Ability360
AdvocacyOppose
Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance
OMB-2026-0034-0001NPRM
Comments
56,987
Last activity Jul 21, 2026
Deadline
Closed on Jul 14, 2026
Closed Jul 14, 2026
Net supportiSupport minus oppose · campaigns included
-76%
-83% excluding campaigns
Document
Details
The document's own metadata, straight from the source system.
- Title
- Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance
- Posted
- May 29, 2026
- Comment period
- May 29, 2026 – Jul 14, 2026
- FR Doc
- 2026-10817
- CFR
- 2 CFR Parts 1 25 170 175 176 180 182 183 200
Analysis
Overview
What the public is saying — stance, who's commenting, and the issues they raise.
Include campaigns
Analyzed 56,294 of 56,987 comments
99%· analysis in progress
Stance breakdown
-76%
Net support
Support4,560Oppose47,547Other4,187Not yet analyzed693
Aggregates include form-letter campaigns. Excluding them, net support is -83% across organic comments.
Who commented
Breakdown by commenter type.
Union
11
Individual
49,732
Government
112
Trade association
24
Advocacy
663
Academic
5,458
Business
125
Other
169
Not yet analyzed
693
Comments over time
Weekly arrivals, stacked by stance.
Posted May 29, 2026Deadline Jul 14, 2026
May 25Jun 8Jun 22Jul 6Jul 20
Support4,560Oppose47,544Other4,185
Support × commenter type
How each type splits across stance.
Support
Oppose
Other
Individual
9%
83%
8%
Academic
2%
97%
1%
Advocacy
5%
92%
4%
Other
4%
83%
13%
Business
11%
85%
4%
Government
11%
86%
4%
Trade association
13%
79%
8%
Union
0%
91%
9%
Issues raised
The docket's canonical issues. Select one to browse its comments.
Political override of peer review18,411
Government overreach16,738
Impact on scientific research15,752
Expertise in grant review9,378
Scientific institutional independence6,631
Impact on scientific innovation4,532
Political gatekeeping of science3,380
Expertise in decision-making3,118
Political appointment qualifications2,944
Public trust in science2,899
Position map
Who stands where on each issue?
Every non-silent position is backed by an excerpt from the comment.
Issues shown
Uncheck an issue to choose another.
| Organization | Political override of peer review | Government overreach | Administrative and compliance burden | Impact on scientific research | Impact on vulnerable populations |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ability360 AdvocacyOppose Ability360, a nonprofit Center for Independent Living, opposes the proposed rule because it contains impermissibly vague | · | · | · | · | · |
AIDS Alabama AdvocacyOppose Leanne Portera-Neill, representing AIDS Alabama, opposes the proposed rule because it prohibits DEI and "gender ideology | · | · | · | · | |
AIQ Global, Inc. BusinessOppose AIQ Global Inc., a small medical technology company, opposes several provisions of the proposed rule that they argue wou | · | · | · | · | |
Alliance 4 American Leadership AdvocacyOppose The Alliance 4 American Leadership opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it subjects federal grants to ideological "pu | · | · | · | · | |
Alliance for American Leadership AdvocacyOppose The Alliance 4 American Leadership, a bipartisan coalition, opposes the proposed rule because it subjects federal grants | · | · | · | · | |
American Academy of Neurology AdvocacyOppose The American Academy of Neurology (AAN) opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it would hinder scientific discovery by | · | · | · | ||
American Association of Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine AdvocacyOppose The American Association of Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine (AANEM) opposes proposed revisions to the Uniform | · | · | · | · | · |
American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC) Trade associationOther The American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC), a trade association representing engineering and design firms, is | · | · | · | · | · |
American Institute for Medical and Biological Engineering (AIMBE) AdvocacySupport The American Institute for Medical and Biological Engineering (AIMBE) is requesting a 45-day extension of the public com | · | · | · | · | · |
American Physiological Society AdvocacyOppose The American Physiological Society (APS) opposes the proposed revisions to the Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance | · | · | · | · | |
