Comment on OMB-2026-0034-0001

**Public Comment: Proposed Revisions to 2 CFR 200 (Uniform Guidance)** I am writing to oppose the proposed changes to 2 CFR 200 that would allow federal agencies to award discretionary grants and cooperative agreements based on alignment with the President's policy priorities rather than community need, scientific merit, public health, national security, or congressional intent. Nonpartisan oversight has been the standard for federal financial assistance since the Uniform Guidance took effect in 2014, and for good reason. Grants and cooperative agreements represent an investment in the growth and wellbeing of communities across this country — in research, in public health, in economic development, in the people doing the work on the ground. That investment only functions when it is guided by expertise and evidence, not by which administration happens to be in office. Tying awards to political alignment does not strengthen that investment. It weakens it. It replaces the judgment of subject-matter experts with the judgment of political appointees, and it puts community-serving organizations in the position of having to guess at political favor rather than build on demonstrated need and results. This is true regardless of which party controls the executive branch — the principle does not change with the administration. This rule affects nearly all federal financial assistance, roughly $1.2 trillion annually, including approximately $179 billion that reaches small entities directly. Organizations already operating with limited capacity should not have to navigate funding decisions shaped by shifting political priorities on top of everything else they manage. I write as a resident of West Virginia, where this concern is not abstract. Rural communities are already underrepresented in how federal resources get allocated, and a shift to politically driven awards would make that worse, not better. Small constituencies carry less political weight — there simply aren't enough votes or visibility in a rural county to make them a priority for a political appointee looking to advance an administration's agenda. Need-based, expertise-driven review protects these communities precisely because it doesn't ask how useful they are to anyone in office. Replacing that standard with political alignment all but guarantees that rural areas like mine fall further behind. I urge OMB to withdraw the proposed language requiring discretionary awards to "advance the President's policy priorities" and to retain nonpartisan, expertise-driven review as the standard for all federal grants and cooperative agreements. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.