July 13, 8:59 PDT DEADLINE (Monday) to Comment on a Federal Grant Regulatory Grant Change to Politicize and Censor Science!

You don’t have to be a scientist or an expert of any kind to comment! You just need to know that that the politicization of science and research is a form of authoritarian censorship that will affect everyone’s lives for the worse, and be willing to speak up. Research on issues important to you or someone you love can be defunded if a researcher’s facebook page includes a comment that makes our Grifter-in-Chief sad. We give you a lot of resources to work with. Take a moment and join in this effort!

Watch this great short video! (https://www.instagram.com/reel/DZ5b7pDq-l4/)

Watch more videos below!

What is this about?

(50501) “The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has just quietly proposed the most sweeping overhaul of federal grant rules in over a decade. If you are a scientist, university student, researcher, healthcare provider, nonprofit worker, local government employee, or school administrator—this will fundamentally change how your work is funded.”

Russell Vought, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, is trying to pass sweeping regulatory change that will end American science as we know it and catastrophically damage federal assistance that benefits all of society. Vought is a key author of the ultra-right wing Project 2025 plan and is using his new powers to delete science for any subject that makes the far-right sad and GOP donors mad.

Since he doesn’t want climate change information to hurt the GOP’s fossil fuel donors, he tried to dismantle the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado. Damage was done before he was stopped. He also tried to dismantle dismantle the $368 million OOI system, which uses more than 900 sensors in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans to stream continuous data. A bi-partisan pushback stopped him from destroying this gold-standard warning system for environmental mayhem.

Now, he wants to pencil out offending projects by grabbing power to delete their grants, especially research on women, people of color, LGBTQ+ communities, and religious minorities. “This rule would funnel decision power about what science is done, by whom, for whom, with whom, and effectively isolate scientists from the rest of the world.” Liz Borkowski, a researcher at George Washington University, said U.S. grant funding in the past has helped scientists develop cures for diseases, boost crop production, and reduce deaths from hurricanes and wildfires.

What the 412-Page Rule Actually Does: If finalized, this rule will rewrite the “Uniform Guidance” laws across every single federal grant-making agency (NIH, NSF, CDC, DOE, EPA, etc.) simultaneously, effective October 1, 2026.

What are the biggest issues here?

  • Political Veto Over Science: The rule mandates a “pre-issuance review” by senior political appointees for all discretionary awards. The independent, expert merit-based peer review system that has insulated U.S. science from politics since WWII will be legally reduced to “advisory only.”
    • Peer Review Is No Longer Binding (§200.205(d))
    • “Gold Standard Science” as an Undefined Political Test (§200.205)
    • DEI, Gender Research, and Related Topics Banned as Grant Conditions (§200.300)
  • The Policy Loyalty Test: Grant proposals must “demonstrably advance the President’s policy priorities.” It explicitly blocks federal funding for anything deemed to conflict with specific administration policies, including bans on funding DEI programs, gender transition care for minors, or what the state labels “anti-American values.”
  • Termination at Will: Federal agencies will gain the authority to suspend or cancel active, multi-year grants at any time without cause if they decide the project no longer aligns with “agency interest” or “shifting national priorities”—leaving research infrastructure completely unstable.
  • Mandatory E-Verify: All federal grant recipients and subrecipients will be forced to use E-Verify to check the immigration status of employees and contractors working on those awards.
  • Isolation from other researchers, information, and sharing information:
    • Broad Prohibition on International Scientific Collaboration (§200.220)
    • Conference Attendance Now Requires Express Agency Pre-Approval (§200.432)
    • Professional Memberships Require Prior Approval and Must Be “Necessary” (§200.454)
    • Publication Costs and Open Access Fees Presumptively Unallowable (§200.461)
    • Public Communications and Outreach Severely Restricted (§200.421)
    • New “Issue Advocacy” Prohibition (§200.450)

How much does this matter?

For nearly 80 years, the U.S. has led global innovation because federal dollars went to the best, most rigorous science—decided by expert panels, not politicians. That system gave us everything from the internet and GPS to the polio vaccine and advanced cancer treatments.

This administrative rule aims to permanently centralize political control over the $1.1 trillion handed out annually in federal financial assistance, bypassing Congress entirely. Major organizations—from the National Association of Counties to the American Astronomical Society—are begging OMB to extend the 45-day window to allow for a proper 90-day review. So far, the administration has refused. Draw your own conclusions.

ACTION! YOUR COMMENT MATTERS — HERE IS HOW.

Under the Administrative Procedure Act, OMB must read and respond to every substantive public comment before finalizing a rule. Volume matters. Specificity matters. Personal impact matters.

I would like more information first. WTH is happening exactly?

The Stand up For Science folks have a great website: (https://fight2win.standupforscience.net) Here’s their references to make this task easy. Read Dr. Ginex’s overview and the guide to leaving public comments, then have at it. Talk about what’s really important to you!

Ready to comment now?

How can I explain this f***ery to my friends and neighbors, in person or on social media?

Learn How To Talk to Anyone About the New OMB Rule:
(https://www.standupforscience.foundation/policy-and-advocacy/how-to-talk-to-anyone-about-omb-2026-0034)

Call your representatives and make some demands!

Email them this weekend and follow up with a call on Monday!

Sample script: Good morning! I’m calling from [zip code] and I want [Sen/Rep. ____] to demand that the Office of Management and Budget extend the comment period to at least 90 days, and hold hearing on their proposed rule to politicize scientific research before it takes effect.

MORE RESOURCES!

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgBLfYzK6T4)

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyBibk4a6Vs)

Organizations lay out their arguments and provide direct comment links!

  • (American Association for Cancer Research) Here is their response to to this rule, contained within a 40 page letter to the comment site, which is an option open to everyone. You can also do a single sentence or paragraph. Options! They also have a nice comment link to directly contact your legislators about your concerns here.
  • (AAUW.org) This link takes you directly to their great comment guide here and a nice direct comment link here.
  • (Free Speech Center) Judge rules Trump administration’s cancellation of humanities grants was unconstitutional
  • (Workforcebulletin.com) Defunding DEI Hits a Legal Wall: Courts Shield Federal Funding Recipients From Biased Artificial Intelligence (AI) Overreach
  • (ACLU) ACLU Opposes Sweeping OMB Proposal That Would Politicize Federal Funding and Threaten Essential Services
  • (Excerpt from the index to ACLU’s entire public comment here)

In the news!

(Center for Progressive reform)

(eenews.net)

(CNN)

(guardian)

(NYT)

(New Yorker)

Leave a Reply