Comment on the OMB Rule
The OMB rule would put politics in charge of federal research
The Office of Management and Budget has proposed a sweeping revision of the rules that govern every federal grant — at NIH, NSF, DOE, CDC, and beyond. It would let political appointees override scientific peer review, terminate active grants “for convenience,” restrict who scientists may collaborate with and what they may publish, and lock these changes into binding regulation that is hard to ever undo.
The public has until July 13, 2026 to comment. Your comment is part of the official legal record — and specific, expert comments carry real weight.
What the rule actually does
Each change below links to a plain-language breakdown with the rule’s own text and talking points for your comment.
- Politics over peer review. §200.205 is rewritten so senior political appointees review awards to ensure they “advance the President’s policy priorities.” Peer review becomes merely advisory. [critical]
- Terminate any grant, anytime. §200.340 lets agencies end active, multi-year awards whenever they decide the work no longer fits agency priorities or “the national interest.” [critical]
- Limits on collaboration. §200.220 bars federal funds for “covered foreign collaborations,” threatening routine international science. [critical]
- New ideological prohibitions. §200.218 bars awards from “promot[ing] or support[ing] theories of disparate-impact liability,” and §200.219 and §200.220 add further speech- and collaboration-based restrictions. [critical]
- Limits on conferences and publishing. §200.432 makes conference attendance allowable only with explicit agency approval, and §200.461 makes publication costs unallowable unless required by statute or pre-approved by the agency. [critical]
- Binding, comment-proof regulation. The rule converts decades of “guidance” into binding regulation, so future changes need no public rulemaking — fewer chances for anyone to weigh in ever again. [critical]
Why this is different
Since World War II, U.S. science has rested on three pillars: funding decided by independent expert peer review, open competition on the merits, and institutional autonomy. This single rule weakens all three at once, across the entire federal government. The American Physical Society has called it “an existential threat” to U.S. science.
What you can do in 15 minutes
- Find the section that hits your work hardest in the section guide.
- Write a short, specific comment from your own experience — see how to comment. (A few honest, specific paragraphs beat any form letter.)
- Submit it at regulations.gov, Docket OMB-2026-0034, starting your comment with the section number in brackets, e.g.
[200.205].
Short on time? The Draft with AI page gives you a prompt that turns your situation into a personalized first draft you can edit and submit.