Regulations.gov Comments

To: Office of Management and Budget (OMB)<br/>Re: Public Comment in Strong Opposition to Docket ID: OMB-2026-0034 (Proposed Revisions to 2 CFR Part 200)<br/><br/>I am submitting this comment to express my unequivocal opposition to the proposed revisions to the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Docket OMB-2026-0034).<br/><br/>While the stated goal of this proposal is to improve transparency and accountability, the actual text of the rule fundamentally corrupts the federal grant-making process. By stripping decision-making power from subject-matter experts and placing it in the hands of political appointees, this regulation institutionalizes severe conflicts of interest and blatantly violates existing statutory and constitutional law.<br/><br/>The proposed rule must be withdrawn in its entirety.<br/><br/>I. Institutionalized Conflicts of Interest and the Destruction of Peer Review<br/><br/>The proposed changes to &sect;200.205(b) &mdash; which would allow senior political appointees to control competitive award decisions and disregard peer-review recommendations &mdash; represent a catastrophic introduction of conflict of interest into the federal research enterprise.<br/><br/>* **Political Patronage Over Merit:** Federal research grants are funded by taxpayer dollars and are meant to advance objective scientific, ...

Federal grants support the work behind medical progress, clinical trials, student training, and discoveries that eventually help patients and families.<br/>But this is not only about scientists or universities. Federal grants also support health care, education, housing, transportation, nonprofits, community programs, and public services that affect millions of Americans!!

As an academic library director, I am interested in this regulation because it has the potential to distort and censor scholarly communication.<br/>In particular, I am concerned about the to turn what is currently guidance into politically restrictive censorship and unstable funding for already federally approved research, along with restricting federal funding from being used to support publication of federally funded research. Research has shown that the United States research outputs are already in decline due to research federal policy changes. This reduces the global influence of the United States and our reputation for academic excellence. Here are a couple of citations to evidence showing this decline: https://www.aau.edu/newsroom/leading-research-universities-report/university-leaders-sound-alarm-over-slow-release<br/>Before the Exodus? Young Scientists and the Future of US Science https://www.nber.org/papers/w35330<br/><br/>Your own guidelines for Public Comment (https://www.regulations.gov/assets/files/Public-Comment-on-Federal-Regulations_Final.pdf) requests &quot;citations to any helpful research)&mdash;for example, how the action impacts you and what you care about; whether the agency anticipated or estimated these impacts correctly and any unintended consequences of this approach that the agency did not consider&quot;. If research is stifled and censored per ...

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

See attached file(s)

I am a scientist who has run research programs at major US universities for the past 23 years. I&#39;ve spent hundreds of hours reviewing grants and serving on panels for NIH, and I can tell you that the process is highly competitive and highly effective. Truly expert reviewers consider the importance and impact of the science as well as the quality in their scoring and discussions, and there is no question that the best science comes to the top through this process. We cannot afford to change to a system where a politically appointment non-expert determines what is funded and where science should head. That is not how science works and has worked. It takes many years of experience in scientific research to judge whether exploratory or applied science has a likelihood of reaching its goals of improving human knowledge and health. The proposed policy would be destructive.

To: Office of Management and Budget (OMB)<br/>Re: Public Comment Opposing Proposed Rule 2 CFR Part 200 (Docket No. OMB-2026-0034)<br/>From: Charles P. Eck, Ph.D., Retired Chemical Professional<br/><br/>The Office of Management and Budget frames Docket OMB-2026-0034 as an administrative update designed to improve oversight and efficiency. <br/>This is a comfortable fiction. <br/>In reality, this proposed regulation is a calculated dismantling of the firewall between objective scientific inquiry and partisan politics, engineered to convert federal research funding into a political spoils system.<br/><br/>Federal research funding is anchored to the inviolable standard of meritocratic peer review. Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), agency rulemaking must not be &quot;arbitrary and capricious.&quot; Replacing consensus-based scientific evaluation with the ideological whims of political appointees flagrantly violates this standard, substituting rigorous methodology with partisan compliance.<br/><br/>Specific Provisions Addressed<br/>As currently published, the proposed rule introduces the following immutable structural changes to federal grant administration under 2 CFR Part 200:<br/><br/>Subordination of Peer Review: Scientific peer review is officially demoted to &quot;advisory&quot; status, legally decoupling grant awards from scientific merit.<br/><br/>Political Pre...