American Public Transportation Association (APTA) Trade associationSupport The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) is requesting a 45-day extension to the public comment period for | · | · | · | · | · |
American Society for Cell Biology AdvocacyOppose United for Medical Research opposes the draft regulations, arguing that they would weaken the merit-based, expert-driven | · | · | · | · | · |
Association for Commuter Transportation (ACT) Trade associationOppose The Association for Commuter Transportation (ACT) opposes the proposed revisions to the Uniform Guidance for Federal Fin | · | · | · | · | |
Association of Nurses in AIDS Care AdvocacyOppose Dr. | · | · | · | · | |
Association of Texas Professional Educators AdvocacyOppose The Association of Texas Professional Educators (ATPE) opposes the proposed Uniform Grants Regulation, arguing that it c | · | · | · | · | · |
Bay Area Council AdvocacyOppose The Bay Area Council, representing regional research universities and technology employers, opposes the proposed revisio | · | · | · | · | · |
CalCSA AdvocacyOppose The California Child Support Association (CalCSA) opposes the proposed revisions to the Regulation for Federal Financial | · | · | · | · | · |
California Association of Nonprofits (CalNonprofits) AdvocacyOppose The California Association of Nonprofits (CalNonprofits) opposes the proposed revisions to the OMB Guidance for Federal | · | · | · | · | |
Canalway Partners AdvocacyOppose Mera Cardenas, Executive Director at Canalway Partners, opposes the proposed Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance | · | · | · | · | · |
Carl Zeiss, Inc. BusinessOppose Carl Zeiss Inc. | · | · | · | · | · |
Chestnut Health Systems AdvocacyOppose Chestnut Health Systems, a nonprofit community health and behavioral healthcare organization, opposes the proposed rule | · | · | · | ||
City of Wilsonville GovernmentOppose The Mayor of Wilsonville, Oregon, opposes the proposed revisions to 2 CFR Part 200, arguing that the changes would reduc | · | · | · | · | |
COABE AdvocacySupport COABE, an association for adult education, supports the OMB's goals of reducing fraud and streamlining federal grant adm | · | · | · | · | · |
Committee for Children AdvocacyOppose Jordan Posamentier, representing the Committee for Children, opposes the proposed revisions to the OMB Guidance for Fede | · | · | · | · | · |
Community Action of Orleans and Genesee AdvocacyOppose Community Action of Orleans & Genesee, New York, opposes the proposed rewrite of 2 CFR Part 200, arguing that it increas | · | · | · | · | |
Community Action Partnership of Central Illinois AdvocacyOppose The Community Action Partnership of Central Illinois, a private nonprofit Community Action Agency, opposes several provi | · | · | · | ||
Concerned Scientists @ IU and Advocates for Science @ IU AdvocacyOppose Concerned Scientists @ IU and its student affiliate, Advocates for Science @ IU, oppose the proposed rule, arguing it wo | · | · | · | · | |
CORRECTED 323 Joint Commenters for Extension of Time AdvocacyOther A coalition of 323 multi-sector organizations, including academic, scientific, and advocacy groups, is requesting a 45-d | · | · | · | · | · |
Council of Graduate Schools Trade associationOppose The Council of Graduate Schools (CGS) opposes the proposed rule to revise the Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance, | · | · | · | · | |
CT Community Nonprofit Alliance AdvocacyOppose Gian-Carl Casa, representing the CT Community Nonprofit Alliance, opposes the proposed revisions to the OMB Guidance for | · | · | · | · | |
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute AdvocacyOppose The Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, a federally designated Cancer Center and teaching affiliate of Harvard Medical School, | · | · | · | ||
Data Foundation AdvocacySupport The Data Foundation is requesting a 45-day extension of the public comment period for the proposed Regulation for Federa | · | · | · | · | · |
Disability Rights Nebraska AdvocacyOppose Disability Rights Nebraska, a protection advocacy organization, opposes the proposed changes to 2 CFR §200.450 because t | · | · | · | · | · |
Dystonia Medical Research Foundation AdvocacyOppose The Dystonia Medical Research Foundation, a patient advocacy organization, opposes the proposed revisions to federal fin | · | · | · | · | |
EcoThriveLLC BusinessOppose A small business owner opposes the proposed Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance, arguing that it grants agencies | · | · | · | · | · |
