Comment from Josh Ward

I am issuing a comment OPPOSING REVISIONS to the Rule “Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance” (OMB-2026-0034) posted on May 29, 2026, proposing to revise parts of the OMB Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance located in title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) (the Rule). I OPPOSE what these revisions would mean in practice: Political appointees who can override expert judgment and block science grants that don’t advance the President’s priorities would have that same power over transportation awards, housing funds, public health initiatives, and more. Any active grant could be canceled mid-project because it no longer serves ‘the national interest.’ A highway already under construction. A tribal health program mid-delivery. A city still rebuilding from a flood. And every new grant program must align with administration priorities before a single application is even solicited. Entire categories of funding can be quietly discontinued without a public announcement or a vote. Federal grants are not peripheral to how states and communities function. They represent, on average, 36 cents of every dollar a state spends. This rule puts that entire financial partnership between the federal government and the states under political control, without an act of Congress, effective October 1, 2026. I OPPOSE §200.206 — Denial Based on Organizational Affiliations. The language is broad enough to disqualify civil rights groups, environmental advocacy organizations, public health nonprofits, and community organizing entities. Given how expansively the rule’s preamble defines “anti-American activity,” this provision threatens the civic infrastructure that delivers many federally funded community services. i OPPOSE §200.300 — DEI and Related Prohibitions. The prohibition on using federal funds to promote or facilitate “DEI practices,” “gender ideology,” or related activities is embedded as a mandatory grant condition across all agencies and all programs. For Medicaid-funded health systems, community health centers, and social service agencies, this creates an impossible conflict: the populations these organizations serve are, by definition, the ones equity-focused programs are designed to reach. And because the rule never defines what counts as a prohibited DEI practice, providers face open-ended liability for ordinary program activities.