I strongly oppose the proposed revisions to the Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance.<br/><br/>Federal research funding has been successful because it relies on transparent procedures, expert peer review, and evidence-based decision-making. The proposed rule would move the federal grant system away from these principles by expanding political oversight of research awards, increasing the risk that funding decisions will be driven by shifting political priorities rather than scientific merit. Such changes threaten the independence and credibility of federally funded research.<br/><br/>Science advances most effectively when proposals are evaluated by experts with relevant technical knowledge. Peer review is not perfect, but decades of research demonstrate that structured expert review is one of the most reliable methods available for identifying high-quality, innovative, and impactful research. Weakening the role of peer review or allowing political officials to override scientific evaluations would reduce the likelihood that federal funds support the most promising research and would increase the risk of bias in funding decisions.<br/><br/>The proposed rule would also create uncertainty for researchers, universities, hospitals, and community organizations that depend on stable federal support. Scientific research often requires multi-year investments in personnel, equipme...

I am a cancer researcher and want to express sincere concerns with these proposed rules - focusing on the following areas. [Section 200.205] I am concerned about these changes which are inconsistent with current standards for peer review and would allow individual discretion to supersede the systematic review of grants by experts within the field. Rather than streamlining the grants making process, as is proposed, this would introduce another layer of confusion and subjectivity without checks and balances to determine how these decisions regarding &quot;administrative priorities&quot; are being made or what the degree of expertise is for the individual making these determinations. <br/>[Section 200.340] Increasing the scope of Federal authority to cancel ongoing grants without cause undermines academic research through reducing the actual or even just perceived stability of grant funding. As an early career researcher, my 5-year career development award gave me job security, the ability to be competitive on the job market to universities through a guarantee of partially supported time, and the ability to pursue innovative research approaches as described in my grant without fear that changes in Federal policy could change or limit this work. For example, my research includes understanding the impacts of state and national policy on the uptake of cancer screening tests &ndash...

I am a Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Yale University and have conducted federally supported research for more than two decades, primarily through grants from the National Science Foundation and, to a lesser extent, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. <br/><br/>My research focuses on the evolution of Earth and other planets, including mantle dynamics, plate tectonics, seismic imaging of Earth&rsquo;s interior, planetary evolution, and habitability. Like much of the research supported by NSF and NASA, this work is primarily fundamental rather than immediately applied. Its value lies in advancing scientific understanding, training future scientists, and building the knowledge base upon which future applications often depend.<br/><br/>The United States has built the world&rsquo;s leading research enterprise through a longstanding partnership among federal agencies, universities, national laboratories, and industry. A central reason for this success has been the use of expert peer review to evaluate scientific merit and identify the most promising research opportunities. Although no system is perfect, peer review provides a transparent, evidence-based, and widely trusted mechanism for allocating research funds. Any reduction in the central role of merit review risks discouraging innovative, long-term, and potentially transformative research whose ben...

I am a fourth-year PhD student in the Plant Biology and Conservation program at Northwestern University and the Chicago Botanic Garden. I was admitted to this program &ndash; my dream program &ndash; by earning the NSF Graduate Research Fellowship. I am writing to oppose these proposed revisions, particularly &sect;200.206, &sect;200.432, &sect;200.454, and &sect;200.450, and &sect;200.202. <br/><br/>With the expansive framing of what constitutes anti-American activity, my affiliation with environmental and cultural groups, even when unrelated to my grant application, may cause my grant application to be denied (&sect;200.206). <br/><br/>I may also be unable to communicate my research under conference pre-approval (&sect;200.432). As my research has developed over my PhD, I have discovered what conferences my work best fits into. Having to decide where and when I am presenting my work prematurely in the research process would severely limit the scope of my research, and its impact on the science community and public. For example, during my PhD, I developed a research project with the National Parks Service. I will be presenting the work at a NPS-centered conference this year, which I would have been unable to do if I needed pre-approval. <br/><br/>Similarly, prior approval of professional memberships (&sect;200.454) would also be prohibitive to my research progress and impac...

