Comment from Laurel Abowd

To the leaders at the Office of Budget and Management, I am writing to express my concern related to the proposed changes to the 2026-10817 (91 FR 32198), Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance, described here: I am an environmental data scientist at a public state university specializing in species range shifts from climate impacts and am supported by federal grant money. I have worked in federal grant supported environmental research for four years after receiving my masters degree at a public state university. The proposed changes will negatively impact my ability to conduct research and publish important findings to improve environmental health and wellbeing. I am specifically concerned by revision [200.340] that would allow political appointees to terminate grants at any time if they do not align with administration priorities as my livelihood depends upon federal research grants. Strong research takes time and provides not only jobs but also personal meaning. If the government cannot provide security with their grant provision, then the public will lose out on imperative research, because it will become too risky to pursue. For example, if the federal grant that supports my research in species range shifts was terminated mid-grant for political reasons, I would have to leave the work that I have spent my career on to protect the environment and human wellbeing. Political appointees should not have the power to dictate the research supported by federal grants [200.202 and 200.205]. Cutting research support for future species movements will lead to negative impacts for the public, because we will not know where culturally and commercially important species will be in the future. We will not be able to plan ahead for the environmental consequences of a changing climate that are already happening. As an environmental data scientist, I am also very concerned over the revisions to ban disparate-impact research [200.218] and prohibit DEI and gender ideology research questions [200.300]. Both disparate-impact research and DEI have been found to be important factors in determining individuals climate-risk exposure and the corresponding negative health consequences. If these revisions are accepted as written, the corresponding restrictions in environmental and human health research will directly contradict the US Geological Surveys mission to, monitor, analyze, and predict current and evolving Earth-system interactions and deliver actionable information at scales and timeframes relevant to decision makers. If federal grants are now motivated by political appointees, we will not be able to achieve this mission to serve the American public. I urge OMB to not finalize this rule.