Action Alert: Comment Now on Proposed Changes to Federal Grant Rules

On 29 May, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) proposed changes to the government-wide rules for federal grants and cooperative agreements (Part 200 of Title 2 of the US Code of Federal Regulations) that would reshape how federally funded geoscience is awarded, managed, and terminated. The proposed rule, “Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance,” would add new political review and administrative requirements across the life of an award, weakening merit-based review and adding uncertainty to work that so often depends on sensitive field access and timing, research continuity, technical judgment, and multi-institution and international collaborations. The Geological Society of America strongly opposes the OMB proposed rule and urges substantial revision. Federal grant rules should strengthen geoscience without making political alignment or administrative burden the deciding factor in what geologic work moves forward.

Political Review Could Weaken Merit Review

The proposal would require political appointee review before federal awards are issued and would relegate peer review to an advisory role. Agencies would also consider whether awards align with federal agency priorities, the national interest, and the President’s policy priorities. For geoscience, this would weaken the role of technical review in deciding whether a project is feasible, rigorous, and worth funding. It would also force scientific proposals to answer a shifting political test, even when the underlying geological questions are nonpartisan.

Active Geological Work Could Become More Vulnerable to Disruption

The proposal would allow agencies to terminate discretionary awards if they determine that an award no longer advances program goals, federal agency priorities, or the national interest. It would also allow temporary stop-work orders. For geoscience, that authority is especially disruptive because the work often depends on timing and continuity. Fieldwork, monitoring, laboratory analyses, student support, and work with state surveys or local partners cannot easily be paused and restarted without incurring significant scientific and educational losses.

Normal Scientific Exchange Would Become Harder

The proposal would make conference attendance allowable only if expressly approved by the agency and included in the award terms. Publication costs would generally require statutory authorization or advance agency approval. Membership and professional activity costs would also require prior written approval, and subscriptions to academic and technical periodicals would be unallowable. These venues are vital avenues through which geological work is tested, shared, and put to use. Researchers may not know at the time of award which meeting, field forum, or publication outlet will be most relevant to share their work. Requiring advance approval for ordinary scientific communication would add unnecessary friction and stifle the effective dissemination of geoscience.

Administrative Burden Would Increase across the Life of an Award

Key aspects of the proposal are presented as a way to reduce administrative burden. But several provisions would have the opposite effect by adding review steps, prior approvals, payment justifications, subaward monitoring, and foreign collaboration review to overall tighter rules before, during, and after an award. That burden would take time away from the field, classroom, and lab, and would fall especially hard on early-career researchers and smaller institutions.

GSA urges members to submit comments explaining how the proposal would affect your scientific and technical work and what changes are needed to protect stable, accountable federal support for geoscience. Comments are due 13 July 2026 and should be submitted directly to OMB (see “Submit A Public Comment”).

Effective comments do not need to be long, but they should focus on concrete technical examples from your own work: how additional review, uncertainty, prior approvals, stop-work orders, or termination authority could affect project design, field timing, data collection, laboratory analysis, students, publication, collaboration, or delivery of results. For writing tips and submission instructions, see GSA’s OMB Comment Toolkit.

Please note that submitted comments will be publicly accessible. GSA members are encouraged to follow GSA’s RISE policies when interacting with government staff and submitting comments.