Comment on FR Doc # 2026-12725 from Anonymous

I am a citizen of the United States and submit this comment to decry the NSF's proposal (NSF-2026-OTR-0001) to abide by the OMB’s proposed rule changes to the Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance (OMB-2026-0034-0001). I believe that these changes are ill-advised and will cause immediate and irreparable damage to US science, with no practical benefit for the country. My specific observations are as follows: 1)Appointees that are purely political, i.e., those without scientific training and credentials, or those whose public views regarding the relevant science have been widely discredited by the scientific consensus, should have no direct role in decision making or supervision of scientific programs on subjects beyond their expertise. The leadership of the US in science was enabled by allowing panels of independent scientific experts, not untrained individuals, to select those projects that receive federal funding. Political appointees do have legitimate roles as liaisons between scientific agencies and the administration, but as such they have no legitimate part to play in direct decisions about funding. The reason for this is clear: real scientific progress takes years and depends on continuity across administrations. Allowing political appointees to have selective funding powers would (1) permit the sudden creation of ill-advised projects with little scientific merit and likelihood of success, (2) enable the defunding of longstanding and productive projects based solely on political whim, and (3) lead to uncertainty that will chill the education and training of scientists in the US. This will result in a tremendous waste of resources and a future with a US severely crippled in its scientific capabilities. Political appointees also have no legitimate role to play in review of content for publication and conference proceedings. Such review is a violation of the First Amendment and would rapidly destroy the scientific credibility of the US. 2)The rule curtails projects that involve international collaboration. The reality is that scientific progress already benefits enormously from these collaborations, as data and expertise are not always available in any single country. Although the proposed rule purports to put the US first, its actual effect would be to exclude the US from the benefits of international science. For example, this policy would choke off US science from accessing people and resources based in other countries. It would also stifle US capability to control or influence international infrastructure and systems. US science would quickly lose access to dark skies, critical materials relevant to energy and military security, space and earth weather information, and many more. A US response to an outbreak of a contagious disease will be much less effective if our scientists are not in close dialogue (and indeed, collaboration with) with international colleagues. It is difficult to estimate the economic cost of these proposed changes that would devastate US science. It certainly must be very large, and one that the US economic engine cannot withstand.