Regulations.gov Comments

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

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

The OMB published its 400-page proposal OMB-2026-0034, on a Friday afternoon with a comment window which closes July 13, mid-summer, after most faculty have left campus. Yet these regulations affect scientists&rsquo; ability to conduct research, support trainees, hire experienced researchers, and disseminate results. Following are my objections to each section:

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

This rule greatly expands federal government control over grants. This alone is bad. The Republican Party use to be in favor of small government. In addition, this rule would give federal political appointees power over scientific, medical, and educational grants, areas in which they are ignorant. Because of their ignorance, these federal bureaucrats would make terrible and/or politically motivated decisions that would waste our tax dollars. Scientific, medical, and educational experts must be in charge of these grants. They alone have the necessary knowledge to make the decisions on how our tax money is best spent on these grants.

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

See attached file(s)

Pediatric Oncology Prospective: <br/><br/>The proposed OMB changes to federal research oversight represent a profound departure from the principles that have guided biomedical progress for decades. By placing political review above or alongside scientific peer evaluation, the proposal risks substituting objective merit with subjective alignment to shifting policy priorities. For those of us in pediatric oncology&mdash;where progress depends on rigor, collaboration, and long-term investment&mdash;this shift is not theoretical; it is potentially devastating.<br/><br/>Pediatric cancer research is uniquely vulnerable to disruption. The diseases we treat are rare, biologically distinct, and often lack effective therapies, requiring highly coordinated, multicenter, and frequently international efforts to generate meaningful data. Advances in survival over the past several decades have been driven almost entirely by scientifically grounded clinical trials and cooperative group research. Introducing political gatekeeping into this process threatens to fracture these networks, delay trials, and ultimately slow the development of life-saving therapies for children.<br/><br/>The proposal&rsquo;s allowance for grant termination based on a vague &ldquo;national interest&rdquo; standard introduces instability into an already fragile funding ecosystem that has been made further vulnerable ...

I write in my personal capacity as a researcher in statistics, machine learning, and artificial intelligence. The views expressed here are my own and should not be taken to be an official position of my employer or any organization. <br/><br/>In particular, I wish to comment on the practical ramifications of two proposed changes: Section 200.432&mdash;Conferences and Section 200.461&mdash;Publication and Printing Costs. Each of these would substantially disrupt the dissemination of research findings, as well as creating considerable paperwork burdens on funding agencies. The financial costs that these proposals target are a small percentage of research outlays, making the disruptive effects of the changes massively disproportionate to the savings they would generate. Modifications to both recommended rule changes can make substantial progress towards their stated goals without jeopardizing the dissemination of scientific results. <br/><br/> Section 200.432&mdash;Conferences effectively requires all conference costs to be enumerated in the proposal budget, or to receive explicit approval from funding agencies. Conferences are not just a (very valuable) opportunity for researchers to learn about developments in their field, they are a key component of research dissemination and peer feedback. In fields such as Computer Science, and Artificial Intelligence, refereed confe...

I am a federally funded (NIH) tenure-track faculty member at a Research I institution in the US. I began my position in 2022 and was awarded an R35 grant from the NIGMS of the NIH in 2024. I conduct fundamental biological research that lays the foundation for future advances in disease diagnosis, treatment, and prevention. I also train the next generation of researchers through mentorship and teaching. <br/><br/>I am writing in strong opposition to the proposed revisions to 2 CFR Part 200 (Docket OMB-2026-0034).<br/><br/>I have substantial concerns that the proposed changes will stifle scientific progress in the United States, abolishing our role as a leader in research, health, and security. This is a serious threat to our national security and the well-being of our citizens. <br/><br/>These concerns arise out of many of the proposed changes, but most significantly those listed below:<br/><br/>&sect;200.205 and &sect;200.205(d) &mdash; Political appointee pre-issuance review and the elimination of binding peer review<br/><br/>&sect;200.340 &mdash; Discretionary termination on undefined &ldquo;national interest&rdquo; grounds<br/><br/>&sect;200.300 &mdash; Replacement of anti-discrimination protections with anti-DEI prohibitions<br/><br/>&sect;200.220 and &sect;200.303 &mdash; Foreign collaboration prohibition and E-Verify mandate<br/><br/>&sect;200.202, &sect;200.202(d), &s...