Eloi Holding, Inc. BusinessOppose Eloi Holding Inc., a company involved in innovation and research, opposes the proposed rule because it introduces broad | · | · | · | · | |
Endocrine Society AdvocacyOppose The Endocrine Society, a professional medical society representing over 18,000 healthcare professionals, opposes the pro | · | · | · | ||
Epigenetics Society AdvocacyOppose The Tax-Exempt Epigenetics Society, a non-profit organization representing scientists, opposes the proposed OMB guidance | · | · | · | ||
Exceptional Child Center, DBA Center for Independent Living AdvocacySupport The Center for Independent Living (CIL) in Idaho supports the proposed revisions to 2 CFR Part 200 to strengthen transpa | · | · | · | ||
Farnam Associates, LLC BusinessOppose A consultant for non-profit and public sector organizations opposes the proposed rule, arguing it is fundamentally flawe | · | · | · | · | · |
Federation of Clinical Immunology Societies AdvocacyOppose The Federation of Clinical Immunology Societies (FOCIS) opposes the proposed revisions to Federal Financial Assistance, | · | · | · | · | · |
Fellows of the Society for Freshwater Science AdvocacyOppose The Fellows of the Society for Freshwater Science (SFS) oppose the proposed OMB Regulations for the U.S. | · | · | |||
Florence Healthcare BusinessOppose Catherine Gregor, Chief Clinical Trial Officer at Florence Healthcare, opposes the proposed rule because it introduces p | · | · | · | ||
Florida Mental Health Advocacy Coalition AdvocacyOppose Gayle Giese, representing the FLMHAC coalition, opposes the proposed rule because it introduces political review of fund | · | · | · | · | |
Forefront AdvocacyOppose Forefront, an Illinois association representing foundations and charitable nonprofits, opposes the proposed revisions to | · | · | · | · | · |
Global Focus on Cancer AdvocacyOppose Carolyn Taylor, Executive Director of Global Focus on Cancer, opposes the proposed revisions to the Uniform Guidance gov | · | · | · | ||
Good Willed Consulting LLC BusinessOppose Katelynn Z Regner, a grant professional, opposes the proposed rule because she believes it replaces objective, merit-bas | · | · | · | ||
Greentrike AdvocacyOppose Bianca Milevoj, representing the nonprofit organization Greentrike, opposes the proposed revisions to the OMB Guidance f | · | · | · | · | · |
Hawaii Community Foundation AdvocacyOppose The Hawaiʻi Community Foundation (HCF) opposes the OMB's proposed changes to the Guidance for Federal Financial Assistan | · | · | · | · | |
HeritageRail Alliance Trade associationOppose The HeritageRail Alliance, a trade association representing heritage railroads and museums, opposes the proposed rule be | · | · | · | · | · |
Hitchcock Center for the Environment AdvocacyOppose The Hitchcock Center for the Environment, a non-profit organization, opposes the proposed regulation because it creates | · | · | · | · | · |
I CARE, Inc. AdvocacyOppose I-CARE, Inc., a Community Action Agency, opposes several proposed revisions to the Uniform Guidance that they argue woul | · | · | · | · | |
International Narcotic Research Society AdvocacyOppose The International Narcotics Research Conference (INRC) opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it replaces objective, ev | · | · | · | · | |
Keeling Curve Foundation AdvocacyOppose The Keeling Curve Foundation opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it threatens the continuity of long-term Earth obse | · | · | · | · | |
Kentucky Academy of Science AdvocacyOppose The Kentucky Academy of Science opposes the proposed regulation, arguing that it interferes with scientific integrity by | · | · | · | · | |
Laywers for the Creative Arts AdvocacyOppose Lawyers for the Creative Arts (LCA), a nonprofit legal referral agency, opposes the proposed OMB regulation because it i | · | · | · | · | · |
Life, A Center for Independent Living AdvocacyOppose Life, A Center for Independent Living, an advocacy organization for people with disabilities, opposes the proposed revis | · | · | · | · | · |
Lincoln County Primary Care Center (dba Southern West Virginia Health System) AdvocacyOppose Southern West Virginia Health System, a Federally Qualified Health Center, opposes the proposed rule because it introduc | · | · | · | · | |
Living Independence Network Corporation AdvocacyOppose The Living Independence Network Corporation (LINC), a federally funded Center for Independent Living, opposes the propos | · | · | · | · | |
