Comment on FR Doc # 2026-12725 from Kevin Johnson
AnonymousOpposeIndividual
Summary: The commenter opposes the proposed NSF policy change, arguing that it prioritizes specific new programs and increased limits for certain proposal types at the expense of core basic research funding. They also criticize the document for being rushed and for failing to explain the TRUST framework.
This proposed regulatory change to NSF policies for Financial Assistance directly states that it is being issued in advance compliance with OMB 2026-0034, problems and concerns to which were vociferously expressed in thousands of comments. This is deeply troubling and is cause for great alarm, attention from the community, and my resounding opposition to this proposed Regulation NSF-2026-OTR-0001-0002. While there are a couple laudable parts to this document, such as the increased limits for EAGER, RAPID and Planning proposals, they mask the fact that the NSF budget is a zero-sum game with a decreasing value every year; funding to these types of projects will come at the expense of funding for core program basic research. This, on top of the radical shift in proposed budget allocations to support new programs such as the X-Labs, will cripple the ability of NSF disciplinary programs to support cutting edge research in all areas of basic research. Also, despite highlighting the Trusted Research Using Safeguards and Transparency (TRUST) framework, there is no explanation of it in the document. Because this is a significant NSF policy change its omission brings into question the care in preparing the document as a whole and supports the notion that it was cobbled together quickly to get it in the system in a compliance-in-advance of OMB 2026-0034. Overall, some policies proposed in this document are unchanged or not significantly changed from current NSF policies, but the stated compliance with OMB 2026-0034 before it has even been litigated is extremely problematic.