You may have heard a lot of OMGs on social media over the new OMB rule. In this case, OMB stands for the White House Office of Management and Budget. And the new rule from the Trump administration entitled, “Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance” has certainly gotten a lot of ”oh my goodnesses” and WTFs from different scientific organizations and patient advocacy groups. But ICYMI, the impact of this attempted rewrite of 2 CFR Part 200 could reach well beyond scientists, science, patients and health into practically all sectors of society.
The New OMB Rule Will Give The President’s Political Appointees Control Over Federal Grantmaking
That’s because this rewrite of 2 CFR Part 200 that came out on May 29 is essentially what The American Physical Society describes as “revising the entirety of federal grantmaking and federal cooperative agreements in America while allowing only a 45-day public comment period.” So, you and the rest of the U.S., public have got only until July 13, 2026, to fully read, review, digest and comment on the document that’s detailing the changes. And the document is over a hundred pages long, way too long to read during a single toilet sitting. But the three biggest changes are as follows:
- It elevates the power of political appointees within federal agencies to decide on grant funding: This effectively would sideline to advisory rather than decision-making roles the whole peer review process and all those not appointed by the President of the U.S.. It will thus greatly increase the powers of the U.S. President—who currently if you haven’t heard is Donald Trump—to fund and not fund whatever he wants.
- It allows agencies and thus political appointees to suspend or terminate any grant at any time without much warning or justification: So, if you have a federal grant that supports your salary and the salaries of others, this could be pulled at any time. The agency simply has to say that the award has been deemed inconsistent with the “evolving national interests,” whatever that means. This also would significantly increase the power of the U.S. President since 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 the grants are spent and what work is done: The rule change will introduce much more micromanagement. For example, if you want to use grant money to travel to a conference, you will have to get pre-approval from the agency. This would—third verse same as the first—significantly increase the power of Trump as well since again he’s been the one appointing the political appointees.
Elizabeth Ginexi, PhD, a health science consultant who served as a National Institutes of Health program officer for over 20 years, provided a summary of the changes in her Substack post that bore the sub-header, “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 U.S. President for the second time in January 2025. That includes removing mentions of diversity, equity and inclusion terms and concepts from grants and projects, cutting funding for science, abruptly terminating scientific projects like clinical trials, and withholding funding from universities and other academic institutions until Trump administration demands are met, all of which I have been covering in Forbes. Such actions have faced legal challenges. But—and it’s a big but one cannot lie—it’s unclear how successful such challenges will be, especially with the Trump administration actively changing the rules.
The New OMB Rule Would Affect A Wide Range Of People, Businesses And Sectors
Now, as I mentioned, so far, a lot of the OMGs have come from those directly affected by either NIH or National Science Foundation funding like scientists, healthcare 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 U.S. a global leader in science, technology, and innovation.” Meanwhile, the American Association for Cancer Research has called it “a major threat to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and its lifesaving mission to accelerate progress for patients with cancer and the hundreds of other diseases that afflict millions of Americans.” Research America has warned, ”Taken together, these changes would move the federal research funding system away from scientific merit, 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.” Yikes.
But since 2 CFR Part 200 essentially covers all federal grants out there—all approximately $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 such as NASA, DoD, DOE and NOAA. That, in turn, could end up affecting practically every human being in the U.S. in some way. So, assuming that you are a human and not a duvet cover or ficus plant, you may want to pay close attention to what’s happening.
In a post on LinkedIn, Ginexi gave examples of projects that “could be canceled mid-project because a political appointee decides it no longer serves ‘the national interest,’ with no explanation required and no appeal:
- Head Start classrooms and childcare 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 Submitting Public Comments About The OMB Rule
As mentioned earlier, July 13 is notable not only for being National Beans ‘N’ Franks Day. It’s also the deadline for the public to submit comments about the OMB rule. The 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 is interesting to see what other people have said with over 70,000 comments submitted already.
If you’d like to comment in some useful manner about the OMB rule, though, don’t simply post something like “this”, “adulting” or “fur baby.” The Trump administration can simply ignore comments that lack substance, are simply copied and pasted from existing comments or appear generated by some kind of bot. Ginexi recommended citing specific section numbers in rule and describing your own situation as well as the following in her words:
- “Use your own words: Identical form letters are counted as a single comment. Three original sentences beat a polished copy-paste.
- Say who you are: No credentials required. Being affected is enough.
- Cite a section number: For example §200.340 (grant termination), §200.205 (political appointee review), or §200.202 (program alignment mandate). Specificity forces OMB to respond.
- Explain the concrete harm. What happens to you, your family, or your community if this provision takes effect?
- Close with an ask: ‘I urge OMB to withdraw this provision’ or this section is sufficient.”
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 written about in the U.S. Constitution. A question is whether Congresspeople are happy with more grant funding power being concentrated with the U.S. President and his appointees. Organizations such as 5 Calls and Stand Up for Science have been urging people to contact their Senators and Representatives. Representatives Jamie Raskin (MD-08), Suzan DelBene (WA-01) and Lori Trahan (MA-03), along with 122 of their colleagues, did write a letter to Vought in June 25, that stated, “We write in opposition to the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) disastrous and likely unlawful proposed rule that would devastate American health care innovation for generations.” The letter went on to say, “This alarming change would convert our venerable grant review process into a political obstacle course and insider’s game, irreparably damaging our nation’s leading health research institutions, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and its grantees across the country.” But, naturally, what many members of Congress may do about the OMB rule will depend heavily on what they perceive their constituents to want.
I’ve been reaching out the contacts at various federal agencies and the White House for comment and provide updates on anything that I may hear. Regardless of your POV, though, you can OMG be sure that this new OMB rule will affect a lot of different things. So, TBH, you may want to have your voice be heard, otherwise you may suffer FOMO when dealing with the consequences.
