Good morning,
The Federal Register (reference is in subject line) has posted a series of proposed rule changes and is currently in open period for comment thru July 13, 2026. I have posted below several sources reviewing these proposed changes from the nearly 400 page document. I would encourage all to review these changes and provide comments/feedback while the review period remains open. These are not insignificant changes and impacts the way we all have approached research design, integrity and scientific principles.
Link to the proposed rule:
Federal Register :: Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance
White House Aims to Establish Political Oversight of Federal Grants
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/government/science-research-policy/2026/05/29/omb-proposes-rules-establishing-political
Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance
https://events.standupforscience.net/stand-up-for-science/emergency-science-meeting
Summary of Key Changes in OMB's Proposed Federal Financial Assistance Rule
https://open.substack.com/pub/elizabethginexi/p/summary-of-key-changes-in-ombs-proposed?r=780oxd&utm_medium=ios
1. Political Appointees Take Control of Grant Awards (§200.205)
2. Peer Review Is No Longer Binding (§200.205(d))
3. "Gold Standard Science" as an Undefined Political Test (§200.205)
4. Active Grants Can Be Terminated at Any Time, for Any Reason (§200.340)
5. DEI, Gender Research, and Related Topics Banned as Grant Conditions (§200.300)
6. Broad Prohibition on International Scientific Collaboration (§200.220)
7. "Domestic-First" Framework for Research Awards (§200.202(e))
8. Applicants Can Be Denied Based on Organizational "Affiliations" (§200.206)
9. E-Verify Mandated for All Grant Recipients (§200.303)
10. OMB Claims Direct Binding Authority Over All Agencies
11. Conference Attendance Now Requires Express Agency Pre-Approval (§200.432)
12. Professional Memberships Require Prior Approval and Must Be "Necessary" (§200.454)
13. Publication Costs and Open Access Fees Presumptively Unallowable (§200.461)
14. Public Communications and Outreach Severely Restricted (§200.421)
15. New "Issue Advocacy" Prohibition (§200.450)
16. Program Goals Must "Align with Administration Policies and Priorities" (§200.202)
17. Agency Heads Can Exempt Grant Competitions from Public Notice (§200.204)
18. Agencies Can Restrict Eligibility to Specific Nonprofit Categories (§200.202(d))
19. OMB Gains Direct Oversight of Which Institutions Receive Grants
Bottom Line
Since World War II, the United States built the world's preeminent scientific enterprise on a straightforward principle: federal dollars should fund the best science, as determined by independent experts rather than politicians. Peer review, open competition, and institutional autonomy were the pillars of that system. This proposed rule dismantles all three, simultaneously, government-wide, and binding on every federal agency by October 1, 2026.
What OMB is proposing is not a reform of grants management. It is a complete political control apparatus layered over every stage of the federal science funding lifecycle.
• Before a competition opens, every program must be designed to align with the President's policy priorities, not scientific need, statutory mandate, or expert consensus.
• When opportunities are announced, agencies can restrict who is eligible, and the agency head can exempt solicitations from public posting under a broad national interest exception.
• When applications are reviewed, political appointees must personally evaluate every discretionary grant. Peer review is explicitly reduced to advisory status. Appointees are forbidden from deferring to scientific experts.
• When awards are made, grants can be conditioned on compliance with an undefined "Gold Standard Science" standard, and institutions can be disqualified based on their affiliations or the political character of their prior work.
• During the research itself, scientists cannot attend conferences, join professional societies, subscribe to journals, or publish in peer-reviewed journals without express agency pre-approval. Each of those approvals can simply be withheld.
• At any moment, an active grant, including a multi-year award already mid-project, can be terminated because a political appointee decides it no longer aligns with agency priorities. No finding of misconduct is required.
• When results are ready to share, publication costs are presumptively unallowable, and any public communication that could be labeled issue advocacy on a sensitive topic puts the entire award at risk.
The rule is also notable for what it cites as justification. The preamble relies heavily on Heritage Foundation reports, partisan Senate committee documents, and White House fact sheets, rather than independent scientific or administrative assessments. It characterizes decades of peer-reviewed research on climate, public health, equity, and international collaboration as "woke," "neo-Marxist," "anti-American," or "divisive ideology." It treats the scientific community's professional infrastructure, including conferences, journals, international partnerships, and open access publishing, as wasteful overhead to be controlled or eliminated.
Congress has repeatedly appropriated funds for science agencies with the expectation that those funds would be administered through merit-based, expert-driven processes insulated from political interference. This rule attempts to override that expectation administratively, without new legislation, by repurposing OMB's grants management authority as a vehicle for political control of science.
The public comment period closes approximately July 13, 2026 (45 days from May 29 publication). Comments must be submitted to regulations.gov, Docket OMB-2026-0034.
Scientists, universities, scientific societies, patient advocacy organizations, state governments, and members of the public all have standing to comment. Given the scope of what is proposed, the breadth and volume of opposition in the formal record will matter both legally and politically.
------------------------------
John Jay Alves
John_Jay_Alves@... John Jay Alves III, MPA (he/him/his)
Senior Grants Manager
Office of Sponsored Programs
------------------------------