The Rule, Section by Section
This is a plain-language guide to what the proposed rule changes, section by section. Use the search box (top right) to find a section, or jump to the changes most likely to affect your work. Each comment you file should begin with the section number in brackets, e.g. [200.205] — so we list that number for every entry.
How to read the tiers.
critical Directly reshapes how science is funded, governed, or communicated.
notable Meaningful change worth a comment if it touches you.
minor Largely technical or housekeeping (e.g., removing an outdated memo reference).
Quotations below are from the proposed rule’s own preamble. The full text is in Docket OMB-2026-0034.
The two colored boxes under each section make it easy to scan: the amber box explains why the change matters, and the green box suggests what to write in your comment.
What’s at stake
The sections below each do specific damage, but their combined effect is systemic. A comment is strongest when it connects a specific section to a concrete harm to your work. The recurring harms:
- The end of secure, multi-year funding. Awards can be terminated at any time, year to year, whenever agency “priorities” shift (§200.340; notice and appeal under §200.341–.343), and conditions can be added mid-award (§200.208). A grant can be cut within weeks or months of issuance — yet recipients must already hire staff, enroll students, and purchase equipment up front. That shifts enormous financial exposure onto institutions and researchers and makes any project that must span more than one year fundamentally insecure.
- Less graduate training and workforce development. No advisor can responsibly commit to multi-year student stipends, postdoc positions, or training grants when the funding behind them can be canceled at will — shrinking the pipeline that trains the U.S. science and technology workforce.
- Politics over scientific merit. Funding decisions shift from independent peer review to political appointees applying ideological tests (§200.205).
- Weakened U.S. leadership in science and technology. Funding instability, vague ideological criteria, and new barriers to collaboration push talent and discovery elsewhere.
- Harder to publish and disseminate results. Publication and conference costs become unallowable or require case-by-case agency approval (§200.461, §200.432).
- Fewer opportunities for international collaboration. Research awards default to U.S.-only entities and bar collaborations with “covered” foreign partners (§200.202(e), §200.220).
- More costs pushed onto institutions. As routine research costs are made unallowable, universities must absorb the difference (§200.461, §200.432, §200.219).
The structural change behind everything
Parts 1, 180, 182, 183 critical
OMB proposes to replace the word “guidance” with “regulation” throughout 2 CFR and to delete sentences like “is guidance not regulation” from §180.15 and §182.15. This converts decades of widely-followed guidance into binding regulation.
This effectively means that future administrations can change the rules governing all federal grants with less — or no — public notice-and-comment, and agencies “must not deviate” from the text. It consolidates the entire federal grantmaking enterprise into one hard-to-amend regulation.
This is the mechanism that makes every other change below durable and removes the public’s future voice.
The public comment process itself is at stake; converting guidance to binding regulation should require the fullest, not the narrowest, public deliberation.
Awarding grants: politics over peer review
§200.205 — Federal agency review of merit of proposals
200.205 critical
Establishes a new pre-issuance review by senior political appointees of every discretionary award. The regulatory text directs these appointees to apply principles including that awards “must, where applicable, demonstrably advance the President’s policy priorities” and “must not be used to fund, promote, encourage, subsidize, or facilitate”:
- “(i) Racial preferences or other forms of racial discrimination…”;
- “(ii) Denial by the recipient of the sex binary in humans or the notion that sex is a chosen or mutable characteristic”;
- “(iii) Illegal immigration; or”
- “(iv) Any other initiatives that compromise public safety or promote anti-American values.”
It also says preference “should be given to institutions with lower indirect cost rates,” that awards should reflect “Gold Standard Science,” and — most fundamentally — that “peer review remains advisory and does not replace agency discretion.”
For ~80 years, federal science funding has been decided primarily by independent expert review of scientific merit. This subordinates that review to political judgment — and to deliberately vague, ideological tests like “anti-American values,” with no definition, that a political appointee could apply to deny funding for almost any reason.
Describe what merit review means in your field and what is lost when a political appointee can override it. If terms like “anti-American values” are undefined, say so — point out that vague, unbounded criteria invite arbitrary, viewpoint-based funding decisions and chill legitimate research.
§200.206 — Federal agency review of risk posed by applicants
200.206 notable
Expands the “risk” factors an agency may weigh before funding. These include an applicant’s “affiliations with organizations engaged in activities that… advocate for the overthrow of the United States Government,” and a new “History of questionable practices” factor — based on “publicly available and verifiable information” — covering the applicant’s record of:
- “(A) Plagiarism in studies or papers…”;
- “(B) Discredited or non-replicable studies…”;
- “(C) Engaging in activities or initiatives that are inconsistent with Federal civil rights laws…”; or
- “(D) Engaging in activities or initiatives that are inconsistent with religious liberty laws.”