This is a comment on the proposed &ldquo;Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance&rdquo; rule.<br/><br/>Section 200.205(b) Federal agency merit review of proposals. The proposed rule changes under this section would stifle the national scientific enterprise funded by the federal government in its tracks. It would effectively shut down planning, recruiting, and hiring of scientific talent at all levels. First, no grant can &ldquo;demonstrably advance the president&rsquo;s policy priorities,&rdquo; especially when grants span administrations. Further, what happens if the president changes policy priorities? Scientific research spans multiple years and must be proposed and planned years in advance. Most grants from the NIH and NSF, for example, cover 4-5 years at a time. If changing of an administration, or changing priorities within an administration, could mean immediate cancellation of a grant due to changes in the president&rsquo;s policy priorities, then no rational scientist will try to recruit researchers for multiple years. And no researcher will want to be hired in conditions where their salary could be cut off at a moment&rsquo;s notice. Thus, this rule is unworkable and detrimental to the national interest in maintaining a world-leading scientific workforce.<br/><br/>Section 200.205(b) also requires every grant proposal to be reviewed by a political appointee, pot...

The proposed rule, Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance, must not be accepted. Political appointees have no business dealing with grants for scientific research. Political appointees cannot dismiss, defund, and ignore evidence-backed science if it doesn&#39;t align with their agenda, which is exactly what they&#39;ll do with this proposed rule. Career experts matter. Science matters. Dismissing them would be harmful to our nation, and is why this proposed regulation must be stopped.

I oppose the proposed changes to the Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance. While preventing waste and fraud is important, this proposal looks like a way to inject politics into how our tax dollars are spent, while creating more red tape for everyone else.<br/><br/>I am asking you to withdraw this proposal for three main reasons:<br/><br/>It opens the door for political purity tests. We already have strict laws against discrimination. Adding vague new rules about upholding &quot;equality&quot; looks like a backdoor way to force ideological frameworks onto organizations that just want to do good work. Federal grants should be awarded strictly because someone has a great, effective project&mdash;not because they know how to use the right political buzzwords.<br/><br/>It adds red tape while claiming to reduce it. The summary claims these changes will &quot;reduce recipient burden,&quot; but that makes no sense. You cannot add massive new government-wide rules and oversight without also adding tons of new paperwork. This extra bureaucracy will end up hurting small, local non-profits and community groups that can&#39;t afford a team of lawyers just to apply for a grant.<br/><br/>The rules are too vague and give bureaucrats too much power. The proposal talks about making sure projects match &quot;law and policy&quot; and &quot;relevant standards.&quot; Because those terms are ...

Science should never be tied to political views. The gold standard can only be upheld without political interference. Political officials have no business appointing or selecting proposals. They aren&#39;t scientists. Leave science to scientists. Leave the OMB alone.

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/>

To whom it may concern,<br/><br/>I would like to provide comment in opposition of the OMB &quot;Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance&quot; proposal.<br/><br/>This proposal would seriously undermine America&#39;s scientific endeavors in favor of allowing non-experts to manipulate scientific institutions for the benefit of political parties.<br/><br/>This proposal would be an egregious conflict of interest because it&#39;s nearly certain that politicians will use this power to undermine scientific research that: does not align with their policies, does not align with the business interests of their wealthy donors. This is to the detriment of the general public who do not have the vast amount of resources necessary to bend policy to their benefit.<br/><br/>America&#39;s ingenuity and scientific institutions MUST NOT become political tools. We must be a country that is well informed by sound scientific research, not by special interests or political theater. This proposal would only benefit politicians and their high-paying donors, rather than the vast majority of the public.<br/><br/>We need unbiased scientific research to inform our decisions more than ever. Please do not destroy the credibility of our most valuable scientific institutions.<br/><br/>Sincerely,<br/><br/>Dillon G. Isaacs Tse

