Your Voice is Needed: Submit Comments on Proposed Harmful Rule Changes to Federal Grantmaking
Comment Deadline: July 13, 2026 (11:59 pm ET)
Proposed Effective Date: October 1, 2026 (if finalized as proposed)
Docket Number: OMB-2026-0034 (Anyone can comment)
Link to Submit Your Comment
On 29 May 2026, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released a proposed rule titled Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance that would change how the federal government awards and manages every research grant in the country, including those made by IES.
Among the many changes in this proposed rule, OMB proposes giving political appointees greater control over the grant selection process, expanding the authority of the government to terminate active grants if they do not align with Administration priorities, and placing significant restrictions on the use of federal funds to cover conference attendance and publishing costs.
If passed in its current form, this rule would create policies that would cause significant harm to the scientific community, research institutions, and professional societies — including SREE and the education research community.
It is up to all of us, as a scientific community and as individuals dedicated to the advancement of our field, to speak out against this proposed rule. Any interested party can submit a comment. Every voice matters.
Why Your Comment Matters Even if the Rule Still Moves Forward
When the federal government proposes a new rule, it is required by law to give the public a chance to weigh in and to read and respond to what people say. Here’s why that matters, even if the federal government decides to move ahead with the rule changes:
- Your comment can help in court. If this rule is challenged by a lawsuit after it goes into effect, judges will look at whether the government took public concerns seriously. Legal challenges are expected due to the sweeping nature of the regulation. Every specific, thoughtful comment submitted before the deadline strengthens the case that the government was provided clear evidence of the damage the rules would cause.
- The government is legally required to review all comments. If enough people raise a specific problem with a specific part of the rule, OMB is required to either fix it or explain why they didn’t. That’s how the worst provisions get weakened or removed. In this case, one big protest is less effective than a large collection of clear, specific objections they can’t ignore.
- Congress is watching. When thousands of people submit comments on a rule, it sends a signal to lawmakers that their constituents care about this issue and encourage them to take action, whether that means holding hearings, blocking funding for implementation, or passing legislation to override it.
How to Approach your Comments
- Write it in your own words. Form letters will be disregarded.
- Name the specific part of the rule you’re talking about. The rule is broken into numbered sections. When you reference a section number (like §200.340), it shows the government you know what you’re talking about, and it creates an objection they’re required to address. If you just say “this is bad,” they do not have to respond to that complaint.
- Stick to the facts. Describe what the rule actually says. An accurate comment is harder to dismiss. An exaggeration will result in a loss of credibility and a comment the government can ignore.
- Make it personal. Talk about your own life, your own work, and why it matters. Real stories carry more weight than abstract arguments.
- Tell us what you will lose and why it matters for teachers, schools, and students. (examples: Is a tutoring program going to go away that you are working on? Will schools lose resources they rely on to implement programs? Will parents not be able to see their students’ progress information? Include items you include in your implementation studies.)
- End by telling them what you want them to do. Be direct: “I urge OMB to withdraw §200.340” or “I urge OMB not to finalize this rule.” A clear ask gives your comment a purpose they have to respond to.
Key Parts of the Rule that Impact our Community
Here’s what key sections would do. You don’t need to reference all of them, just pick the ones that hit closest to home. You can read the full guidance here.
§200.340: Active research studies could be canceled at any time. The government could pull the plug on an ongoing study whenever it decides the work no longer fits its current priorities, even if nothing has gone wrong and the science is on track. Agencies would be required to include this cancellation right in every grant.
§200.205: Political appointees would have final say over which research gets funded. Every grant would need sign-off from a political appointee, and the rule says that recommendations from scientific peer reviewers are “advisory” only and should not be “routinely deferred to.”
§200.461: Publishing research findings would become harder to pay for. The costs of publishing in scientific journals would no longer be covered by grant funding unless a specific contract requires it or the agency approves it one case at a time.
§200.454: Researchers could lose access to the scientific literature. Subscriptions to the journals researchers need to stay current in their field would require specific prior government approval to be paid for with grant funds.
§200.432: Attending scientific conferences would require advance government permission. Researchers could only use grant funds to attend a conference if that specific conference was approved and written into their grant from the start. This would mean they wouldn’t be able to attend important meetings that come up after the grant is awarded.
How to submit your comment (takes about 10 minutes, free)
- Go to the rule page at federalregister.gov and click the green “Submit a Formal Comment” button. You can also go to regulations.gov and search for docket number OMB-2026-0034, then click “Comment.” Direct link here.
- Type or paste your comment in the box (there’s a 5,000-character limit — if you want to write more, you can attach a document). Comment as an individual, as they only allow one comment per person or organization.
- A note about privacy: everything you type (including your name if you provide one) will be posted publicly on regulations.gov. Don’t include your home address or phone number. You can comment anonymously or use just your first name.
- Check the “I am not a robot” box, click Submit, and save your tracking number (take a screenshot). You’re done.
Suggested Comment Outline
State Who you are.
What parts of the rule concern you and what these changes would do to you, teachers, students, and parents.
example: “I am writing to oppose proposed §200.340 and §200.205. Section 200.340 would allow the government to cancel active research grants at any time even if just because political priorities changed. Section 200.205 would require political appointees to approve every research grant, while making the recommendations of scientific experts explicitly advisory.” [Add §200.333, §200.461, §200.454, or §200.432 if they connect to your experience.]
The real-world harm.
What you want them to do.
“I urge OMB to withdraw the discretionary termination provision in §200.340, restore the role of scientific peer review under §200.205, and not finalize this rule in its current form.”
News Articles about the Proposed Rule Change
White House seeks to tighten political oversight of grantmaking (https://www.science.org/content/article/white-house-seeks-tighten-political-oversight-grantmaking)
Big Changes on the Horizon for Federal Grants (https://www.governing.com/management-and-administration/big-changes-on-the-horizon-for-federal-grants)
Trump’s Dangerous Litmus Test for NIH Grants https://washingtonmonthly.com/2026/06/15/trumps-dangerous-litmus-test-for-nih-grants-science/
|