See attached file(s)

If these regulations were to pass it would be the end of scientific integrity as we know it. Already people dont trust science due to fear of political agendas tainting our processes, but now theyll have an actual real reason to believe so. Our universities create groundbreaking discoveries that cannot be limited by one person and their personal bias.

If these regulations were to pass it would be the end of scientific integrity as we know it. Already people dont trust science due to fear of political agendas tainting our processes, but now theyll have an actual real reason to believe so. Our universities create groundbreaking discoveries that cannot be limited by one person and their personal bias.

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

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

Maintaining science literacy, honesty, and truthfulness is imperative for a healthy public. It is paramount for science to be non political. There remains a certain amount of scholarly studies STILL being taught in universities today because one group or even one scientist wanted to liecorrecting these has proven to be difficult. Please ensure our public safety with transparency and honesty! Science should never be something you cannot trust.

See attached file(s)

The effects of these changes to science research and funding would have a catastrophic effect on progress, while also destroying the credibility of all the currently great research coming out of US universities.

I&#39;ve worked in research since 2015. I&#39;ve been lucky enough to work on projects at three different universities. This comment is directed at a non scientist audience. I will be the first to tell you that there&#39;s room for improvement in the ways we fund, pursue, and publish science. That being said: the proposed Rule would be the end of the USA&#39;s prominence as a science leader. Review of funding applications by peers with expertise is crucial for making sure that the work we fund with our taxpayer dollars is rigorously planned and justified. Approval and oversight is done by experts whose jobs are staked on their scientific integrity, merit, and service to the community. Regardless of which elected administration is currently in power, the values and expertise guiding federal research funding and oversight remain relatively stable through turbulent times. For the body of scientific output to be trustworthy, it requires varied approaches and perspectives, and the time and space to do things right and to learn from surprising or inconvenient results. The proposed Rule would threaten or dismantle the processes we have in place that allow for us to produce trustworthy, rigorous science. This would be a huge blow not only for those of us making our careers in research directly, but also for the USA&#39;s reputation as an international hub of scientific excellence, w...

This is transparently not about transparency, accountability, or good faith oversight. It&#39;s about giving political appointees the ability to block funding for research that they find personally offensive or politically sensitive. This administration has already done damage to the ability of American universities to do important research and attract talent, and we will already be cleaning this up for 20 or more years.

I strongly oppose the proposed rule that would make publication costs unallowable under federal research awards.<br/><br/>As an emerging scholar conducting research on migration, race, and belonging, I depend on the ability to publish and share research findings with both academic and public audiences. Publication fees, including open-access article processing charges, are often a necessary component of disseminating federally funded research. Eliminating the ability to use grant funds for these expenses would create significant barriers for graduate students, early-career researchers, scholars at under-resourced institutions, and independent researchers who do not have access to large institutional publication budgets.<br/><br/>Research has little impact if it cannot be effectively shared. Federal investments in research are intended to generate knowledge that benefits the public. Restricting the use of grant funds for publication undermines that goal by limiting researchers&#39; ability to disseminate findings through peer-reviewed journals and open-access platforms that make scholarship accessible beyond universities.<br/><br/>I am also concerned that this proposal could disproportionately affect smaller scholarly societies and independent academic journals that play a critical role in supporting specialized and interdisciplinary research communities. These organizations ...

We need to keep experts and non-partisan people in charge of our scientific research. Allowing partisan control of what research institutes and universities are allowed to apply for Grant money to do would set us up for bad science. This bad science would lead to detrimental effects to not just citizens of the United States but of the world. This act would also put us behind the rest of the world in terms of research. The United States used to be the leader in scientific research from that and it is not anymore and this will only exacerbate the situation.

See attached file(s)

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

I am a fifth-year PhD student in bioengineering at University of Pittsburgh receiving funding from an NIH F31 training grant as well as various NIH R01 and NIH U01 grants through my advisor. I am writing to oppose several of the proposed revisions from the new OMB rules. <br/> <br/>Section &sect;200.205 requires political appointees to review grants, and these appointees can override peer review. Peer review is a critical part of the scientific process and allowing a biased, non-expert, political appointee sole ability to deny funding of a grant for non-scientific reasons will corrode the integrity of scientific research in the United States of America. <br/> <br/>&sect;200.454 makes paying for journal subscriptions unallowable through government funding. Journal subscriptions are prohibitively expensive and essential for productive and scientifically sound research. I depend on reading the literature to troubleshoot work, come up with research ideas, and understand the current state of my field. <br/> <br/>I am also deeply involved in STEM outreach work which has faced a budget crisis since the Trump administration&#39;s reduction in funding for DEI/DEIA based work. I have participated in these programs as a volunteer for years and spent 2 years running a program teaching bioengineering concepts every week to elementary aged children. These programs are crucial for upliftin...

