Comment on FR Doc # 2026-12725 from Paula Carazo

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the Office of Management and Budgets (OMB) proposed "Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance" and the subsequent, premature alignment efforts by the National Science Foundation (NSF).My perspective is shaped by a unique professional intersection. I worked full-time in international arbitration and labor law while simultaneously completing my Master of Public Health (MPH) in Maternal and Child Health part-time. Navigating this rigorous path while managing a chronic illness since my 20s provided me with a firsthand, practical education in federal frameworks. I have lived the reality of how administrative regulations can either severely undercut or successfully bolster an individuals ability to work, manage health, and contribute meaningfully to their community.This background has positioned me as a rare bridge between the legal and public health sectors. In my legal career, I regularly observed international organizations and domestic legal bodies making sweeping, high-level policy decisions based strictly on legal precedent. Tragically, these decisions are often made with a total absence of public health professionals or scientific researchers in the room. Because public health voices are missing from these hearings, decision-makers consistently fail to account for the foundational public health costs of their actions.Rather than bridging this gap, the proposed regulations will permanently widen it by dismantling the mechanism that funds independent, evidence-based research. The specific mandates within this proposalsubjecting scientific grants to the approval of political appointees, banning vital international research collaborations, and restricting open scientific communication and publishingrepresent an unprecedented overreach.By replacing objective merit review with political litmus tests, this rule weaponizes federal funding and strips academic institutions of their independence. Restricting international collaboration directly harms fields like global public health and labor law, where cross-border cooperation is essential to solving modern crises. Furthermore, imposing sweeping regulatory controls and information-gathering burdens on universities suppresses academic freedom and stifles the very research needed to inform sound policy.When regulations prioritize political control over scientific integrity, they undercut both vulnerable communities and national progress. I urge the OMB and the NSF to withdraw these harmful provisions, protect the independence of federal research, and ensure that evidence-based science remains free from political interference.