To whom it may concern:<br/><br/>There are many systems of government who from their conception were designed to stay consistent from administration to administration. These policies and appointed officials govern areas that affect the lives of Americans in an objective manner, and in ways that many arent even aware of. One example of this might be the Federal Reserve, which many people may not have even been aware of its impact until it became a contentious news topic beginning in 2020. Jobs like theirs are critical to keep the country moving forward, even if their actions dont support the agenda of the administration that happens to be in power at that time. For example, the Fed could announce that they will never hike rates ever again. The stock market would love and benefit immediately from this, but it would lead to inflation and total economic ruin eventually. For this reason, they operate independently from the President or any other elected official. <br/><br/>When it comes to scientific funding in the United States, the results of certain experiments and tests are almost never convenient. But they reveal essential truths about the world we live in and must be accepted in order to continue progress. This is why scientific funding MUST NOT depend on supporting the agenda of any particular administration. The food system, and the health of hundreds of millions, relies ...

Please see the attached comments of the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University School of Law.

See attached file(s)

Science is a process that should be apolitical. It is already difficult enough to try to eliminate bias in research. Letting politicians who have no background in science decide which forms of research get published or funded creates even more publication bias. Sometimes small seemingly insignificant discoveries can be the backbone of a major breakthrough in science in the future. <br/><br/>As someone who works in healthcare, I don&#39;t believe information about medicine should be muddied by politics. The guidelines professionals use to provide care is based on research. To protect public interest, I think it&#39;s paramount that we do not let politicians decide what is considered proper healthcare. We already have enough trouble fighting insurance companies to ensure patients get adequate care. I would rather the government not be another hindrance to a patient&#39;s health.

As someone who has served as a researcher consultant for Long Covid Families (LCF), I can attest to the fact that there has been very little research into the effects of long covid on children. Sadly, at a time when research of this sort is finally growing, the federal government is considering changes that would reduce its support and involvement in such crucial research.<br/><br/>For example, research grant studies could be cancelled at any time and without cause. Political appointees (without the necessary expertise) would have greater say on whether a research project gets approved than scientists who have the content area expertise to judge its soundness.<br/><br/>Fixed grants would be eliminated, which impacts the smaller and simpler awards that small labs, patient registries, and non-profits rely on. The addition of limitations on the publication of research findings will reduce the ability of those conducting the research to make the findings accessible to the public and their policy-making representatives in government.<br/><br/>The prevention of using grant funds to access relevant journal publications will compromise grant applicants from assembling relevant literature reviews unless a statute requires it or an agency signs off case by case. Finally, the requirement that potential conference presentations must be anticipated and written into a grant, those submitt...

I am a cognitive scientist and university researcher whose federally supported work examines how children learn from others, how social learning develops, and how learning mechanisms relate to later educational and developmental outcomes. My research depends on scientific peer review, long-term planning, pilot studies, conference exchange, publication, and the ability to follow evidence without political interference.<br/><br/>I am writing to oppose the proposed changes to federal grant rules, especially &sect;200.205, &sect;200.340, &sect;200.333, &sect;200.461, &sect;200.454, and &sect;200.432.<br/><br/>Section &sect;200.205 is especially concerning because it would give political appointees final authority over grant funding decisions while making expert peer review merely advisory. Scientific grants should be judged by scientific merit, methodological rigor, feasibility, and public value&mdash;not by whether a project fits the priorities of a particular administration. That principle should concern people across the political spectrum. We should not want research on child development, cognition, health, education, or human behavior shaped by political influence from either the left or the right.<br/><br/>Section &sect;200.340 is also deeply troubling because it would allow active grants to be terminated when the work no longer fits current government priorities, even if ...

