Comments are due July 13; institutions are encouraged to respond
A new proposal from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) seeks to centralize authority over federal grantmaking, introducing significant changes to how research projects are evaluated and managed. The 400-page draft regulation aims to codify new oversight mechanisms that would require federal agencies to align all discretionary awards with current administration policies and executive orders.
A central component of the rule is the requirement for federal agencies to designate "senior appointees" who would be responsible for reviewing both new and existing research grants. This change suggests a move away from traditional peer-review models toward a system where funding decisions are directly influenced by political priorities.
As Sarah Spreitzer, vice president and chief of staff for government relations at ACE, told Inside Higher Ed last week, the proposal appears to be the primary mechanism for the administration to formalize policy goals that it has pursued across science agencies since early 2025.
"This is likely a historic document because this is the Trump administration trying to implement a lot of the things that they’ve been trying to do within the first year and a half around the federal science agencies," Spreitzer said.
Regarding the new authority for political appointees to oversee grant lifecycles, Spreitzer noted, "This would clarify and strengthen their ability to terminate discretionary grants for discretionary reasons." She also emphasized concerns that this shift could run counter to the traditional scientific peer-review process that has historically determined which research projects receive funding.
Understanding the "Uniform Guidance"
The proposal is formally known as the "Uniform Guidance," the master rulebook that governs the management and accounting of federal grant funds across the entire executive branch. By embedding these new restrictions into this guidance, the OMB intends to standardize these requirements for all federal grantees.
Key provisions include:
Political Oversight: Agencies would be required to perform pre-issuance reviews to ensure all projects remain in line with administration priorities.
Ideological Criteria: The rules explicitly prohibit the use of federal funds for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) activities and gender-affirming care programs. It also restricts institutional eligibility for grants if a campus adjusts security fees based on the risk profile of invited speakers.
Publication Funding Limits: The proposal bans the use of federal or indirect funds for journal publication fees unless expressly required by statute, arguing that these costs are discretionary rather than essential to programmatic objectives.
Increased Administrative Burden: The proposal eliminates standard fixed-amount subawards and mandates line-item justifications for every drawdown request, creating significant new documentation requirements for institutions.
Advocacy and Next Steps
Despite the broad nature of the changes, the proposal does not include the previously anticipated 15 percent cap on indirect cost reimbursements, which the higher education community has been advocating against. However, OMB has signaled it may explore alternative models for these infrastructure funds in the future.
The administration aims to finalize the regulations by October 1. The public comment period is open for 45 days, with submissions due July 13. ACE is currently conducting a comprehensive review of the document and will be offering comments. It is also working closely with colleagues at other associations, such as COGR.
But institutional feedback is also critical.
"I think the devil is going to be in the details," Spreitzer told Inside Higher Ed, underscoring the necessity for campus leaders to provide OMB with specific, detailed examples of the operational chaos these rules might cause.
For a more detailed breakdown of the implications for campus operations, listeners can access the most recent dotEDU podcast.