How people, organizations push back

New OMB Rule Will Give President’s Political Appointees Control of Federal Grant

That’s because this rewrite of 2 CFR Part 200 released on May 29 is essentially that The American Physical Society describes as “revising all of America’s federal grant-making and federal cooperative agreements, while allowing only a 45-day period for public comment.” So you and the rest of the US public only have until July 13, 2026, to fully read, review, digest and comment the document detailing the changes. And the document is more than a hundred pages long, too long to read during a simple toilet. But the three biggest changes are:

• Increases the power of political appointees within federal agencies to decide on grant funding: This would effectively reduce the entire peer review process and all those not appointed by the US President to advisory rather than decision-making roles. It will thus greatly increase the powers of the President of the United States — who currently, if you haven’t heard, is Donald Trump — to fund and defund whatever he wants.
• Allows agencies, and therefore political appointees, to suspend or terminate any grant at any time without particular notice or justification: So if you have a federal grant that supports your salary and the salaries of others, it could be taken away at any time. The agency just has to say that the award was deemed inconsistent with “evolving national interests,” whatever that means. This would also greatly increase the power of the US President as he can determine both who the political appointees are and what the “national interests” may be.
• It gives agencies and political appointees more control over how grants are spent and the work done: Changing the rule will introduce a lot more micromanagement. For example, if you want to use grant money to travel to a conference, you’ll need to get pre-approval from the agency. This – the third verse like the first – would greatly increase Trump’s power since he is again the one who appoints the political appointees.

Elizabeth Ginexi, PhD, a health science consultant who served as a National Institutes of Health program manager for more than 20 years, provided a summary of the changes in Her post on Substack which carried the subtitle, “Russell Vought is going to destroy American Science.” Vought is the Director of the OMB. And most of the changes will make it easier for the Trump administration to do what it has been trying to do since Trump took office as US President for a second term in January 2025. This includes removing references to diversity, equity and inclusion terms and concepts from grants and projects, cutting funding for science, abruptly ending scientific programs like clinical trials and academic requirements from other institutions. met, I’ve covered all of that Forbes. Such actions have faced legal challenges. But—and it’s a big but no one can lie—it’s unclear how successful such challenges will be, especially with the Trump administration actively changing the rules.

The new OMB rule will affect a wide range of people, businesses and industries

Now, as I mentioned, so far, many of the OMGs have come from people who are directly affected by either NIH or National Science Foundation funding, such as scientists, health professionals, patients, and science advocacy groups. For example, the National Physical Society has stated that “the proposed changes would fundamentally alter the practice of science in the United States, undermining the system of peer review and international collaboration that has been central to making the US a world leader in science, technology, and innovation.” Meantime, the American Association for Cancer Research called it “a major threat to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and its life-saving mission to accelerate progress for cancer patients and the hundreds of other diseases that afflict millions of Americans.” Explore America has warned: “Together, these changes would move the federal research funding system away from scientific value, collaboration, and stability. The result would be slower scientific and medical progress, delaying the discoveries, treatments, cures, and public health advances that Americans depend on.” Yes.

But since 2 CFR Part 200 covers essentially all federal grants—all about $1.1 trillion of them—add to the alphabet soup of federal agencies that will be affected by this rule. Besides NIH, NSF, CDC, and HHS, you can throw in other acronyms like NASA, DoD, DOE, and NOAA. This, in turn, could end up affecting almost every person in the US in some way. So, assuming you’re a human and not a duvet cover or a ficus plant, you might want to pay close attention to what’s going on.

In one LinkedIn postGinexi gave examples of projects that “could be canceled mid-project because a political appointee decides it no longer serves ‘the national interest,’ without explanation and without objection:

• Head Start classrooms and child care that parents rely on to work
• Rural hospitals and community mental health and substance use treatment clinics
• Bridges, water systems and broadband projects already under construction
• Title I and special education funding for schools and students
• Meals on Wheels and senior services funded under the Older Americans Act
• Peer-reviewed scientific research at NIH, NSF, NASA, DoD, DOE, NOAA, and every other federal science agency”

July 13, 2026, is the deadline for public comments on the OMB rule

As mentioned earlier, July 13th is notable not only because it’s National Frank ‘N’ Bean Day. It is also the deadline for the public to submit comments on the OMB rule. Public comments are important because the Trump administration will be required by law to respond to them, and any comments can bolster legal cases in the future. Plus, it’s interesting to see what other people have said with over 70,000 comments already submitted.

However, if you want to comment in some useful way about the OMB rule, don’t just post something like “this”, “adult” or “fur baby”. The Trump administration can simply ignore comments that lack substance, are simply copied and pasted from existing comments, or appear to be generated by some sort of bot. Ginexi recommended citing specific section numbers in the rule and describing your own situation as well as the following in her own words:

• “Use your own words: Letters of the same form count as a single comment. Three original sentences beat a polished copy-paste.
• Say who you are: No credentials required. Being influenced is enough.
• Please quote a module number: For example §200.340 (grant termination), §200.205 (policy appointee review), or §200.202 (program alignment order). Specificity forces OMB to respond.
• Explain the specific damage. What will happen to you, your family or your community if this provision goes into effect?
• Closing with a question: “I urge OMB to withdraw this provision ‘or this section is enough.’

People and organizations are contacting members of Congress about the OMB rule

Then there’s Congress—you know that third branch of all that checks and balances things that are written about in the US Constitution. One question is whether Congress is happy with amassing more grant funding power to the US President and his appointees. Organizations such as 5 calls and Stand for Science they urge people to contact their senators and representatives. Reps. Jamie Raskin (MD-08), Suzan DelBene (WA-01) and Lori Trahan (MA-03), along with 122 of their colleagues, wrote a letter to Vought on June 25, saying, “We are writing to oppose the devastating and potentially illegal American health care rule proposed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for American health care.” The letter went on to say, “This troubling change will turn the grant review process into a political gridlock and insider game, irreparably harming our nation’s leading health research institutions, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and its grantees across the country.” But, of course, what many members of Congress can do about OMB’s rule will depend largely on what they perceive their constituents want.

I am reaching out to contacts at various federal agencies and the White House for comment and providing updates on anything I may hear. Regardless of your POV, however, you can be sure that this new OMB rule will affect many different things. So, TBH, you might want your voice to be heard, or you might suffer from FOMO when dealing with the fallout.