Comment from Matthew Schulze

My name is Matthew, I am a citizen and a concerned American. I am writing to oppose the proposed OMB regulation for Federal Financial Assistance (Docket OMB‑2026‑0034). From what OMB has written, this rule would shift grantmaking away from expert, evidence‑based decisions and toward political control. It explicitly downplays independent peer review and adds a new layer of political review on top of the existing process. That makes funding less predictable, increases the risk that decisions will be based on ideology instead of merit, and discourages people from pursuing important but politically sensitive work that still clearly serves the public. I’m also very concerned about how much power the proposal gives agencies to cancel or reshape grants after they’re awarded. The new language on termination and suspension would let agencies end awards “in the interest” of the government or because priorities change, even if the recipient has done nothing wrong and is meeting all requirements. That kind of broad, discretionary power is especially dangerous for long‑term projects, training programs, and community services that people come to depend on. Cutting those off mid‑stream wastes taxpayer dollars and harms the communities those programs were built to serve. The proposal also talks about “risk” and “affiliations” in vague ways that could be used to punish organizations for who they work with or what topics they address, even when everything they are doing is legal and transparent. Combined with the strong, one‑sided language attacking past diversity and inclusion efforts, it sends a signal that some communities, issues, and identities are less welcome in federally funded work. That undermines equal opportunity and makes it harder for organizations that serve marginalized or politically controversial groups to do their jobs. Finally, a lot of basic, practical things that make grants effective—like stable rules, reasonable flexibility for conferences and collaboration, and clear, objective standards—are made more complicated and less certain under this proposal. Instead of making the system simpler and fairer, it adds new layers of risk and politics for recipients while giving the government more ways to say no or walk away. For all of these reasons, I do not support the proposed regulation. I urge OMB to withdraw this proposal and instead focus on reforms that strengthen transparency, protect equal opportunity, and improve oversight without politicizing grant decisions or putting long‑term projects and essential services at constant risk.