Please withdraw this proposed rule. <br/><br/>I am a researcher studying science education in K12 classrooms (Associate Professor at Ohio State University). My work has been funded by the National Science Foundation. These grants are key to making sure that I have the time and materials needed to do my research. My research has benefitted children and teachers by developing and evaluating science curriculum that is customized for particular local contexts/interests. In addition, it has helped prepare and support pre-service and in-service science teachers in light of shifting standards and the changing needs of school children in the US. <br/><br/>This rule would negatively affect NSF funding of me and grant funding for all researchers. First of all, this would allow government appointees, rather than peer review panels, to make decisions on what is worth being funded. Appointees do not have the subject-specific knowledge needed to decide whether research is a meaningful contribution to the field. Peer reviewers have dedicated their careers to specific topics and are in a much better position to provide critiques. Moreover, relying on peer reviewers prioritizes research/science over rapidly changing political contexts.<br/><br/>Second, the time scale of grants is often longer than administrations. I wrote and submitted my first NSF grant in 2021. It was funded in 2022, and i...

Our family of 7 adults, as listed below, is100% opposed to the proposed OMB rule &quot;Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance.&quot; Federal support for research projects must continue to be based on peer-reviewed, demonstrable facts produced by independent research and the rigorous intellectual process of the scientific method. This is how the United States has led the world in business and scientific innovations resulting in new projects and highly marketable products that solve observable problems and enrich our economy. Political appointees, temporary in tenure and with temporary political priorities, have no place in the final approval and review process for any federal grant.<br/><br/>Mary Nell de la Garza, Victor de la Garza, Aaron Charles de la Garza, Jennifer Lueckemeyer, Vanessa C. Smith,<br/>Michael Jason Kearns, Jake Rosser Smith

I am a project manager in a research group focused on energy storage and battery technologies, and I am writing to share my perspective on the proposed revisions to the Uniform Guidance. My work involves managing federally and state supported research and collaborating with private-sector partners developing critical energy technologies.<br/>Based on my experience, I am concerned that many aspects of the proposed rule would increase instability in research funding at a time when programs like mine are already under significant strain. Over the past year, our team was reduced from five members to three, two major projects were canceled, and several of our private-sector partners went out of business. One of them had promising technologies such as a battery made from sodium ions (salt, which is very plentiful) that could have helped our country rely less on China for lithium, another common element in the batteries we use. These changes significantly reduced our capacity and disrupted the partnerships that are essential for turning research into real-world applications.<br/>The work we do directly supports national security, including energy independence, grid resilience, economic competitiveness. We focus on developing technologies such as advanced batteries and microgrid systems that contribute to a more resilient and domestically supported energy infrastructure. In my exper...

I have served as a research laboratory manager for almost 30 years at the Tier 1 research institution that is also my undergraduate and graduate alma mater. I spend a great deal of my time collaborating with trainees, staff, and faculty to help them achieve their research goals, but I also perform my own research as a part of our laboratory&rsquo;s NIH and internally funded projects. A certain amount of my time is also spent in training new students in laboratory techniques and sharing with them the excitement of scientific investigation and discovery. <br/><br/>The new uniform guidance proposed by the Office of Management and Budget will be catastrophic for American science. So many pieces of this proposed rule are problematic, but especially upsetting to me is the effect it will have on future generations of scientists. Graduate, undergraduate, and sometimes even younger students are a critical part of a laboratory team. The elimination of DEI programs (&sect;200.300) means that promising young American students from diverse or under resourced communities are not exposed to science and are far more likely to choose more traditional paths like medicine or law to assist their families. The possibility that active grants can be terminated at any time for any reason (&sect;200.340) will mean that ALL students will be less likely to consider graduate school in science as a path...

I do not pay taxes for the government to secretly and quietly change things. I do not approve of this country changing into an all Christian country, that is not America and that is not want we want as a whole! The government is ours not a small group of men and women in a room. It belongs to the people as a whole plain and simple. I&#39;m believe in the original constitution and all that it stands for. You do not get to cherry pick what you believe is true.

