The Trump administration quietly filed 400 pages of regulations that could gut science, housing, arts and victim services funding across the entire country. Political appointees would get veto power over grants once decided purely on merit, and money could vanish mid-project with zero appeal. Lydia breaks down exactly how bad it gets. But we can fight back! Listen in to find out how. Stand Up for Science Comment portal: https://fight2win.standupforscience.net/campaign/omb_comment/ Proposed Rule Changes (5/29/2026) Federal Register Comment Submission Sample General Comment: I am submitting this comment as a member of the public concerned about the proposed "Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance" (OMB-2026-0034). I oppose finalizing this rule as written. Requiring political appointees to conduct pre-issuance review of discretionary grants, and downgrading peer-review recommendations to merely advisory, replaces a merit-based, expert-driven funding system with one where funding decisions can be made based on political alignment rather than scientific or programmatic merit. This risks delaying or blocking legitimate research and public-interest programs based on politics rather than quality, and it undermines the credibility of federal grantmaking across every agency this rule touches, not just scientific research. I am also concerned about the expanded authority to terminate active, already-awarded grants without a guaranteed appeals process. Recipients, such as universities, hospitals, nonprofits, state and local governments, need a predictable, fair process to rely on federal awards they have already been granted and are actively spending in good faith. I urge OMB to withdraw or substantially narrow these provisions, preserve the presumption that peer-review and merit-based recommendations are binding absent a documented, specific reason to deviate, and restore a meaningful appeals process for any grant facing suspension or termination. Sample § 200.205 Comment: [200.205] I am writing to oppose the proposed pre-issuance review requirement in § 200.205, which requires senior political appointees to review discretionary grant proposals and downgrades peer-review recommendations to merely "advisory." Peer review by subject-matter experts has been the foundation of federal grantmaking for decades because it evaluates proposals on scientific and programmatic merit rather than political alignment. Requiring proposals to "demonstrably advance the President's policy priorities" as a condition of funding inserts a political test into a process that should be judged on quality, feasibility, and public benefit. This risks funding decisions being made (or overturned) by officials without relevant subject-matter expertise, and discourages researchers and institutions from pursuing legitimate, high-merit work that might be perceived as politically disfavored regardless of its scientific value. I urge OMB to remove this provision, or at minimum to require that peer-review recommendations remain the primary basis for funding decisions, with any political override documented, narrowly justified, and subject to independent review. Sample § 200.340 Comment: [200.340] I am writing to oppose the proposed expansion of grant termination authority in § 200.340, which would allow agencies to terminate active, already-awarded grants if they are judged "inconsistent with program goals or agency priorities" or "no longer in the Federal Government's interest," without a guaranteed process for recipients to appeal. Multi-year research, public health, and community programs require funding stability to be effective. Researchers hire staff, enroll patients in clinical trials, and make long-term institutional commitments based on the expectation that an awarded grant will be honored for its stated term absent a specific, documented failure of performance or compliance. Allowing termination based on vague, after-the-fact judgments about "priorities," without any appeals process, introduces instability that will discourage qualified applicants, disrupt ongoing work and reduce accountability for the termination decisions themselves. I urge OMB to require a specific, documented justification for any mid-award termination, tied to defined performance or compliance standards set out in advance, and to restore a meaningful appeals process for recipients facing termination. If you enjoy our work, please consider leaving a 5-star review! You can always email questions, comments, and leads to lydia@seriouspod.com. Please pretty please consider becoming a patron at patreon.com/wherethereswoke!