Louisville Central Community Centers, Inc. AdvocacySupport Dr. | · | · | · | ||
Mass General Brigham AdvocacyOppose Mass General Brigham, a non-profit healthcare system, opposes the proposed rule, arguing it will increase administrative | · | · | · | ||
Materials Research Society AdvocacyOppose The Materials Research Society (MRS) opposes the proposed regulation, arguing that it would hinder U.S. | · | · | · | ||
Mathematical Association of America AdvocacyOppose The Mathematical Association of America (MAA) opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it replaces expert merit review wi | · | · | · | ||
Miami-Dade County GovernmentOppose Miami-Dade County opposes the proposed revisions to 2 CFR Part 200, arguing that the changes introduce significant admin | · | · | · | · | · |
Mid Mon Valley Transit Authority GovernmentOppose The Mid Mon Valley Transit Authority (MMVTA), a public transit agency, opposes the proposed changes to the Federal Finan | · | · | · | · | · |
Moceans Center for Independent Living AdvocacyOppose Judyth Brown, Executive Director of MOCEANS Center for Independent Living, opposes the proposed expansion of federal aut | · | · | · | · | · |
Montana Community Action Network AdvocacyOppose The Montana Community Action Network (MCAN), representing a statewide network of Community Action Agencies, opposes the | · | · | · | · | |
Munson Healthcare BusinessOppose Amy M. | · | · | · | · | · |
National Academy of Education AdvocacyOppose A coalition of 20 research associations and societies representing over 85,000 members opposes the proposed "Regulation | · | · | · | · | · |
National Association for Bilingual Education AdvocacyOppose The National Association for Bilingual Education (NABE) opposes proposed revisions to the Uniform Guidance that would ma | · | · | · | · | · |
National Association of RSVP Directors (NARSVPD) Trade associationOppose The National Association of RSVP Directors (NARSVPD) opposes several proposed changes to the federal financial assistanc | · | · | · | · | |
Neuroendocrine Tumor Research Foundation AdvocacyOppose The Neuroendocrine Tumor Research Foundation (NETRF), a nonprofit funder of cancer research, opposes several provisions | · | · | · | · | |
New Connecticut Farmer Alliance AdvocacyOppose The New Connecticut Farmer Alliance, a statewide network of small-scale and beginning farmers, opposes the proposed rule | · | · | · | · | · |
NH Center for Nonprofits AdvocacyOppose Kathleen Reardon, CEO of the NH Center for Nonprofits, opposes the proposed revisions to the Uniform Guidance. | · | · | · | · | · |
Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California AdvocacyOppose The Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California (NPH) opposes the proposed revisions to 2 CFR § 200.450, argui | · | · | · | · | · |
Northcentral Arkansas Development Council AdvocacyOppose The Northcentral Arkansas Development Council, a Community Action Agency, opposes the proposed rule because it introduce | · | · | · | · | |
Northwest Indiana Community Action DBA CoAction AdvocacyOppose CoAction, a Community Action Agency, opposes the proposed rule because it threatens organizational stability, restricts | · | · | · | · | · |
Optica AdvocacyOther Optica, a nonprofit organization for the optics and photonics community, is requesting a 60-day extension of the public | · | · | · | · | · |
Philanthropy New York AdvocacyOppose Philanthropy New York, a membership association of foundations and corporate giving programs, opposes the proposed revis | · | · | · | · | · |
Pima County GovernmentOppose Pima County is submitting comments opposing several aspects of the proposed rule rewriting 2 CFR Part 200 (Uniform Guida | · | · | · | · | · |
Prevention Institute AdvocacyOppose The Prevention Institute, a national nonprofit focused on public health and safety, opposes the proposed revisions to th | · | · | · | · | · |
SafeNest AdvocacyOppose SafeNest, a nonprofit organization providing domestic violence services, opposes the proposed revisions to the Uniform G | · | · | · | · | · |
Society for Investigative Dermatology AdvocacyOppose The Society for Investigative Dermatology (SID) opposes the proposed revisions to the Uniform Grant Guidance, specifical | · | · | · | · | |
Society for Social Work and Research Trade associationOppose The Society for Social Work and Research (SSWR) opposes the proposed "Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance," argu | · | · | · | ||
