Comment from Robert Hudson

American scientific excellence has contributed enormously to our nation's prosperity and global stature. For decades, government research funding has relied on a rigorous peer-review process, guided by volunteer scientists evaluating hundreds of projects within their fields. This ensures that proposals are judged strictly on their scientific merit and societal benefit, rather than alignment with any political agenda. Expanding the role of political appointees in grant decisions only dilutes the highest quality evaluations with . By devaluing peer review and empowering political appointees, the proposed OMB rule threatens this proven system. Forcing scientists to tailor their research to the shifting desires of any administration or Congress undermines the scientific method, compromises research quality, and erodes public trust. As an Associate Professor at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign who has participated in the peer review process at NSF, I strongly oppose this proposed OMB rule change.