A seismic shift has been proposed for federal grantmaking that would fundamentally alter how billions of dollars in federal funding are awarded across the United States, with far-reaching implications for grant-supported programs, services and organizations nationwide and the communities they serve.

What you need to know: The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has proposed sweeping revisions to the "Uniform Guidance," the federal government's primary framework for administering grants.

The revisions could reduce the role of expert review in funding decisions and give greater weight to politically-motivated decisions. This proposed guidance would become mandatory regulation for every federal agency.

• First released in 2013, this Uniform Guidance framework covers the entire award cycle — including grant announcements and applications, award oversight and disseminating research results — deciding which proposals will be funded.
• The OMB proposes converting the current guidance to rigid rules governing the agencies that control billions of dollars in research, education and public health funding.
• The proposal is sending shockwaves through any organization that receives federal assistance, including universities, academic medical centers, nonprofits and research organizations nationwide.

What OMB is saying: A spokesperson stated that the new regulations will make grantmaking transparent and protect taxpayer money, claiming the changes will halt the practice of using federal grants to advance a "politicized" agenda.

• Critics assert that the proposal will have the opposite effect, giving political considerations more weight in grant decisions.

What this means: This proposal could decrease the impact of the merit-based review system that has made the U.S. a global research leader.

The breakdown: Changing the role of merit review

For decades, the foundation for awarding federal grants has been merit review — a system where panels of experts judge grant applications' scientific and technical merit. If the proposal is finalized, the recommendations from these experts could be set aside entirely for political reasons.

The strategy: The proposed rule would establish a mandatory "pre-issuance review" process that flips the script on traditional grantmaking:

• Once the heads of agencies have recommendations about the most promising scientific proposals, those senior political appointees will be required to conduct a second-level review of every single discretionary grant before it is awarded.
• The language of the proposal explicitly instructs agencies to undertake a review that could result in dismissed recommendations from peer review for political considerations.
• Grants would need to advance the administration's policy priorities, and could be passed over for "promot[ing] anti-American values."

Take note: Under the proposal, agencies could instantly terminate any grant at their discretion under the vague rationale of the award not effectuating "the national interest," providing no opportunity for appeal.

Plus, plus, plus: In addition to the heavy administrative restrictions that would hamper daily academic operations, medical research and all types of scientific research, the OMB proposal is so sweeping that it also could affect support for tribal communities, broadband efforts, transportation funding, energy utilities and other municipal necessities.

• The regulation implements a "domestic-first framework," banning bilateral or multilateral collaborations with covered foreign countries or entities unless expressly authorized by a federal statute.

• Furthermore, standard line items like the costs associated with publishing research results in academic journals and attending conferences to present and discuss research will become unallowable expenses under federal awards, curtailing researchers' domestic and global scholarly communication.

The takeaway

If this proposed rule is finalized, it will make research funding highly unpredictable, allow current and future administrations to suddenly cancel grants for political reasons and weaken the system that has supported American innovation and medical breakthroughs for decades.

Taking a few minutes to submit a formal comment is a critical line of defense to:

• Help protect the systems that support research, education, public health and scientific innovation — and ensure that decisions affecting communities across the country are guided by expertise rather than political interests.

What's in store: The OMB plans to finalize the rule and make it legally binding with an effective date of Oct. 1, 2026.

Get involved: How to make a public comment

The proposed rule is currently undergoing a 45-day, public comment window.

• Public comments remain one of the most important tools available to stakeholders because agencies are required to consider and respond to significant issues raised during the comment process. A robust comment record can shape agency decisions and demonstrate public opinion about the proposal.

All public comments must be formally submitted no later than July 13, 2026.

• Individuals, researchers, academic staff and public advocates can submit formal comments directly at regulations.gov. The docket number is: OMB-2026-0034.

Everyone with a stake in American discovery — including scientists, academic leaders, community partners, patient advocates and business leaders — must make their voice heard during the 45-day comment period.

Take action.