“Questionable practices” and “affiliations” are broad and largely undefined. Beyond plagiarism (already covered by research-integrity rules), a factor like “discredited or non-replicable studies” — or activities deemed inconsistent with “religious liberty laws” — could be used to screen out applicants and institutions on contested or viewpoint-based grounds.
If you’ve published replications, null results, or work in a contested area, explain how a vague “questionable practices” or “discredited studies” risk factor could be used against legitimate science, and how it differs from existing research-integrity processes.
New ideological prohibitions
§200.218 — Prohibition of theories of disparate-impact liability
200.218 critical
A new section barring recipients from using federal awards to “promote or support theories that impose disparate-impact liability based on federally protected characteristics such as race, sex, or age,” tied to Executive Order 14281.
Disparate-impact analysis is a standard, decades-old method across public health, epidemiology, social science, economics, and education research. A prohibition on “promoting or supporting” such “theories” with federal funds could chill or defund entire legitimate fields of study.
Name the established research in your field that uses disparate-impact analysis and what would be lost.
§200.219 — Prohibition of discriminatory event services
200.219 notable
A new section requiring recipients (including public universities) not to discriminate on “viewpoint, content, or subject matter of speech” when providing services for events — framed around so-called “heckler’s fees” for security at speaker events. Applies even to events not directly funded by the award if held on the recipient’s property.
Extends federal control into institutions’ management of campus events and facilities, with compliance risk attached to all federal funding.
Restricting international research and collaboration
§200.202(e) — “Domestic-first” framework for research awards
200.202(e) critical
A new requirement that, “to the extent permitted by law, Federal awards for research and development must be made to entities that are organized under the laws of the United States, a State, or Tribal government.” Agencies “may not issue Federal awards for research and development to foreign entities except where expressly authorized by statute or where a compelling interest exists… as determined by the agency’s senior appointee,” and must apply a “domestic-first framework” under which “international elements may be included only if the Federal agency determines that such elements are justified… and in the national interest.”
This makes U.S.-only the default for research funding. Foreign collaborators, international study sites, global cohorts, and partner institutions become exceptions a political appointee must approve case by case — even when the science requires data, study populations, facilities, or expertise that don’t exist domestically.
If your work depends on international partners, field sites, samples, study populations, or facilities not available in the U.S., explain why — and what a “domestic-first” default with case-by-case appointee approval would do to your project’s feasibility and timeline.
§200.220 — Prohibition of covered foreign collaborations
200.220 critical
A new section extending Wolf-Amendment-style restrictions government-wide, prohibiting use of federal funds for “bilateral or multilateral collaborations… with covered foreign countries or covered foreign entities” unless an agency head grants an exception. It applies to “research, technical assistance, travel, or indirect costs allocable to such collaborations.”
International collaboration is fundamental to modern research. A broad, government-wide default prohibition (previously limited to specific agencies like NASA) could disrupt co-authorships, data sharing, conferences, and student/postdoc exchanges across many fields.
Describe your international collaborations and what a default ban plus case-by-case agency approval would do to them.
Killing grants already underway
§200.340 — Termination and suspension
200.340 critical
The single largest change in the rule. It clarifies and expands discretionary termination, codifying Executive Order 14332: an agency “may terminate a Federal award in part or its entirety if the Federal agency… determines that a termination is in the interest of the Federal agency,” including when an award “no longer advances agency priorities or the national interest.” The rule explicitly contemplates that priorities “may change in response to new direction from politically accountable leadership.” It also adds a new 90-day temporary suspension (“stop-work”) authority (§200.340(e)), modeled on federal procurement contracts, letting an agency pause an award while it decides whether to terminate. Crucially, those “priorities” are shaped by the vague, ideological principles in §200.205 (e.g., “anti-American values”) — so the same undefined tests that can block an award can also justify ending one already underway.
This effectively ends secure, multi-year funding. Because an award can be canceled year to year whenever “priorities” shift — including under vague tests like “anti-American values” — every project that must span more than one year becomes insecure. Yet recipients must commit up front: hiring researchers, enrolling graduate students, and purchasing equipment within weeks or months of an award that could then be terminated for convenience. That puts enormous financial exposure on institutions and researchers, chills multi-year and high-risk work, and discourages advisors from committing to graduate stipends and training positions — shrinking the future research workforce.
Explain what your award commits you to early on — staff you must hire, students whose multi-year stipends you guarantee, equipment or clinical/field work you must purchase — and what happens to those people and commitments, and to your institution’s finances, if the award is cut in year 2 “for convenience.” If your work inherently spans multiple years, say why it cannot be done under year-to-year funding insecurity.