Good evening, <br/><br/>I am a chemistry professor at a small liberal arts college that is dedicated engaging with research in collaboration with undergraduate students. Funding from the National Science Foundation has been critical for my work because it has funded multiple students during the summer in addition to providing resources necessary for our work. <br/><br/>I am particularly concerned about the potential upcoming changes. Specifically: <br/><br/>The changes recommended in section [200.202] requires grant programs and funding opportunities to be directly aligned with administration priorities. This is a difficult precedent because it then means that funding alignment will change on short, political timescales. My research often requires years to reach a level of maturity so that it is ready to more broadly share with the scientific community. If administrative priorities change, then it could result in episodic funding changes that will impact the trajectory of our work. <br/><br/>The changes recommended in section [200.205] provides political appointees within a given agency authority to evaluate proposals based on policy alignment, prior to peer review panels and subject-matter experts. I have had the honor to participate on a peer review panel. The colleagues were knowledgeable and critical evaluators of the proposed work. Their close proximity to the area of r...

I am a medicinal chemistry researcher for Fox Chase Therapeutics, Inc. in Doylestown, PA. We work with biomedical researchers at distinguished research universities and have been jointly awarded major research grants by NIH totaling $2 million/year to support work on many biomedical topics, primarily in novel aspects of drug discovery. I urge OMB to reconsider changes to the merit review process [200.205] and ensure that grants continue to be evaluated primarily on technical merit rather than reviewed by political appointees. The peer review process is crucial to protecting scientific integrity and making sure the benefits of federally funded research can spread to the rest of society. The proposed rule would place an enormous burden on political appointees without the qualified expertise to evaluate technical proposals, thus slowing down the review process. I also oppose changes to the grant termination provisions [200.340] that would allow agencies to terminate active grants if they do not advance the national interest. Federal grants have helped support our small company of 25 employees over our 26 year history and led to submission of several potential medicines to the drug development process. Uncertainty in award funding would weaken the STEM workforce pipeline and innovation capabilities of many individuals like myself and our company.

Let the Scientists and Researchers determine funding for Grants...their work saves lives! Political appointees have no business making these decisions based on political motivations. We respect science and all the good it does for our lives and the world. Let the Scientists make these decisions!!!!!!

Political appointees should have nothing to do with scientific research. They are not experts. They are not scientists they are not researchers and they have no business picking and choosing who and what is being researched for their bias. Scientific research should be independent and evidence based. Please protect our scientific research from political bias by blocking this rule.

As a physician and an NIH-funded researcher, I strongly oppose this proposed regulation and urge the agency not to pass this. Peer review of grant proposals is critical. Scientists are the only qualified individuals to evaluate research proposals, not politicians. This comment is especially pertinent to Sections 200.205 and 200.340. There is already an extensive and rigorous process in place to ensure taxpayer dollars are alloted only to a small percentage of research submissions that can have a big impact on population health. The proposed changes will weaken the impact of peer review, to the detriment of quality in Federally sponsored research. <br/><br/>Dissemination and exchange of research results: This comment is especially pertinent to Sections 200.220, 200.432, and 200.461. First as a student and now as a working physician and scientist, funding to attend scientific conferences has transformed my research and improved it. There is no substitute for spontaneously sharing and developing ideas, and this happens only by sharing research and discussing ideas with other physicians and scientists. Scientific societies do not profit from holding meetings, often the reverse. There is already significant vetting of grant expenditures for attendance at conferences at the institutional level in that every request for travel reimbursement must be accompanied by an explanation of ...

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed changes to the federal grant system published on May 29, 2026. While I understand the need for transparency and keeping track of where taxpayer money goes, the actual mechanics of this proposal will end up hurting local communities, non-profits, and independent research by turning federal funding into a political tool.<br/><br/>There are a few major reasons why I think this rule is a massive step backward:<br/>It politicizes funding that should be merit-based: Grant money should go to projects that have the most merit, objective need, and community impact. By giving political appointees the final say and downgrading independent expert panels to a strictly &quot;advisory&quot; role, this rule opens the door for funding to be given or withheld based entirely on partisan politics. That is unfair to local organizations working hard to solve real-world problems.<br/><br/>It creates immense instability for long-term projects: Giving federal agencies the power to abruptly cancel an ongoing, fully compliant grant &quot;without cause&quot;&mdash;just because agency priorities change&mdash;makes it impossible to plan for the future. You cannot run a multi-year community program or build local infrastructure under the constant threat of having the rug pulled out from under you mid-way through. It forces local organizations to...