Society for Vascular Surgery AdvocacyOppose The Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) opposes the proposed revisions to 2 CFR Part 200, arguing that they undermine sci | · | · | · | ||
South Florida Veterans Affairs Foundation for Research and Education, Inc. AdvocacyOppose The South Florida Veterans Affairs Foundation for Research and Education, Inc. | · | · | · | · | |
Southern Environmental Law Center AdvocacyOther The Southern Environmental Law Center is requesting a 30-day extension of the public comment period for the "Regulation | · | · | · | · | · |
SPIE, the international society for optics and photonics AdvocacyOppose SPIE, the International Society for Optics and Photonics, opposes the proposed rule because it threatens merit-based pee | · | · | · | ||
Stand Up for Science Foundation AdvocacyOppose The Stand Up for Science Foundation (SUFS) opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it is fundamentally flawed, violates | · | · | · | · | |
Stellate Communications AdvocacyOppose Stellate Communications, a research communications firm, opposes the proposed rule changes to sections 200.205, 200.340, | · | · | · | · | |
Strategic Priorities, Inc. BusinessSupport Akm Rahman, President of Strategic Priorities, Inc., a national consulting firm, supports the OMB's effort to modernize | · | · | · | · | · |
The ALS Association AdvocacyOppose The ALS Association opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it introduces uncertainty, administrative burdens, and polit | · | · | · | ||
The American Society of Naturalists AdvocacyOppose The American Society of Naturalists (ASN) opposes the proposed rule because it would restrict conference attendance, pro | · | · | · | · | |
The Optimum Department BusinessOppose The Optimum Department, LLC, a research infrastructure strategy consultancy, opposes the proposed rule and urges its wit | · | · | · | · | |
The Society of Thoracic Surgeons AdvocacyOppose The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) opposes several provisions of the proposed rule, specifically the restriction on | · | · | · | ||
The Technical Society of Knoxville (Tennessee) Trade associationOppose The Technical Society of Knoxville opposes the proposed Federal Financial Assistance Rule, arguing that changing "guidan | · | · | · | · | |
The Village for Families & Children AdvocacyOppose A community-based behavioral health provider opposes the proposed Uniform Grants Regulation (UGR), arguing that it intro | · | · | · | ||
Third Way AdvocacyOppose Third Way, a national think tank and advocacy organization, opposes the proposed rule because it imposes significant com | · | · | · | · | |
UAW 4121 UnionOppose Dr. | · | · | |||
Union of Concerned Scientists AdvocacyOppose The Union of Concerned Scientists opposes the proposed rule changes to the Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance, ar | · | · | · | · | |
United Way of Pennsylvania AdvocacyOppose United Way of Pennsylvania, a statewide association for local United Ways, opposes the proposed rule because it would cr | · | · | · | · | · |
Valley Industry & Commerce Association (VICA) Trade associationOppose The Valley Industry & Commerce Association (VICA) opposes the proposed revisions to the Uniform Guidance, arguing that t | · | · | · | · | |
Vet Voice Foundation AdvocacyOppose The Vet Voice Foundation, a nonprofit organization led by veterans and military families, opposes the proposed rule beca | · | · | · | ||
Vilomah Memorial Foundation, Inc. AdvocacyOppose The Vilomah Foundation opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it exceeds the OMB's statutory authority, violates the Ma | · | · | · | · | · |
Voices of Alzheimer's AdvocacyOppose Voices of Alzheimer’s, a national patient advocacy organization, opposes the proposed rule because it would destabilize | · | · | · | ||
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction GovernmentOppose The Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction opposes the proposed revisions to the Uniform Grant Guidance (2 CFR Part | · | · | · | · | · |
Wise Resource Development BusinessOppose Tawnia Wise, owner of a fundraising strategy consultancy, opposes the proposed revisions to the OMB Uniform Guidance. | · | · | · | · | · |
AIDS Alabama
AdvocacyOppose
Impact on vulnerable populations
AIQ Global, Inc.
