Comment from Jesie Yester

I oppose the proposed Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance rule. As an early-career physician-scientist studying the inflammatory phenotype of pediatric heart failure, my work depends on a research funding system grounded in scientific merit, independence, and rigorous peer review. This proposed rule risks shifting that system away from these foundational principles, and instead toward one that is vulnerable to political influence and administrative overreach. The peer review process exists to ensure that funding decisions are made by subject-matter experts with the appropriate scientific and clinical expertise. Allowing governmental bodies to override or reinterpret these decisions, particularly with the authority to modify or terminate grants, undermines this process and introduces uncertainty into the research enterprise. Such actions extend beyond the appropriate scope of non-expert review and threaten the integrity and stability of federally funded science. If implemented, this rule could discourage innovation, disrupt ongoing research, and ultimately weaken the United States position as a global leader in biomedical science. For early-career investigators in particular, added uncertainty in funding decisions may deter continued engagement in academic research at a critical stage of career development. For these reasons, I strongly urge the Office of Management and Budget not to finalize the proposed rule.