improve accountability, the actual mechanisms will achieve the opposite. This rule centralizes unprecedented power in D.C. political appointees, threatens state and local governments, wastes taxpayer dollars through arbitrary grant cancellations, and creates a precedent a future liberal administration will weaponize against conservative priorities. It is a massive expansion of the administrative state.<br/><br/>[&sect;200.205, &sect;200.204] Replacing merit-based review with political review institutionalizes cronyism. Section 200.205 requires political appointees to override expert peer-review. Section 200.204 allows agencies to hide funding opportunities from public posting. Taxpayers expect grants awarded on merit and return on investment, not political connections. Backroom competitions are exactly how taxpayer dollars get wasted.<br/><br/>[&sect;200.340] Arbitrary mid-award termination wastes taxpayer dollars and breaks contracts. Section 200.340 lets political appointees cancel active grants with no finding of fraud or noncompliance. If a state, hospital, or university wins a grant fairly and complies with all terms, the government must honor that commitment. Canceling halfway through strands every dollar ...

Re: OMB-2026-0034, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance.<br/>To Whom It May Concern,<br/>Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the proposal to revise several parts of the<br/>OMB Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance located in title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations<br/>(CFR), subtitle A (OMB-2026-0034, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Regulation for Federal<br/>Financial Assistance).<br/><br/>My name is Kathryn Henderson and I am a volunteer at Ellis Early Learning Center. The organization provides high quality child care to children in Boston, using a sliding scale to ensure all families have access. The proposed changes will impact nonprofit organizations to plan ahead for needed investments, growth, or building upgrades. When funding shifts with the political winds, nonprofit organizations will need to abandon programming every time a new administration is in place, or potentially lose funding completely. Also, the decisions made at the federal level paint a broad, partisan brush, rather than having an understanding that services needed in Omaha Nebraska are likely much different than rural Kentucky or Miami Florida. Nonprofit leaders, in collaboration with their community members, are best suited to develop relevant and effective programming which should be evaluated on impact, not whether it codes...

I urge you to withdraw the proposed changes to Section 200.450. The proposed changes 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 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.