Comment on FR Doc # 2026-12725 from Kim Diaz

I am writing as one of your constituents to express my deep concern about the National Science Foundations proposed changes to its grant approval process that would give greater weight to political considerations in the funding of scientific research. The United States has been a leader in scientific innovation because research funding has been grounded in rigorous, independent peer review. While elected officials appropriately establish broad national priorities, the evaluation of scientific merit has traditionally been entrusted to experts in the relevant fields. This approach has produced discoveries that have strengthened our economy, improved public health, enhanced national security, and maintained Americas global leadership in science and technology. The proposed changes allow political priorities to play a greater role in determining which research receives federal support. Regardless of which party controls the executive branch, science should be guided by evidence, merit, and the expertise of qualified reviewersnot by shifting political agendas. I am also troubled by reports that the NSF proposal was drafted to align with an Office of Management and Budget proposal before that proposal had completed the public comment process. This suggests that the public input may not receive meaningful consideration. I respectfully ask you to: Oppose any efforts that weaken independent peer review in federal science funding. Exercise congressional oversight of the proposed NSF rule and its implementation. Support policies that preserve scientific integrity, transparency, and merit-based grant decisions. Protect the independence of the National Science Foundation so that research funding continues to be based on scientific excellence and the public interest.