I write as a public administration faculty member to raise a concern about how three connected parts of this proposal would reshape the relationship between federal funders and the institutions that carry out research with implications extending far beyond the current administration. The proposal reclassifies the 2 CFR text from guidance to binding OMB regulation and routes future amendments through a single OMB rulemaking that takes effect across the government. Combined with revisions requiring program design to align with current Executive Branch policy, and a broadened authority to terminate discretionary awards that no longer match agency priorities, the result concentrates control over the direction and continuation of funded work in one office and ties that work to whatever policy priorities hold at a given moment.<br/><br/>OMB presents these changes as a way to reduce ideological conditions and return grants to their core public purposes, and that aim has conceptual merit. However, this structural approach is likely to result in both more ideologically-driven research and less stability for research institutions. A framework that allows one office to set, revise, and enforce funding conditions across every agency, and to end awards mid-stream on policy grounds, will serve whichever administration controls it now and later, in whatever direction that administration ch...

See attached file(s)

i am a researcher and educator. Federal funding plays an important role in advancing scientific research, innovation, and education. Any changes to grant funding policies should support scientific independence, transparency, collaboration, and the free exchange of research findings.<br/><br/>I encourage OMB to carefully consider how the proposed rule may affect researchers, universities, and students. Policies should promote scientific progress and ensure that funding decisions are based on scientific merit.<br/><br/>Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this proposed rule.se write your comment here

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.

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

I am a professor in the Department of Earth, Environmental, and Planetary Sciences at Washington University in St. Louis. Over the course of my nearly 20-year academic research career, I have been awarded major research grants by NSF, NASA, and DOE totaling over $5 million. This research has focused on a range of topics that include leaking nuclear waste, the fate of heavy metal contaminants in soils and groundwater systems, past habitability of Mars, and novel critical mineral resources. I also served for six years as the Executive Editor-in-chief of the scientific journal Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta. The changes to allowable expenses for publication costs proposed by OMB [200.461] are a necessary step to end the author-pay model of open access published. Author-pay is a fundamentally flawed approach to scientific publishing. It leaves places Federally-funded scientists in untenable positions where they must redirect funds away from actual research costs to the payment of publication fees to publishers. There is no competitive marketplace because authors are expected to publish in specific top journals if they wish to continue receiving funding from the Federal government. Without the power of competition, authors cannot comparison shop to find lower prices. Requiring authors to pay article processing charges and similar fees, including for 0 month embargo periods neede...

I am a professor in the Department of Earth, Environmental, and Planetary Sciences at Washington University in St. Louis. Over the course of my nearly 20-year academic research career, I have been awarded major research grants by NSF, NASA, and DOE totaling over $5 million. This research has focused on a range of topics that include leaking nuclear waste, the fate of heavy metal contaminants in soils and groundwater systems, past habitability of Mars, and novel critical mineral resources. I also served for six years as the Executive Editor-in-chief of the scientific journal Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta. The changes to allowable expenses for publication costs proposed by OMB [200.461] are a necessary step to end the author-pay model of open access published. Author-pay is a fundamentally flawed approach to scientific publishing. It leaves places Federally-funded scientists in untenable positions where they must redirect funds away from actual research costs to the payment of publication fees to publishers. There is no competitive marketplace because authors are expected to publish in specific top journals if they wish to continue receiving funding from the Federal government. Without the power of competition, authors cannot comparison shop to find lower prices. Requiring authors to pay article processing charges and similar fees, including for 0 month embargo periods neede...

