Comment from David Pollard

I am a Professor Emeritus in the Department of Earth and Planetary Science at Stanford University. Over my career I submitted proposals to federal agencies including the NSF, DOE, and USGS and I received grants to support the research and graduate students in my program at Stanford. All of these proposals were peer reviewed by professional geologists with credentials comparable to mine. Their reviews provided expert advise that guided a possible resubmission of the revised proposal, and informed our scientific methodology and progress. These reviews also informed the professional personnel at the NSF, DOE, and USGS and guided their decisions about funding. None of these proposals were subject to political criteria by political appointees. I am deeply concerned about the changes to federal grant rules proposed by the Office of Management and Budget on May 29, 2026 in Section 200.205 on Merit review and senior appointee pre-issuance review of proposals. Political appointees would gain review authority without the years of education and study of structural geology accomplished by the peer reviewers of my proposals or by the professional personnel at the NSF, DOE, and USGS granting organizations. I suggest this would undermine the credibility of the granting process and lead to rejection of scientifically sound and promising proposals. I urge OMB to remove political appointees from the review process and support peer review of scientific proposals submitted to federal agencies.