Annual Conference
Education
Membership
About USASP
USASP will submit comments on behalf of the Society, but the outcome of this proposed rule should not be left to organizations alone. Policymakers need to hear directly from the people whose research, careers, patients, families, and communities may be affected. If you believe in the importance of scientific discovery, evidence-based research, and the development of future treatments and therapies, please submit a comment before the July 13 deadline. Even a few sentences written in your own words can help demonstrate the breadth and depth of concern across the research and patient communities. Details are below on how to submit.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) recently released a proposed rule, Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance (Docket No. OMB-2026-0034), that if enacted will significantly reshape how federally funded research is awarded, reviewed, managed, and terminated in the United States. The proposal includes sweeping changes imposing political review of discretionary grant funding decisions, creating the potential for political considerations to influence or override traditional peer-review recommendations. The rules also expanded authority to terminate funding for any active award at any time “for convenience” without reason or notice, significant new restrictions on international scientific collaboration, required preapproval from NIH for use of funds for each and every conference participation and publication cost, and additional compliance requirements with Executive Office (i.e. White House) Policy tied to ALL federal funding.
If enacted, these changes will fundamentally alter how science is conducted in the United States. Researchers will be encouraged to design grant applications around political priorities rather than scientific merit, innovation, and evidence-based inquiry. Federally funded studies could face termination even after years of work if they are determined to no longer align with changing agency priorities. Thus, disrupting careers, clinical trials, collaborations, and patient-centered research already underway. International scientific partnerships that drive discovery and accelerate progress may become harder to establish and maintain. Early-career investigators and trainees may face increasing instability and uncertainty about pursuing careers in research at all. Restrictions on conference participation and publication support will limit the ability of scientists to share findings, build collaborations, receive feedback, and advance new ideas. These changes will create a research environment driven by administrative and political approval rather than independent scientific expertise, open exchange, and evidence-based discovery. Listed at the end of this document are useful resources on this proposed rule change.
USASP President Burel Goodin recently stated in his public comment:
“Scientific peer review has been, and will continue to be, the gold standard for ensuring that the best scientific and technological outputs come from the United States.”
He further noted that scientific meetings and international collaboration are core mechanisms through which researchers exchange ideas, challenge assumptions, build partnerships, mentor trainees, and accelerate discovery. Weakening these systems threatens not only scientific progress, but also the future strength, stability, and global leadership of the American research enterprise.
USASP will submit comments on behalf of the Society, but organizational responses alone are not enough. Policymakers need to hear directly from the people whose work, careers, patients, families, and futures may be shaped by these proposed changes. Ultimately, the pace of scientific discovery affects the development of future treatments, interventions, and care for the millions of people living with pain and other chronic health conditions.
Questions to Guide Your Comment
You do not need to respond to every issue raised in the proposed rule (see Resources below).
A brief comment, even just a few sentences focused on one issue, can still make a meaningful impact. Consider responding to one or more of the following questions in your comment (please include the relevant section number with your comment(s).
-
(200.205) How would increased political oversight of grant funding decisions affect your research, career, institution, or scientific field?
-
(200.205 ) What role has independent scientific peer review played in supporting the quality, rigor, or impact of your work?
-
(200.340 ) What happens to scientific progress when years of research, patient participation, collaborations, and taxpayer investment can be abruptly terminated because political priorities change?
-
(200.432 and 461) What happens to scientific innovation when researchers face barriers to sharing discoveries, building collaborations, publishing findings, and participating in the scientific community?
-
(many sections but 200.206 is about denying grants based on organizational affiliation, 2 CFR structure gives OMB binding authority over all other agencies, the new reporting providing gives OMB oversight into which institutions receive grants) If trainees and early-career investigators no longer believe the research enterprise is stable, sustainable, or worth pursuing, what will happen to the future of science?
-
(many sections) Behind every research study are people waiting for answers, therapies, relief, or hope. How could these proposed changes affect individuals and families living with chronic or debilitating conditions?
-
(many sections, but 200.220 broadly prohibits international collaboration) How might these proposed changes affect public trust in science, the strength of the U.S. research workforce, and the future global leadership of American biomedical research?
-
Do you see inconsistencies between the stated goals of the proposed rule and its potential effects on scientific research, transparency, or accountability? If so, please explain in your comment.
How to Submit Your Comment
Things to Know Before Submitting Your Comments
-
Original comments that reflect your own experiences, concerns, or perspectives are strongly encouraged.
-
Comments may be submitted anonymously and are limited to 5,000 characters.
-
Your name and email address are not required fields.
-
If providing an email address, you may want to use a personal rather than institutional email.
-
-
Comments are public and you can view what others have submitted
Comment Deadline: July 13, 2026 (11:59 pm EDT)
Docket Number: OMB-2026-0034
Proposed Rule: Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance
Submit Your Comment Here: https://www.regulations.gov/docket/OMB-2026-0034/document
NOTE: There are 3 tabs on this page and this link takes you to the tab “Docket Documents.” You can read the entire document (warning - it’s long and tedious) by selecting Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance that is open for comments, or click the button “Submit Comments.” Open until 7/13/26.
View submitted comments: https://www.regulations.gov/docket/OMB-2026-0034/comments
Remember - use your own words for whatever you choose to comment on; copy-paste submissions are categorized as a single comment.