I am a professor in the Department of Earth, Environmental, and Planetary Sciences at Washington University in St. Louis. Over the course of my nearly 20-year academic research career, I have been awarded major research grants by NSF, NASA, and DOE totaling over $5 million. This research has focused on a range of topics that include leaking nuclear waste, the fate of heavy metal contaminants in soils and groundwater systems, past habitability of Mars, and novel critical mineral resources. I also served for six years as the Executive Editor-in-chief of the scientific journal Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta. The changes to allowable expenses for publication costs proposed by OMB [200.461] are a necessary step to end the author-pay model of open access published. Author-pay is a fundamentally flawed approach to scientific publishing. It leaves places Federally-funded scientists in untenable positions where they must redirect funds away from actual research costs to the payment of publication fees to publishers. There is no competitive marketplace because authors are expected to publish in specific top journals if they wish to continue receiving funding from the Federal government. Without the power of competition, authors cannot comparison shop to find lower prices. Requiring authors to pay article processing charges and similar fees, including for 0 month embargo periods neede...

I am a professor in the Department of Earth, Environmental, and Planetary Sciences at Washington University in St. Louis. Over the course of my nearly 20-year academic research career, I have been awarded major research grants by NSF, NASA, and DOE totaling over $5 million. This research has focused on a range of topics that include leaking nuclear waste, the fate of heavy metal contaminants in soils and groundwater systems, past habitability of Mars, and novel critical mineral resources. I also served for six years as the Executive Editor-in-chief of the scientific journal Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta. The changes to allowable expenses for publication costs proposed by OMB [200.461] are a necessary step to end the author-pay model of open access published. Author-pay is a fundamentally flawed approach to scientific publishing. It leaves places Federally-funded scientists in untenable positions where they must redirect funds away from actual research costs to the payment of publication fees to publishers. There is no competitive marketplace because authors are expected to publish in specific top journals if they wish to continue receiving funding from the Federal government. Without the power of competition, authors cannot comparison shop to find lower prices. Requiring authors to pay article processing charges and similar fees, including for 0 month embargo periods neede...

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

Reference is hereby made to Docket OMB-2026-0034 and the proposed rule change. I am a concerned public citizen who objects to the proposed new rule. First off, peer review in the sciences is vital to its growth. Scientists collaborate and exchange information and review research done by peers to help foster learning and to expand the base of science knowledge. People who study science worldwide don&#39;t seek out information only from fellow scientists within their own country, because that is too limiting. Although borders separate us physically, the human body is universal and the science and workings of the human body should not be limited by scientists who reside only within a persons country. International collaboration is essential for scientific discovery.<br/><br/>This is especially personal for me at this moment as I have a daughter going into her junior year at the University of Florida. She is currently spending the summer in France at the University of Grenoble Alpes, working in the chemistry lab. As a science major, it is especially challenging to spend a semester studying abroad because of the nature of the science major and how students need to follow how the semesters order their classes, i.e., Organic chemistry 1 in the fall and organic chemistry 2 in the spring. She is currently spending a summer semester because of an international collaboration b...

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

<br/>I absolutely oppose this entire law. It is a bald attempt to control what Americans think and learn, the scientific research they do, even the medical care they can get. The Regulation for Federal Financial would require that ever grant recipient pass a &quot;pre-issuance review&quot; conducted not by an expert or peer reviewer but by a political appointee. There are already processes in place to review grant applications. For example, I am currently on a National Endowment for the Humanities review process. I have written two books, one of which won three national prizes. I am an endowed professor at a major R-1 university. I have thus been deemed qualified to review the grant applications submitted in the U.S. history category. The Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance would replace me and people like me with political appointees who may know absolutely nothing about history and about what historians do and the standards of excellence we seek to maintain. This is in many ways like the Gilded Age Era patronage policies that put political appointees in all kinds of positions for which they were not qualified but this is worse because our unqualified officials would be charged with ferreting out certain words, concepts, and &quot;woke&quot; policies. And it wouldn&#39;t just be the grant application and applicant that would be subjected to this review; the institut...

This change is ludicrous. We must focus on the study and inclusion of ALL people. Denying grants, support or study, because of specified words or terminology only serves to cause harm. For instance, medical study of women is still relatively new, despite the fact that women have been present for all time. If the government denies such grants out of fear of some imagined boogey-man, we lose knowledge that impacts lives. The study of how women&#39;s bodies work, how language development is impacted by young people raised in bilingual families, how funding is allocated for illnesses that primarily impact minority populations, etc. This proposed rule is ideologically motivated and serves to cause meaningful harm to researchers, students, colleges/universities, and the public who benefits from the information etc. Stating this will save money is erroneous. The president&#39;s weekly golf outings cost the American tax payer more money than any of these areas of research, which serve to help. A better decision would be to seek knowledge utilizing the incredible research and educational institutions that have long been the envy of the world through grant funds. This increases the shared knowledge and stimulates the economy by supporting our colleges/universities, gainful employment of researchers and engagement of the public. Lets get back to saving lives, utilizing soft power and i...

