The public is asked to weigh in on the Trump administration’s more than 400-page proposed rule that would significantly alter the federal grant process. The proposed changes would place federal grant decisions in the hands of political appointees, allow funding to be switched off when government priorities change and prevent flexibility in the agencies’ application of this new rule book.
The proposed rule, Regulation of Federal Funding, comes from the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and would make significant changes to the Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance, the rulebook for how grants and federal funding are awarded and overseen. The proposed changes would be applicable to all science agencies as they make OMB guidance binding, which would end past freedoms for agencies to tailor requirements for their research communities. The changes are in alignment with the executive order “Improving Oversight of Federal Grantmaking,” which was released last August.
Changes in grant infrastructure
Several behind-the-scenes changes would affect the structure of federal grant programs. First, all new federal grant programs would be required to explicitly align their goals with current administration policies and priorities. It would also change if grant opportunities were publicly posted. It would allow a federal agency head to exempt certain awards from being listed on grants.gov. According to the proposed rule for a grant to not be publicly posted, it would have to “pose a risk to national security or [be] in the national interest of the United States.”
Under the proposed changes there would be new emphasis on grantees. Federal grant announcements could restrict eligibility to specific IRS-recognized nonprofit categories. A proposed provision would allow the agencies to consider an applicant’s affiliation with organizations engaged in activities that violate federal law, undermine public safety or national security, or advocate for the overthrow of the United States government.
Senior political appointees would be part of the grant application process if the rules are approved. Political appointees would be responsible for conducting a “pre-issuance review” to ensure that proposals selected for funding are consistent with applicable law, federal agency priorities and national interests. The proposed rules state that this includes “ensuring that discretionary awards advance the president’s policy priorities.” Under the proposed changes, peer review is emphasized as advisory.
If awarded federal funding
Under the proposed rule changes, if someone gets a federal award, the funding could cease at any time if the award is “no longer in the federal Interest.” Allowing agencies to suspend or end grants is described in the notice as “not overly coercive” because it’s a standard administrative tool like what already exists in federal contracting rules. The proposed rule states that applicants are free to choose not to participate in a program if they don’t agree with its terms. Costs of the termination will be considered by the agency.
Additionally, the proposed rule states that funding could not be used to cover professional associations unless “necessary.” Publication costs or conference attendance must be pre-approved and included in the funding application. Under the proposed rules, federal grant recipients would not be able to be members of organizations whose primary purpose is lobbying or issue advocacy.
The public comment period ends July 13, 2026. Commenters are asked to provide clarity as to the section of the regulation that each comment references with the relevant section number in brackets.
For more information on how to provide a comment, click here.
Article by Kaylyn Zipp