§200.341–200.343 — Notification, objections, and effects of termination
200.341–.343 critical
Govern how terminations are noticed, contested, and paid out. The key change: for discretionary terminations, the rule states an agency “is not required to allow for objections, hearings, and appeals.” The recipient gets only written notice with “a brief summary of the reason or reasons” (which “may apply to… a class of awards” and need not be “detailed or exhaustive”), a chance to submit termination costs, and stop-work instructions — with recourse only to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.
The ordinary administrative appeal rights that apply to noncompliance terminations do not apply when an award is cut for “convenience” or shifting “priorities.” A project can be ended with a brief, non-specific notice and no hearing — leaving litigation in a specialized federal court as the only remedy, which is out of reach for most researchers and many institutions.
Object to removing due process for discretionary terminations: an agency should have to give specific reasons and an opportunity to respond before cutting an active award, not a boilerplate notice with no appeal.
Restricting scientific communication
§200.432 — Conferences
200.432 critical
Makes conference attendance costs “allowable only if participation in the conference is expressly approved by the agency and included in the terms and conditions of the award.”
Presenting and attending conferences is core to disseminating results, training students, and building collaborations. Requiring case-by-case agency pre-approval adds friction and a political gate to ordinary scientific exchange.
§200.461 — Publication and printing costs
200.461 critical
Makes publication costs “unallowable unless such costs are expressly required by statute or approved in advance by the Federal agency on a case-by-case basis,” reasoning that “publication costs are not inherently necessary to carry out the core programmatic objectives of most Federal awards.”
Publishing is the output of research. This sweeps in article processing charges and open-access fees, directly conflicting with federal open-access policy and making it harder to share federally funded results.
State your typical publication/APC costs and why publishing is integral, not “ancillary,” to your grant.
§200.477 — Abortion
200.477 notable
New section making costs associated with elective abortions unallowable except as authorized by federal law (codifying existing Hyde-Amendment-type restrictions as a cost principle).
Other changes worth knowing
| Section | Tier | What changes |
|---|---|---|
| 200.111 — English language | notable | Award announcements, applications, and award information must be in English (previously agencies may translate). |
| 200.112–.113 — Conflicts of interest & disclosures | notable | New disclosure of staff employed by the awarding agency in the prior 2 years; credible fraud/COI evidence must be referred to the U.S. Attorney (DC) within 10 days. |
| 200.202 — Program planning & “Gold Standard Science” | notable | Encourages multi-year awards and pre-application “statements of interest”; incorporates “Gold Standard Science” and basic/applied/experimental research categorization. |
| 200.208 — Specific conditions | notable | Lets agencies add or adjust conditions on an award mid-performance (within 15 days of a determination) — another lever for changing the terms of active grants. |
| 200.216 — Prohibited equipment/services | notable | Expands prohibitions on certain foreign equipment, services, and systems. |
| 200.300 — Statutory & national policy requirements | critical | Houses the unlawful-DEI provision, a new “gender ideology” prohibition (denying “the sex binary”; pediatric gender-transition procedures), faith-based non-discrimination, and the legal-authority analysis for §200.218. |
| 200.303 — Internal controls & E-Verify | notable | Revised internal-control/info-security expectations and mandatory E-Verify for recipients and subrecipients working in the U.S. (§200.303(f)). |
| 200.305 — Federal payment | notable | Adds Treasury “Do Not Pay” eligibility checks and requires payment requests to justify the purpose and award-related work. |
| 200.322 — Domestic preferences | notable | Strengthened “Buy American”-style procurement preferences. |
| 200.332 — Pass-through entities / subrecipients | notable | New duty to ensure subrecipients don’t “significantly damage the reputation” of the agency or U.S. government — an undefined termination trigger; related-entity transfers must be classified as subawards/contracts. |
| 200.333 — Fixed amount subawards | minor | Fixed-amount awards/subawards eliminated in favor of cost-reimbursement. |
| 200.339(b) — Remedies for noncompliance | notable | Lets an agency cooperate with private parties pursuing their own causes of action against a recipient — a new external-pressure lever. |
| 200.421 / .429 / .442 — Cost principles | notable | Advertising/PR costs presumptively unallowable (.421); commencement/convocation costs unallowable (.429); fundraising/investment costs need prior approval (.442). |
| 200.503 — Audit requirements | minor | Limits added audits to those authorized by statute. |
| Parts 25, 170, 175 | critical | Carry the same “guidance”→“regulation” shift described in the structural change above — the single biggest change in the rule. (Also: FSRS.gov references updated to SAM.gov.) |
| Part 176 (ARRA) | minor | Removed — no longer needed. |
Working on your comment? See How to Comment for the process, or Draft with AI to turn your situation into a first draft.