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

I am a biomedical scientist who was involved in multiple NIH funded projects during my research career (being a coauthor of almost 100 publications). Those projects spanned translation research in infectious and cardiac diseases and medical imaging involving multiple teams of researchers. I was also a member of NIH Study Sections reviewing small business grants for many years. I am commenting on section 200.205 which would change the grant proposal process by providing political appointees within a given agency authority to evaluate proposals based on policy alignment, prior to peer review panels and subject-matter experts. The NIH, NSF, CDC, DOE, etc. are world class scientific agencies and scientific projects are typically long term, spanning multiple Presidential terms. As such, the review of projects must not be subject to the political agenda of a particular administration. Science is non-partisan and should never be partisan.<br/>Regarding section 200.205 which would establishes preference to give awards to institutions with lower indirect cost rates, many world class institutions in the United States are in high cost urban centers. These centers often have multiple educational and technological institutions that work synergistically to advance scientific endeavors, such as development and translation of novel cancer treatments from the chemists lab to the clinic o...

As a tax-paying American who relies on institutions that also serve my transgender brothers and sisters, I am deeply outraged. Why would you risk the lives of people who rely on federally funded agencies just for some weird ideological position? Why create so much extra paperwork for federal agencies that are funded by my taxes? This is a waste of everyone&#39;s time, just over a couple of words. Who cares if transgender people receive hormones? It&#39;s none of my business, and it shouldn&#39;t be the government&#39;s business. It&#39;s obvious that this is an attempt by the American government to hoard wealth away from important governmental institutions.

To Whom It May Concern:<br/><br/>I am writing to express my absolute opposition to the proposed revisions to 2 CFR Part 200. As a small business owner in the health space with a background in medical education, I urge the OMB to withdraw this rule entirely based on the following principles:<br/><br/>Politicians are not scientists (&sect; 200.205): Replacing independent, expert peer review with the &quot;independent judgment&quot; of political appointees is fundamentally wrong. Appointees do not possess the technical or medical expertise required to evaluate complex health and scientific research. Overriding expert consensus with political vetting makes funding decisions inherently arbitrary, damaging public safety and scientific integrity.<br/><br/>The rule weaponizes public funds (&sect; 200.340): Allowing federal agencies to terminate active, funded grants at any time due to shifting &quot;priorities&quot; weaponizes taxpayer dollars. Public funds should support the best science, not the political party currently in power. Abruptly defunding ongoing projects every election cycle will cause catastrophic waste.<br/><br/>It destroys economic predictability: As a business owner, I know that economic stability requires predictability. Small businesses cannot take on the financial risk of hiring staff or investing in infrastructure for federal projects if the government can arbi...

Clinical trials should be run by the scientists and doctors who understand what is going on. Politicians have no business in deciding when/if a clinical trial should be allowed. My granddaughter has cerebral palsy and has already been able to participate in one clinical trial. These new methods of treatment will give her a brighter future. They are necessary for the health and well being of everyone.

Clinical trials should be run by the scientists and doctors who understand what is going on. Politicians have no business in deciding when/if a clinical trial should be allowed. My granddaughter has cerebral palsy and has already been able to participate in one clinical trial. These new methods of treatment will give her a brighter future. They are necessary for the health and well being of everyone.

Political appointees have zero business in scientific research. Their attempts to hinder research and clinical trials will only risk lives and set back our society as well as cause our scientific advancements to faulter and fall behind other countries yet again. <br/>I hibiting collaboration with other countries and causing xenophobic mentalities to win only isolates our country. Isolation leads to organisms to self-destructive behaviors. When organisms are allowed to expand, they thrive. Humans are meant to socialize. They/we are meant to LEARN from others. <br/>Cancer, disease, viruses and bacteria will never cease to exist. Our scientists must continue to learn from the worldwide scientific community and allowing for clinical trials, studies and worldwide collaboration will allow new drugs, vaccines and treatments to be developed to treat what is incurable today. <br/><br/>Do not allow ignorance and fear to stop progress.

