Comment from Anonymous

I am writing to express my strong opposition to the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) proposed rule, "Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance," and to urgently request that this rulemaking be completely withdrawn. Far from achieving its intended purpose of improving government oversight, this sweeping proposed regulation poses severe constitutional and operational risks to how federal assistance is allocated. The proposed regulation is fundamentally flawed and harmful for several reasons outlined by the Project On Government Oversight (POGO) and the broader public interest community: 1. Violation of the Separation of Powers and the Impoundment Control Act The proposed rule dictates that federal funding must align with “the President's policy priorities.” This is a direct encroachment on the legislative branch’s authority. Under our constitutional framework, Congress—not the President—holds the power of the purse. Congress has established over 1,800 federal assistance grant programs with specific, statutorily mandated criteria intended to benefit the public interest. Executive regulations cannot override laws passed by Congress. By attempting to force federal grants to serve a specific administration's political agenda rather than statutorily established programs, the rule violates the separation of powers doctrine and the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. 2. Increased Risk of Waste, Fraud, and Abuse Historically, federal discretionary grants have been administered objectively based on rigorous statutory, technical, and regional recipient needs. Injecting highly subjective "presidential priorities" into this framework changes the baseline objectives of federal spending. When the executive branch attempts to manipulate funding structures to reward or penalize certain sectors, it introduces chaos, undermines fair competition, and invites significant opportunities for systemic waste and abuse. 3. Heightened Tension and Harm to Constituents When an administration’s political goals clash with the statutorily defined public interest of a grant program, this rule offers no mechanism for reconciliation. Instead, it creates gridlock and heightened friction between the executive and legislative branches. Ultimately, the victims of this conflict are everyday American constituents. Taxpayer money is meant to be reinvested back into communities to improve the quality of life, not to act as political leverage for the executive branch. If an administration desires greater control over discretionary grants, it must seek that authority legally through legislation passed by Congress, rather than unilaterally expanding its power via regulatory overreach. Rather than modifying individual provisions of this 400-page framework, OMB should completely withdraw the proposed rule. If OMB decides to pursue future rulemaking, it must refocus its efforts entirely on strengthening financial oversight and improving the identification and prevention of legitimate waste, fraud, and abuse within federal grant programs.