BusinessOppose
Political override of peer review
Alliance 4 American Leadership
AdvocacyOppose
Political override of peer review
Alliance for American Leadership
AdvocacyOppose
Government overreach
American Academy of Neurology
AdvocacyOppose
Government overreach
Impact on scientific research
American Association of Neuromuscular & Electrodiagnostic Medicine
AdvocacyOppose
American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC)
Trade associationOther
American Institute for Medical and Biological Engineering (AIMBE)
AdvocacySupport
American Physiological Society
AdvocacyOppose
Government overreach
American Public Transportation Association (APTA)
Trade associationSupport
American Society for Cell Biology
AdvocacyOppose
Association for Commuter Transportation (ACT)
Trade associationOppose
Administrative and compliance burden
Association of Nurses in AIDS Care
AdvocacyOppose
Impact on vulnerable populations
Association of Texas Professional Educators
AdvocacyOppose
Bay Area Council
AdvocacyOppose
CalCSA
AdvocacyOppose
California Association of Nonprofits (CalNonprofits)
AdvocacyOppose
Impact on vulnerable populations
Canalway Partners
AdvocacyOppose
Carl Zeiss, Inc.
BusinessOppose
Chestnut Health Systems
AdvocacyOppose
Political override of peer review
Administrative and compliance burden
City of Wilsonville
GovernmentOppose
Administrative and compliance burden
COABE
AdvocacySupport
Committee for Children
AdvocacyOppose
Community Action of Orleans and Genesee
AdvocacyOppose
Administrative and compliance burden
Community Action Partnership of Central Illinois
AdvocacyOppose
Administrative and compliance burden
Impact on vulnerable populations
Concerned Scientists @ IU and Advocates for Science @ IU
AdvocacyOppose
Impact on scientific research
CORRECTED 323 Joint Commenters for Extension of Time
AdvocacyOther
Council of Graduate Schools
Trade associationOppose
Political override of peer review
CT Community Nonprofit Alliance
AdvocacyOppose
Impact on vulnerable populations
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute
AdvocacyOppose
Political override of peer review
Impact on scientific research
Data Foundation
AdvocacySupport
Disability Rights Nebraska
AdvocacyOppose
Dystonia Medical Research Foundation
AdvocacyOppose
Political override of peer review
EcoThriveLLC
BusinessOppose
Eloi Holding, Inc.
BusinessOppose
Administrative and compliance burden
Endocrine Society
AdvocacyOppose
Government overreach
Impact on scientific research
Epigenetics Society
AdvocacyOppose
Political override of peer review
Impact on scientific research
Exceptional Child Center, DBA Center for Independent Living
AdvocacySupport
Administrative and compliance burden
Impact on vulnerable populations
Farnam Associates, LLC
BusinessOppose
Federation of Clinical Immunology Societies
AdvocacyOppose
Fellows of the Society for Freshwater Science
AdvocacyOppose
Political override of peer review
Government overreach
Impact on scientific research
Florence Healthcare
BusinessOppose
Government overreach
Impact on scientific research
Florida Mental Health Advocacy Coalition
AdvocacyOppose
Impact on vulnerable populations
Forefront
AdvocacyOppose
Global Focus on Cancer
AdvocacyOppose
Impact on scientific research
Impact on vulnerable populations
Good Willed Consulting LLC
BusinessOppose
Political override of peer review
Impact on vulnerable populations
Greentrike
AdvocacyOppose
Hawaii Community Foundation
AdvocacyOppose
Administrative and compliance burden
HeritageRail Alliance
Trade associationOppose
Hitchcock Center for the Environment
AdvocacyOppose
I CARE, Inc.
AdvocacyOppose
Administrative and compliance burden
International Narcotic Research Society
AdvocacyOppose
Government overreach
Keeling Curve Foundation
AdvocacyOppose
Political override of peer review
Kentucky Academy of Science
AdvocacyOppose
Government overreach
Laywers for the Creative Arts
AdvocacyOppose
Life, A Center for Independent Living
AdvocacyOppose
Lincoln County Primary Care Center (dba Southern West Virginia Health System)
AdvocacyOppose
Political override of peer review
Living Independence Network Corporation
AdvocacyOppose
Administrative and compliance burden
Louisville Central Community Centers, Inc.
