CEDAR email: Action requested: Respond to OMB Proposed Rule Changes

[Lynn Harvey]

Dear CEDAR community,
The U.S. Office of Management and Budget has proposed major revisions to the regulations that govern federal grants (see https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/05/29/2026-10817/regulation-for-federal-financial-assistance). See this summary of take-aways (https://www.ropesgray.com/en/insights/alerts/2026/06/omb-proposed-revisions-to-the-uniform-guidance-key-takeaways-for-award-recipient-organizations). If finalized as written, these changes could have serious consequences for federally funded research, including potential political interference in peer review, cancellation of active grants with limited justification, restrictions on categories of federally funded science, and limits on researchers’ ability to publish and attend scientific conferences. Written responses to these proposed rule changes are invited by 13 July 2026.
First, I encourage you to contact the appropriate offices at your home institutions and ask whether your institution will submit a written response. If so, give input. Institutional comments can be especially important because they represent the perspective of universities, research centers, observatories, and organizations that depend on fair, transparent, peer-reviewed federal science funding. Only one response is permitted per institution.
Second, you can also submit responses as individuals. provide feedback directly through the federal public comment site (federalregister.gov<https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/05/29/2026-10817/regulation-for-federal-financial-assistance>) or through advocacy tools hosted by organizations such as the AGU Action Center (https://agu.quorum.us/campaign/163877/) and the Planetary Society (https://www.planetary.org/advocacy-action-center?vvsrc=%5CCampaigns%5C137770%5CRespond). Go here (https://solvecfs.org/how-to-submit-a-public-comment-on-the-proposed-federal-grant-rule/) for tips on how to write a response, key rule numbers, key parts of the rules, and what key sections would do.
Finally, if one of your representatives serves on the House Science Committee, the Senate Commerce Committee, or either Appropriations Committee, please also consider contacting them directly and asking them to oppose changes that would weaken peer review, restrict scientific communication, or destabilize federally funded research.
Science depends on open inquiry, independent peer review, transparent funding processes, and the ability to communicate results freely. These principles are worth defending, and this is a moment when our community’s voice matters.
Best,
Lynn Harvey, CSSC Chair
Scott England, CSSC Vice Chair
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.ucar.edu/pipermail/cedar_email/attachments/20260615/74955420/attachment.htm>