Overview
- The Office of Management and Budget published the proposal on May 29 and opened a 45‑day comment period that closes July 13, with nearly 100,000 public comments logged so far.
- If finalized, the rule would turn the Uniform Guidance into binding regulation and require political appointees to perform 'pre‑issuance' reviews that can override agency merit decisions, while treating scientific peer review as advisory.
- The proposal would expand agencies’ power to suspend or terminate grants mid‑project and impose new limits on approved expenses such as publication fees and professional society memberships, plus tighter controls on foreign collaboration.
- Leading scientific societies, cancer and health research groups, municipal and housing organizations, biotech investors, and some senators from both parties have warned the change would inject political criteria, raise uncertainty for multi‑year grants and clinical trials, and chill international research partnerships.
- If adopted largely as written the rule would take effect Oct. 1 for new awards and incremental funding actions, a change that supporters say will boost accountability while critics say could reduce private investment, disrupt ongoing research, and shift funding decisions away from subject‑matter experts.