See attached file(s)

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...

Subject: Comments on Proposed Revisions to Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance (2 CFR Part 200)<br/>Docket ID: OMB-2026-0034<br/>FR Doc Number: 2026-10817<br/><br/>​To Whom It May Concern,<br/>​I am writing to express my profound concern and strong opposition to the sweeping proposed revisions to the Uniform Guidance (2 CFR Part 200) published on May 29, 2026. While federal assistance should prioritize transparency and efficiency, the proposed rule introduces unprecedented partisan mechanisms that threaten the foundational integrity and stability of the American grantmaking system.<br/><br/>​Specifically, I object to provisions that weaponize federal grants for ideological purposes, introduce highly inefficient &quot;pre-issuance reviews&quot; by political appointees, and expand discretionary termination powers. Grant processes must remain insulated from shifting political winds and instead be firmly anchored in objective merit, local need, and rigorous scientific value.<br/><br/>​I. Systemic and Financial Toll on Government Infrastructure:<br/>​The proposed revisions introduce an unstable regulatory environment that will severely damage our nation&#39;s infrastructure. Grant-funded public entities&mdash;including schools, universities, municipal governments, and non-profits&mdash;rely on predictable, multi-year funding to construct physical infrastructure, develop lon...

See attached file(s)

I am against the OMBs latest proposed rule, Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance, as it would serve as a block to scientific research as it currently stands. I do not agree with the proposal to let politicians select or appoint research proposals. It would cause a huge disruption to the pipeline of American scientific research including clinical trials and studies across universities and various organizations. Please do not pass OMBs proposed rule as written by Russel Vought.

As a retired community college professor and former high school teacher, I am appalled at the partisan restrictions the Office of Management and Budget is proposing to regulate scientific research. For years, I have prepared students for the rigors of higher level education, to seek non-biased information, to think critically, and to understand the value of collaboration and peer review. It seems these basic concepts are lost on this administration.<br/>I am especially concerned about proposals to do away with the standards of peer review (200.205d) which confirms methods and results, and keeps research honest. In my last years of teaching, students were using AI not only to write papers, but to provide &quot;sources&quot; which were very often completely fabricated by the AI. Allowing political appointees to override peer review further degrades the value of true science and will contribute to the dumbing-down of America - something I suspect is in the best interests of the oligarchs and religious fanatics behind this plan.<br/>Additionally, allowing political appointees to determine which research is funded, which researchers&#39; expenses are covered (200.432, 200.454, 200.461), and to reject a study that is &quot;too woke&quot; (200.300) is prone to bias, in addition to being racist, homophobic, and misogynistic. The life-saving mNRA vaccine technology began in studies o...

I am against the OMBs latest proposed rule, Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance, as it would serve as a block to scientific research as it currently stands. I do not agree with the proposal to let politicians select or appoint research proposals. It would cause a huge disruption to the pipeline of American scientific research including clinical trials and studies across universities and various organizations. Please do not pass OMBs proposed rule as written by Russel Vought.

As a scientist who has worked at three different public American universities, I am writing to object to the provision that conference money must be approved in the original terms of a federal grant. As many federal grants are awarded for three or five year periods, and most conferences are not open for registration until one year before the event, this provision will essentially prevent American scientists from attending meetings critical for their work. Scientific progress is useless unless it is shared, and conferences are a key way scientists share their work with the community. Scientists find jobs, start projects, share findings, and debate ideas at these meetings. Shutting down conferences would be gravely injurious to the scientific enterprise in the United States.

The administration is quickly consolidating power under its political allies and gutting organizations and departments tasked with keeping the balance. In a time where the cdc has been commandeered by anti-vaxxers and universities have their research grants used as leverage, its extremely vital to preserve and restore offices like the OMB that can act as additional guardrails against corruption. You must stop this proposal.

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