Flood of comments on White House grantmaking overhaul is largely negative, analysis shows
Get the Health newsletter
Daily health & science — research, biotech, public health, the studies worth knowing. Free.
- UNC Chapel Hill and STAT analysis of 52,322 fully posted comments (out of 496,769 submitted before the Monday midnight deadline) found ~95% in opposition and just 1% supportive of the proposed 'Uniform Guidance' overhaul
- The White House proposal would let the Trump administration override peer reviewer recommendations, terminate grants at will, and restrict research types — and governs over $1 trillion in annual federal contracts
- The top opposition theme was political appointees directing science funding, cited by ~60% of opposing commenters, followed by peer review deemphasis and early grant terminations; supporters argued the rule would reduce waste, fraud, and abuse
- OMB aims to have the rule effective by Oct. 1, the start of the fiscal year, meaning a final version must post to the Federal Register by Sept. 1 — the administration must read substantive comments but isn't required to amend the rule
- Comment breakdown: 76% came from individuals, 22% anonymously, and 0.5% from organizations, though the latter figure is likely undercounted because organizations submitted longer technical comments closer to the deadline
- Several organizations have begun preparing lawsuits if the rule is published as written, citing freedom of speech concerns and claims the proposal would diminish Congress's power of the purse
- The researchers used an OpenAI-provided large language model to classify comments by support/opposition and count theme mentions
Why it matters: The administration faces a Sept. 1 deadline to publish a final rule covering $1 trillion in annual contracts, and despite 95% opposition in comments, legal experts stress the comment process isn't a vote — OMB can finalize regardless. Organizations are already preparing lawsuits, meaning the fight over politicized science funding will move to the courts if the rule is published as written.