AdvocacySupport
Administrative and compliance burden
Impact on vulnerable populations
Mass General Brigham
AdvocacyOppose
Government overreach
Impact on scientific research
Materials Research Society
AdvocacyOppose
Political override of peer review
Government overreach
Mathematical Association of America
AdvocacyOppose
Political override of peer review
Government overreach
Miami-Dade County
GovernmentOppose
Mid Mon Valley Transit Authority
GovernmentOppose
Moceans Center for Independent Living
AdvocacyOppose
Montana Community Action Network
AdvocacyOppose
Impact on vulnerable populations
Munson Healthcare
BusinessOppose
National Academy of Education
AdvocacyOppose
National Association for Bilingual Education
AdvocacyOppose
National Association of RSVP Directors (NARSVPD)
Trade associationOppose
Administrative and compliance burden
Neuroendocrine Tumor Research Foundation
AdvocacyOppose
Political override of peer review
New Connecticut Farmer Alliance
AdvocacyOppose
NH Center for Nonprofits
AdvocacyOppose
Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California
AdvocacyOppose
Northcentral Arkansas Development Council
AdvocacyOppose
Impact on vulnerable populations
Northwest Indiana Community Action DBA CoAction
AdvocacyOppose
Optica
AdvocacyOther
Philanthropy New York
AdvocacyOppose
Pima County
GovernmentOppose
Prevention Institute
AdvocacyOppose
SafeNest
AdvocacyOppose
Society for Investigative Dermatology
AdvocacyOppose
Impact on scientific research
Society for Social Work and Research
Trade associationOppose
Political override of peer review
Impact on vulnerable populations
Society for Vascular Surgery
AdvocacyOppose
Political override of peer review
Government overreach
South Florida Veterans Affairs Foundation for Research and Education, Inc.
AdvocacyOppose
Political override of peer review
Southern Environmental Law Center
AdvocacyOther
SPIE, the international society for optics and photonics
AdvocacyOppose
Political override of peer review
Government overreach
Stand Up for Science Foundation
AdvocacyOppose
Government overreach
Stellate Communications
AdvocacyOppose
Impact on scientific research
Strategic Priorities, Inc.
BusinessSupport
The ALS Association
AdvocacyOppose
Government overreach
Impact on scientific research
The American Society of Naturalists
AdvocacyOppose
Government overreach
The Optimum Department
BusinessOppose
Political override of peer review
The Society of Thoracic Surgeons
AdvocacyOppose
Political override of peer review
Administrative and compliance burden
The Technical Society of Knoxville (Tennessee)
Trade associationOppose
Government overreach
The Village for Families & Children
AdvocacyOppose
Political override of peer review
Impact on vulnerable populations
Third Way
AdvocacyOppose
Administrative and compliance burden
UAW 4121
UnionOppose
Political override of peer review
Government overreach
Impact on scientific research
Union of Concerned Scientists
AdvocacyOppose
Impact on scientific research
United Way of Pennsylvania
AdvocacyOppose
Valley Industry & Commerce Association (VICA)
Trade associationOppose
Administrative and compliance burden
Vet Voice Foundation
AdvocacyOppose
Government overreach
Impact on scientific research
Vilomah Memorial Foundation, Inc.
AdvocacyOppose
Voices of Alzheimer's
AdvocacyOppose
Political override of peer review
Government overreach
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction
GovernmentOppose
Wise Resource Development
BusinessOppose
138 organization-typed comments could not be identified.
Form letters
Campaigns
Organized form-letter drives, separated from organic one-off comments.
6%of comments arrived through 9 form-letter campaigns — 3,222 of 56,989 comments. 50,656 are organic, and 3,111 are still being processed for campaign detection.
