OMB-2026-0034
Take Action Now
5 minutes is all it takes to submit a public comment.
Deadline: July 13, 2026
The proposed OMB rule is open for public comment. A short, specific comment explaining how the proposal would affect your work, research, institution, field, students, patients, community, or local economy can help create a clear public record.
What to do
-
-
Write in your own words
Introduce who you are, explain how federal grants affect you or your community, and identify the specific parts of the proposal that concern you.
-
Be concrete
Use examples: delayed projects, disrupted training, conference participation, publication costs, terminated work, patient/community impact, local jobs, or weakened peer review.
-
Submit and share
After submitting your comment, share the same core message with your members of Congress, especially if you can explain a local impact.
Intro / Background
Why this proposal matters
The proposed rule would change how federal financial assistance is reviewed, awarded, managed, and terminated.
The Office of Management and Budget has proposed a rule titled Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance. The proposal would revise the government-wide framework that governs grants, cooperative agreements, and other forms of federal financial assistance.
OMB describes the proposal as a way to improve transparency, accountability, and oversight across federal awards. Many scientific, university, medical, and nonprofit organizations are concerned that several provisions could weaken expert review, increase political control over grant decisions, and make long-term research and public-interest programs less stable.
The concern is not limited to one agency. Because the proposal revises government-wide federal financial assistance rules, it could affect awards from agencies that fund scientific research, public health, education, infrastructure, environmental monitoring, technology development, community programs, and other public-interest work.
For additional context and framing, see the San Diego Union-Tribune opinion piece:
“Why OMB proposal revising federal grant rules is a big deal”.
Major proposed changes
Merit review
Senior appointee review
Federal agency heads would designate senior appointees to conduct pre-issuance review of all discretionary awards to assess consistency with law, agency priorities, and the national interest.
Grant stability
Termination authority
Agencies or pass-through entities could terminate an award if they determine termination is in their interest, including if the award no longer effectuates program goals, federal agency priorities, or the national interest.
Scientific exchange
Conference costs
Costs for attending conferences would be allowable only if participation is expressly approved by the federal agency and included in the award terms and conditions.
Publication access
Publication charges
Publication costs, including page charges, article processing charges, open-access fees, and similar professional journal fees, would generally be unallowable under federal awards, subject to exceptions in the proposal.
Why the scientific community is mobilizing
Federal grants often support multi-year work: research teams, graduate students, postdocs, clinical studies, equipment, fieldwork, conferences, data sharing, and publication. If awards become easier to override or terminate after peer review, institutions may face more uncertainty when hiring, planning studies, building collaborations, or committing matching resources.
Commenters can help OMB understand the practical consequences. The most useful comments explain concrete harms, identify specific provisions, and suggest workable revisions.
Resources
Resources
Guides, summaries, and action links for understanding and responding to the proposed rule.
Action guides and explainers
Comment tool
Open-ended prompts and guidance to help scientists draft individualized comments on the proposed rule.
Aging research
GSA’s action item for scientist-citizens, focused on how the proposed OMB rule could affect federal grant-making, NIH-supported research, aging research, peer review, ongoing grants, publications, and conference participation.
Official rule
The official proposed rule text and regulatory explanation.
Comment form
The official public comment form for OMB-2026-0034-0001.
Research policy
Summary of the proposed changes to the Uniform Guidance and implications for computing research.
Health research
Research advocacy overview of the proposal’s potential effects on scientific review, award termination, public health research, collaborations, and research operations.
Opinion / context
Opinion piece providing broader context on the proposal and its potential significance.
Key concerns highlighted by scientific organizations
Scientific and research organizations are mobilizing in response to a proposed rule from the White House Office of Management and Budget that would give political appointees new authority over federal grant-making. Major concerns include:
-
A senior political appointee would review discretionary grant announcements and award decisions, shifting peer-review panels toward a more advisory role.
-
Peer-review scores and expert recommendations could be overridden by political appointees.
-
Ongoing grants could become more vulnerable to suspension or termination if agency priorities change.
-
Article processing charges for open-access journal publication would become unallowable under federal awards, subject to the proposal’s exceptions.
-
Conference attendance costs would be unallowable unless expressly approved by the granting agency and included in the award terms.
-
Research areas involving health disparities, aging, public health, DEI-related work, or vulnerable populations could face added uncertainty depending on how the rule is implemented.
What you can do as a scientist-citizen
-
Submit a public comment by July 13.
Respond as an individual where appropriate, cite the provision you are discussing, and explain how you, your research, your institution, or your community would be affected.
-
Make your comment unique.
A personal, concrete comment is more useful than signing or pasting a generic template.
-
Share the same message with Congress.
Members of Congress need to understand local impacts on universities, hospitals, labs, students, public services, older adults, patients, caregivers, and jobs.
-
Provide data where possible.
Include impacts such as grant dollars, staff supported, students trained, patients or communities served, collaborations affected, conference/publication costs, or program delays.
-
Explain why peer review matters.
If your work depends on expert review, describe how replacing or weakening that process could affect scientific quality, independence, and long-term planning.
Notes for site editors
Replace or add resources as new guidance becomes available. If GSA, APS, Research!America, or another organization releases a newer comment tool, summary sheet, or congressional outreach page, add it above.
Comment prompts
Do not copy a template word-for-word. Use these prompts to write a short, unique comment.
Strong comments are specific, factual, and personal. You can oppose, support, or suggest revisions to individual provisions.