On May 29, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released a proposed rule relating to the Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance. The revisions could have far-reaching implications for federally funded research and the broader scientific enterprise.

Potential impacts to NAVBO members include:

• Political review of discretionary grants

• New restrictions on international research collaborations

• Expanded authority to terminate grants

• Requiring pre-approval for scientific conferences

• Prohibiting the use of federal funds for journal publication costs

• Agencies encouraged to design awards as multi-year awards when consistent with program objectives

The Federal Register is the official mechanism through which the federal government proposes regulations and receives public input before they are finalized. This means scientists and non-scientists alike have the opportunity to formally voice their opinions on the rule.

Public comments are due July 13, 2026 at 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time. The rule is scheduled to take effect on October 1, 2026. Once a rule is implemented, it has the force of law.

NAVBO has filed a public comment opposing this rule.

Read letter from NAVBO presidents here.

NAVBO is a Member Organization of Research!America, a non-profit medical and health research advocacy alliance. For the most up-to-date information regarding R!A's advocacy efforts, see their webpage.

Research!America Resources

Research!America: Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) Proposed Federal Grant Rule: Key Changes and Potential Consequences

Frequently Asked Questions about Submitting Comments on the OMB Proposed Rule

Video Recording: Alliance Discussion: Responding to OMB’s Proposed Rule

Slide Deck: How to Develop and Submit Comments

Other Resources

"OMB Comments for Busy People" (Google Drive)

Summary of Key Changes (Elizabeth Ginexi)

Regulations.gov: Guidance on Submitting Comments

RAAC: OMB Rule Resources (Github)

National Council of Nonprofits: Proposed Changes to the OMB Uniform Guidance

National Council of Nonprofits: Comment Guide

COGR, AAU, APLU: OMB Proposed Rule on Uniform Guidance: Immediate Considerations for Research Institutions

American Association for Cancer Research: Action Alert

American Society of Cell & Gene Therapy: Proposed Changes to Federal Grant Rules – Significant Implications for CGT Research

United States Association for the Study of Pain: Public Comment Opportunity: Proposed OMB Changes to Federal Research Grant Regulations

American Geophysical Union: Public Comment Toolkit

Society for Neuroscience: Send Comments on the OMB Proposed Rule on Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance

APS, AIBS, and partners: Comment on Office of Management and Budget proposed rule for federal financial assistance

How this affects patients:

• Political appointees making grant decisions, not scientists.

• Policies that slow biomedical research slow medical progress.

• Clinical trials could be terminated at any time due to funding termination.

Spread the word on social media!

Download our social media templates here

Helpful resources (watch, like, and share!)

Kindly provided by Dr. Rachel Ross

Share informational videos on Youtube:

YT: This Federal Proposal Could Affect Science, Healthcare, and Education

YT: Why the Next Medical Breakthrough Might Never Happen

YT: Why Everyone Should Comment on This Federal Proposal and How to Comment

Share informational videos on Instagram:

IG: This Federal Proposal Could Affect Science, Healthcare, and Education

IG: Why the Next Medical Breakthrough Might Never Happen

The regulation would extend to the agencies that fund transportation, housing, and education to name a few.

Summary: this OMB Rule is bigger than science. Much Bigger

Craft your comment:

Friend/Family of a scientist perspective:

I am writing as a friend/family member of someone who has dedicated their career to scientific research.

Over the years, I've seen firsthand how much work goes into conducting research responsibly. Scientists spend countless hours writing grant applications, reporting results, managing budgets, complying with regulations, and ensuring taxpayer dollars are used appropriately. Accountability is already a major part of the process.

I am concerned that the proposed changes would add even more administrative burden while making it harder for scientists to focus on the research that leads to new discoveries and better treatments. I am also concerned that these changes could make research funding decisions less driven by scientific merit and more vulnerable to non-scientific considerations.

I respectfully urge OMB to withdraw or substantially revise this proposed rule. Any changes to federal grant regulations should strengthen accountability while preserving an independent, merit-based research system that allows scientists to pursue discoveries that improve people's lives.

Taxpayer perspective:

I am writing as a taxpayer who believes federally funded scientific research is one of our nation's best investments. I expect taxpayer dollars to be managed responsibly, and I support strong oversight of federal grants. At the same time, I want research funding decisions to be based on scientific excellence, transparency, and the potential to benefit the public.

Medical research supported by federal funding has produced lifesaving treatments, strengthened our economy, and helped maintain America’s leadership in science and innovation. I am concerned that parts of this proposed rule could make research less efficient, discourage collaboration, and slow the pace of discovery.

I urge OMB to withdraw or significantly revise this proposal to ensure that oversight is balanced with the need for a strong, independent, and globally competitive research enterprise that serves the American people.

Patient perspective:

I am writing as someone whose life has been affected by disease.

Every treatment available today exists because researchers were able to ask important questions, conduct careful studies, and share their discoveries with the scientific community. Patients and families depend on continued investment in medical research to develop better treatments and, ultimately, cures.

I am concerned that the proposed changes could make it more difficult for scientists to conduct research, collaborate with one another, and move discoveries from bench to bedside. Delays in research can mean delays in hope for patients like me and millions of others.

I respectfully ask OMB to withdraw this proposed rule. Please ensure that federal research policies continue to support rigorous, evidence-based science that prioritizes patients, scientific merit, and the public good.

Urge your lawmakers to speak up regarding the OMB rule.

The work does not stop after the July 13 deadline! Many congresspeople are unaware of this rule or how their constituents could be affected by it. Your actions make a difference and now is the time to make your voice heard!

Research!America has provided an editable email template which autofills your congresspeople's information based on your address.

Research!America Congress Letter Tool

Please feel free to use this template text:

Dear Representative/ Senator [Last Name],

I am a biomedical scientist and a concerned member of [Your Congressional District]. I write to ask that you take immediate steps to oppose a proposal by the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The changes outlined in this proposal threaten America’s status as a leader in cardiovascular research.

As you are likely aware, OMB seeks to enact several changes that will threaten the ability of scientists like myself to drive American research forward. These include politicizing the grant review process by deprioritizing the input of subject matter experts in the peer review process and elevating politically appointed approvals, erecting barriers to international scientific collaboration, and restricting the ability of scientists to disseminate their work to other scientists, patients, and the general public.

[OPTIONAL: ADD YOUR OWN LANGUAGE. Describe a specific issue you have with the proposed changes. Try to include a personal anecdote or opinion on how this will directly affect your science, or the national pursuit of science. If possible, tailor this section to your specific district, such as describing how research funds specifically impact the economy of your city or state.]

The United States has long stood at the forefront of biomedical research through its strong investment America’s scientific research community. This in turn has yielded several key biomedical discoveries and improved the health of countless Americans. Yet, more work remains to be done for several diseases, including cardiovascular disease and stroke. 10% of all adults in the US – i.e., ~30 million people – have cardiovascular disease, which is still the leading cause of death in America. Moreover, the disease burden of cardiovascular disease and stroke is only projected to increase over the next several decades. These sobering statistics demand that we continue our strong investment in cardiovascular research, which is endangered by OMB’s proposed changes. Further, clinical trials may be stopped at any time due to termination of federal funding.  Not only would this be a waste of funds already invested into these studies, but even negative studies and their publications help advance research forward faster. Altogether, OMB’s proposed changes would be detrimental for our healthcare system and threaten our place at the forefront of medical innovations.

As a member of your constituency, I urge you to actively oppose the OMB’s proposed changes. We must continue to prioritize the life of patients over politics and America’s continued leadership in science and medicine.

Sincerely,

[Your Name, Congressional District]