On May 29, 2026, the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) proposed a review of 2 CFR Part 200, known as the Uniform Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance, which has been in effect since 2013. This regulation affects over $1 trillion in federal aid aimed at a variety of sectors including state and local governments, nonprofits, and research institutions. The proposal aims to transition guidelines into binding regulations, centralizing authority within OMB and requiring political appointees to review discretionary awards. It also allows for the termination of grants and restricts funding collaboration with certain foreign entities.
The scientific community reacted strongly against these proposed changes, seeing them as a threat to research independence. Holden Thorpe, Editor-in-Chief of Science, warned that introducing political oversight into funding could undermine the peer review process essential to scientific discovery. Advocacy campaigns emerged swiftly, leading to the submission of approximately 51,000 public comments, with 94% opposing the proposal and only 6% in favor. Most opposing comments were independent, highlighting concerns about politicization of grant decisions and potential harm to peer review.
Among the objections, two main themes emerged: the fear of politicized grant evaluations, noted by around two-thirds of commenters, and the potential impact on scientific integrity. Many individual scientists expressed fears that the proposals would undermine the peer review system. Supporters of the proposal primarily focused on preventing waste and fraud.
The process for public comment has been criticized as insufficient given the proposal’s complexity and potential impact on federal funding. As OMB prepares to respond to the overwhelming public opposition, stakeholders are encouraged to remain engaged and could request meetings with OMB as part of the regulatory review process.
