On May 29, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) proposed a rule that would rewrite the existing Uniform Guidance under CFR Part 200. Since 2013, the Uniform Guidance has been a consolidated set of non-binding federal award rules and requirements. As of now, the comprehensive set of federal grant rules are open to negotiation by individual state and federal agencies. Under the proposition, the guidance would be binding and government-wide, centralizing the OMB’s rulemaking authority. The Trump Administration would have closer control over nearly every discretionary federal grant program.
Subsection § 200.205(b) of the proposal would require senior political appointees to conduct pre-issuance review of almost all discretionary awards. They must ensure that the awards “demonstrably advance the President’s policy priorities.” Even if that partisan factor was not outlined by Congress when they created the grant program, appointees would weigh it as a factor. Independent scientific peer review of funding would be demoted. Other policy-related conditions include anti-DEI provisions and limits on what the administration deems “anti-American values.” “Gender ideology” as outlined in EO 14168 would also be a contending factor. Language that categorizes sexual orientation and gender identity as sex discrimination protections would be removed.
This rule would expand executive control over congressionally authorized grant programs. Political appointees would have greater discretion to terminate funding based on the social policy priorities of the president.
The OMB gave a mere 45-day comment window after they announced their proposal. This crucial stakeholder feedback period closes on July 13, 2026. The OMB selected October 1, 2026 for the rule to take effect.
Universities and research institutions will likely receive the brunt of partisan priorities for research grants and other higher education funding. New University denounces this unprincipled expansion of executive power. This not only disrupts the separation of power, but it threatens the stability of federal research grants for institutions such as UC Irvine.
Editor’s note: Editorials should not be interpreted to reflect the opinion, thoughts or beliefs of any individual New University editor, staff member or affiliate
