Comment from Claire Garfield

Re: Proposed [200.205] — Merit Review and Pre-Issuance Political Review I am graduate student researcher writing to oppose the proposed § 200.205(b) and (c), which would require senior political appointee pre-approval of every discretionary federal award and declare peer review recommendations advisory only. The proposed § 200.205(c) directly contradicts 42 U.S.C. § 289a-1, which prohibits the Secretary from approving or funding any NIH research proposal unless it has been recommended by a majority of the peer review entity and a majority of the appropriate advisory council. That provision is not a default the executive may modify by regulation. It is a prohibition on secretarial action, constructed with mandatory language (“may not”) that does not leave room for the discretion § 200.205(c) purports to create. Congress made peer review a legal prerequisite for NIH funding. A regulation that declares it advisory contradicts the statute directly. The proposed rule also fails to address 42 U.S.C. § 1862s, which requires NSF to maintain intellectual merit and broader impacts as mandatory evaluation criteria and requires the Director to notify Congress within 30 days of any change to the merit review process. NSF changed its merit review process in December 2025 in response to EO 14332. The proposed § 200.205 would institutionalize those changes government-wide. Neither the December 2025 guidance nor the proposed rule acknowledges whether the congressional notification requirement was triggered or met. OMB’s claimed authority under 31 U.S.C. § 503 is a financial management coordination authority. It does not authorize OMB to override substantive statutory frameworks governing how agencies evaluate and award grants, including peer review systems established by separate organic legislation. The proposed rule does not engage with this conflict. I urge OMB to withdraw § 200.205(b) and (c) as proposed. If OMB proceeds, I urge it to: (1) address the direct conflict with 42 U.S.C. § 289a-1 and explain the statutory authority for declaring a congressional mandate advisory; (2) address the conflict with 42 U.S.C. § 1862s and confirm whether the required congressional notification has been made; (3) limit any pre-issuance review to confirmation that procedural requirements have been met, not substantive override of peer review outcomes; and (4) remove § 200.205(c)’s declaration that peer review is advisory, which has no basis in the statutes governing NIH and NSF peer review.