I am a nurse manager at the North Carolina Basnight Cancer Hospital, and we work in collaboration with the UNC School of Medicine and Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Research Center. Our work on cancer has been NIH-funded for decades focusing on understanding cancer biology and improving cancer prevention, detection, and treatment. We also have NIH funding for junior faculty and predoctoral scholar development programs. All three types of NIH funding are essential to keep the U.S. competitive in the innovation that we are so proud to lead globally. I am writing in opposition to four proposed OMB revisions during this open comment period.<br/><br/>&bull;<span style='padding-left: 30px'></span>The new IMB&rsquo;s proposed federal financial assistance rule will be devastating to the future of innovation, which is driven at its most basic level by academics, who take on projects that are too high risk/high payoff for any non-governmental scientists to touch. In cancer research, this includes early-stage, mechanistic, and translational studies that industry will not support until the risk has been substantially reduced by federally funded investigators.<br/><br/>&bull;<span style='padding-left: 30px'></span>The proposed *&ldquo;post-review&rdquo;* of projects by political appointees (**section 200.205**) will minimize or even eliminate input from the people who are most qualifie...

The approval and determination of what scientific research warrants federal grant funding should rest solely with scientists. Political appointees do not have the relevant training to determine what research warrants grant funding and cannot be part of this process. <br/><br/>These types of changes are severely damaging the USA&rsquo;s scientific reputation and causing promising scientists to seek out other places to perform their work. If this regulation and others like it are enacted, the USA will fall more and more behind in the scientific field and loose business, manufacturing, and essential talent to other countries.

I am concerned that this proposed rule could dramatically damage critical scientific research in the United States, and further erode the US standing in international research, especially compared with potential technical competitors such as China.<br/> <br/>&sect;200.340: This is potentially wasteful as many research projects need to reach their planned conclusion in order to yield valuable results. The results of such research are often impossible to predict before the research is concluded.<br/><br/>&sect;200.205: Political appointees are often unqualified to understand the potential outcomes and benefits of highly technical sophisticated research. Often other researchers in the field are the only individuals who have the capacity to evaluate such proposed research. Also, as this administration has clearly shown, political appointees are likely to deny research grants for critical, appropriate research that may be in conflict with their political positions.<br/><br/>&sect;200.333: Small pilot grants can be critical for determining the feasibility and value of full-scale research projects. Also small grants can be critical for training scientists-in-training.<br/><br/>&sect;200.461: Publishing research findings is a critical, fundamental phase of the peer-review element of the scientific method. Not publishing research findings would likely dramatically decrease the distri...

I am in opposition of the proposed Regulation for Financial Assistance Rule. We have lead the way for years due to our independent scientific funding I hate to see us lose that edge because a small group of people want to have control. We stand to lose cures and treatments for serious costly conditions for what? This is not American freedom. This is corruption.

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

I was an undergraduate researcher as part of my degree and worked with a small research lab. Upon reading the first page of this proposed change, I could tell this change will do more harm than the proposed good. The statement that DEI being unlawful and FEMA assisting illegal immigrants being listed as examples of misuse of funding show how the proposed change is coming from a place of ignorance and bigotry. I have seen projects that should have had funding rejected due to the reviewer not understanding the potential of the technology and invention of the proposal. I have seen programs meant to educate people at the graduate level cut their budget, reject worthy applicants, and struggle due to the administration not understanding that science is essential to the live of every american. These programs would have helped America, provided jobs, and done good for scientific progression and knowledge. I have seen graduate students struggle with getting their projects approved, to stay in America due to the unlawful revoking of their visa, and with the current administration not understanding science. This proposed change will be the downfall for all educators, students, researchers, and the whole scientific community within America.

