By Kritika Agarwal
On May 29, the White House Office of Management and Budget published a proposal that would have far-reaching implications for how federal agencies administer research grants and how institutions, including colleges and universities, conduct federally funded research.
The OMB’s 412-page proposal contains more than 120 revisions to the current guidance governing federal financial assistance (commonly referred to as the “Uniform Guidance”). The proposal, which applies to all federal grantmaking agencies, is sweeping in scope; it would change the Uniform Guidance from “guidance” into regulatory policy, expanding OMB’s authority in policymaking for federal agencies and, in some instances, allowing OMB to circumvent congressional authority.
As AAU President Barbara R. Snyder noted in a letter she sent to OMB soon after the proposal was published, the revisions it contains “would materially alter long-standing, foundational principles underpinning federally supported research.”
Among other things, the proposal would codify and expand the authority of federal agencies to terminate active grants mid-award if they are deemed “inconsistent with program goals or agency priorities.” According to Nature, agencies “would not have to provide a process for researchers to appeal a termination.” The outlet noted that there are worries that OMB’s proposal “could act as a shield against legal action” over grant terminations.
The proposal also implements several executive orders related to the federal grantmaking process and DEI, including the August 7, 2025, executive order on “Improving Oversight of Federal Grantmaking.” In accordance with the August order, the proposed rule would require senior political appointees to review every discretionary grant before it is awarded. Furthermore, it would forbid political appointees from routinely deferring to peer review panels’ recommendations. As Holden Thorp, editor of Science, recently noted, while “peer review has never been formally binding, … this proposal would dramatically expand the power of political appointees to override expert assessments of scientific merit.”
The proposal also imposes severe restrictions on international collaboration by expanding the “Wolf Amendment” at NASA – which prohibits federal funds for bilateral or multilateral collaborations, agreements, programs, or activities with certain foreign countries or entities – to all federal agencies.
Additionally, according to Nature, with some exceptions, the proposal would also disallow researchers from using federal grants to cover costs associated with publication, “including article-processing charges (APCs), fees that many journals charge authors to make articles freely available.” As Nature noted, “This is at odds with an existing policy that requires all federally funded research to be made free to read as soon as it is published.”
All of these and other revisions, President Snyder noted in her letter, “could undermine key elements of the U.S. research ecosystem, including the use of merit based scientific review and the longstanding commitment to scientific openness and broad dissemination of research results.”
Many associations and research organizations have expressed alarm over OMB’s proposal. In a letter to OMB, COGR, which represents more than 230 research universities and affiliated academic medical centers and research institutes, said that “The proposed changes would effectively dismantle a framework that has supported basic and applied research in the U.S. and add unnecessary restrictions, requirements, and substantial burden that will hamper U.S. leadership and competitiveness.”
Sudip Parikh, chief executive officer of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, noted that “This latest move is a brazen power grab by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to buck the will of Congress and the American people and will make future discoveries less likely.” He continued: “If this rule becomes final, Americans’ hopes for future cures, national security and economic strength will rely on the scientific sensibilities of the nation’s chief bureaucrat.”
Erika Seward, executive director of United for Cures, a network of patient advocacy organizations, said: “One surefire way to jeopardize the development of breakthrough cures and treatments for millions of American families who urgently need them is to put politics at the center of it. OMB’s proposal would delay grants that have already cleared rigorous evaluation and upend a merit-based, competitive process.”
OMB has given the research community and the public 45 days to respond to its proposal. However, organizations such as AAU are requesting more time.
In her letter, President Snyder noted: “Taken together, the changes in the guidance have the potential to reshape the framework within which universities, federal agencies, and other stakeholders conduct and support America’s scientific research. Accordingly, it is critical that OMB provide adequate opportunity for thorough, thoughtful, and informed comments from the full range of affected stakeholders. A 45-day period is insufficient to support the level of analysis and engagement warranted by a proposal of this scope and significance.” She strongly urged OMB to “extend the comment period to at least 90 days.” Matt Owens, president of COGR, also asked for “a 90-day, or even 120-day, comment period.”
AAU plans to submit a detailed comment in response to OMB’s proposal.
Kritika Agarwal is assistant vice president for communications at AAU.