Comment from Anonymous

Docket ID: OMB-2026-0034 Agency: Office of Management and Budget Proposed Rule: Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance To Whom It May Concern, I am writing as a University of Utah researcher to strongly oppose the proposed revisions in Docket OMB-2026-0034. These changes would subordinate scientific peer review to senior appointee policy review and would create new uncertainty for federally funded biomedical research. Health research at the University of Utah relies heavily on National Institutes of Health funding. NIH funding has a direct and measurable economic impact in Utah: in FY2025, NIH grants and contracts supported more than 4,200 jobs and $800 million in state economic activity. That direct impact is also connected to Utah’s broader biopharmaceutical economy, which includes more than 40,000 jobs and over 2,000 businesses. University-based biomedical research supplies the discoveries, skilled workforce, clinical infrastructure, and commercialization pipeline on which that larger sector depends. The proposed rule would allow discretionary awards to be terminated based on shifting agency priorities or the national interest as defined at the time of termination. It would also impose new restrictions on conference participation costs and publication costs unless those costs are expressly approved or incorporated into the award. These provisions threaten the stability needed for multi-year research programs, including clinical and translational studies that require continuity of funding, staffing, data collection, dissemination, and collaboration. Scientific progress depends on rigorous peer review, transparent funding criteria, and predictable multi-year support. I urge OMB to remove or substantially narrow provisions that would allow discretionary political review to override scientific merit, permit unexpected termination of active awards, or restrict ordinary research activities such as publication and scientific conference participation.