My name is Howard Sard and I am a retired small business owner of a chemical research and development company. I strongly object to OMB-2026-0034 because it gives political appointees the overall power to approve or reject grants based on non-scientific considerations. This will be extremely harmful to science research in America. Strong scientifically sound proposals may not receive funding whereas weak but more politically favored grants may be approved, leading to an huge waste of valuable research dollars.<br/><br/>Our company, Organix, Inc., was founded in 1986 by myself and two scientific colleagues. Together with a dedicated group of scientists we grew the business over 35 years to over 40 employees. Our funding came both from industry and peer-reviewed NIH grants. This grant funding allowed our company to pursue high risk research programs that helped develop new pharmaceuticals and diagnostic tools through licensing deals with pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. I was the Principal Investigator on five of these grants. Without this federal funding our company would not have had the opportunity to make many of our most important scientific discoveries. If the proposed OMB rule 2026-0034 is approved, the next generation of researchers are unlikely to have the same opportunities that allowed our company to succeed and prosper. And the type of discoveries that w...

My best friend and business partner acquired Long Covid in 2021 and, as a result, passed away of catastrophic organ failure in March of 2022. Her slow and painful demise was devastating for her family members and me to watch as it was excruciatingly painful and debilitating and required around-the-clock care. Our third business partner also suffers from Long Covid, even though he had but a mild case of actual Covid. The Long Covid has rendered him sleepless for four years and barely able to function. Sound scientific research studies are the only way forward, as there are no FDA-approved treatments to date, just palliatives to alleviate symptoms.<br/><br/>I am writing in opposition to sections of 200.340 and 200.205, which contain measures that would permit the government to eliminate active research grants due to politics. Scientific research takes years. The elimination of measures that interrupt such studies for political purposes can seriously undermine these important studies. I am requesting such measures, such as the discretionary termination provision in 200.340 and reinstate scientific peer review in 200.205 and not finalize the rule as stands.

This sort of anti-science nonsense is exhausting, so I will be succinct: Political appointees with no higher degree or practical background and experience in any scientific field, much less one relevant to an application being reviewed DO NOT HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE NECESSARY TO REASONABLY JUDGE THE MERIT AND POTENTIAL OF THE APPLICATION BEING REVIEWED. It is literally like choosing a dentist whose credentials are reading a five year olds diary entry about the tooth fairy, to go in and determine whether you need half your teeth cleaned or pulled. It is like asking a cat whether that salmon over there is sushi grade. An application for funding of a scientific study requires a scientist versed and respected in the field or topic of study. Not some idiot in a suit who didnt make it all the way through business school, but is very sure that his family connections buying him every job or opportunity hes ever had mean that he is actually very competent and capable in a role that requires knowledge of a subject he last studied in high school.<br/><br/>Oh sorry, I said Id be succinct, didnt I? tl;dr: People with advanced science degrees and experience are the only people qualified to judge applications for federal funding of scientific research. This is an excruciatingly thinly veiled attempt to further political and monetary agendas, not research and knowledge.

This sort of anti-science nonsense is exhausting, so I will be succinct: Political appointees with no higher degree or practical background and experience in any scientific field, much less one relevant to an application being reviewed DO NOT HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE NECESSARY TO REASONABLY JUDGE THE MERIT AND POTENTIAL OF THE APPLICATION BEING REVIEWED. It is literally like choosing a dentist whose credentials are reading a five year olds diary entry about the tooth fairy, to go in and determine whether you need half your teeth cleaned or pulled. It is like asking a cat whether that salmon over there is sushi grade. An application for funding of a scientific study requires a scientist versed and respected in the field or topic of study. Not some idiot in a suit who didnt make it all the way through business school, but is very sure that his family connections buying him every job or opportunity hes ever had mean that he is actually very competent and capable in a role that requires knowledge of a subject he last studied in high school.<br/><br/>Oh sorry, I said Id be succinct, didnt I? tl;dr: People with advanced science degrees and experience are the only people qualified to judge applications for federal funding of scientific research. This is an excruciatingly thinly veiled attempt to further political and monetary agendas, not research and knowledge.