Campaign3,222Organic50,656Not yet determined3,111
⚑
Support for OMB Grant Oversight Reforms
Sponsor unknown
2,2193.9% of total
Support
⚑
Opposition to NASA Research Rule
Sponsor unknown
3470.6% of total
Oppose
⚑
Oppose OMB Federal Grantmaking Rule Change
Sponsor unknown
2260.4% of total
Oppose
⚑
Opposition to OMB-2026-0034 Rule
Sponsor unknown
1700.3% of total
Oppose
⚑
Opposition to Political Interference in Science
Sponsor unknown
1100.2% of total
Oppose
⚑
Oppose OMB Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance
Sponsor unknown
570.1% of total
Oppose
⚑
Protect Nonprofit Civic Engagement Activities
Sponsor unknown
380.1% of total
Oppose
⚑
Oppose Research Grant Filtering Regulation
Sponsor unknown
300.1% of total
Oppose
⚑
Oppose OMB Revisions to Federal Research Funding
Sponsor unknown
250.0% of total
Oppose
Comments
Explorer
Every mirrored comment — filter by stance, campaign, or issue.
Filter:
- Jun 24, 2026Jeremy BrickerOpposeIndividual
A civil engineer opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it grants political appointees too much authority and undermines the integrity of independent peer review. The commenter expresses concern that the rule will restrict international collaboration, create funding uncertainty, and ultimately compromise the safety and resilience of national infrastructure.
Read comment → - Jun 17, 2026Meaghan HalliganOpposeIndividual
A civil engineer opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it grants political appointees too much authority and undermines the integrity of independent peer review. The commenter expresses concern that the rule will restrict international collaboration, create funding uncertainty, and ultimately compromise the safety and resilience of national infrastructure.
Read comment → - Jun 17, 2026Beth Ann SmithOpposeIndividual
A civil engineer opposes the proposed rule, arguing that replacing independent peer reviewers with political appointees will increase project costs, extend timelines, and undermine scientific integrity. The commenter also expresses concern that the rule will restrict international collaboration and create uncertainty for long-term infrastructure and research projects.
Read comment → - Jun 17, 2026Carolyn MuthOpposeIndividual
A civil engineer opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it grants political appointees too much authority and undermines the integrity of independent peer review. The commenter expresses concern that the rule will restrict international collaboration, create funding uncertainty, and ultimately compromise the safety and resilience of national infrastructure.
Read comment → - Jun 15, 2026Dana CrossOpposeIndividual
A civil engineer opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it grants political appointees too much authority and undermines the integrity of independent peer review. The commenter expresses concern that the rule will restrict international collaboration, create funding uncertainty, and ultimately compromise the safety and resilience of national infrastructure.
Read comment → - Jun 15, 2026Timothy DuncanOpposeIndividual
A civil engineer opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it grants political appointees too much authority and undermines the integrity of independent peer review. The commenter expresses concern that the rule will restrict international collaboration, create funding uncertainty, and ultimately compromise the safety and innovation of the nation's infrastructure.
Read comment → - Jun 15, 2026Steve CoatesOpposeIndividual
A civil engineer opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it grants political appointees too much authority and undermines the integrity of independent peer review. The commenter expresses concern that the rule will restrict international collaboration, create funding uncertainty, and ultimately compromise the safety and innovation of the nation's infrastructure.
Read comment → - Jun 15, 2026Andrew SottileOpposeIndividual
A civil engineer opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it grants political appointees too much authority and undermines the integrity of independent peer review. The commenter expresses concern that the rule will restrict international collaboration, create funding uncertainty, and ultimately compromise the safety and innovation of the nation's infrastructure.
Read comment → - Jun 13, 2026Ann OverOpposeIndividual
An engineer opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it grants political appointees too much authority and undermines the integrity of independent peer review. The commenter expresses concern that the rule will restrict international collaboration, create funding uncertainty, and ultimately compromise public safety and scientific progress.
Read comment → - Jun 13, 2026Donald DemersOpposeIndividual
A civil engineer opposes the proposed rule, arguing that it grants political appointees too much authority and undermines the integrity of independent peer review. The commenter expresses concern that the rule will restrict international collaboration, create funding uncertainty, and ultimately compromise the safety and innovation of the nation's infrastructure.
Read comment →