The White House's damaging proposal on grants received tens of thousands of public comments. Read six of them.

On May 29, 2026, the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released a proposed rule that would dramatically change how federal grants are dispersed and how science is conducted in the United States.

Titled "Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance," the rule would give political appointees the power to override peer review and terminate active grants at any time. It would impose sweeping restrictions on international collaborations, cutting U.S. scientists off from partnerships with researchers in many countries. It would make conference attendance much more difficult, and publication costs largely unallowable, under federal awards. It would undermine programs that broaden participation in science and support the next generation of researchers.

Together, these changes would insert political control deep into the federal research enterprise, undermining the independence and rigor that have made America a global leader in science.

Despite the rule's sweeping scope, the White House allowed only a 45-day window for public comment. Scientists responded in force: Nearly half a million comments were submitted to the federal docket.

APS partnered with more than 30 organizations to mobilize the scientific community in opposition to the White House's proposal. APS members and non-members alike were able to submit public comments by July 13, either signed or anonymous, to the federal docket through APS’ user-friendly portal. More than 4,700 comments were submitted.

The comment period closes July 13; there is still time to make your voice heard.

The excerpts below — from just a handful of the public comments submitted by APS members and scientists from across the country — reveal what is at stake.

John Mather, Nobel Prize laureate: “Historically, peer review protects the public from attempts to corrupt.”

If political appointees can override peer review, my Nobel-winning work measuring the Big Bang could easily have been rejected, since some ideologies and religions say we don't need that information. When the Nobel was announced, a political appointee at my agency indeed said the Big Bang was only a theory. Historically, peer review protects the public from attempts to corrupt the selection through back-channel influence or overt bribery. If political appointees can choose incompetent teams that support the political party in power at the moment, then taxpayer funds are wasted and the products are not obtained.

If my work can be terminated for political reasons, then loyalty to the political party in power at the moment is more important than the work I was chosen to do. That's not a good way to get results. It's a way to corrupt the entire system of science, which is ideally the self-correcting search for truth.

John Mather, senior astrophysicist at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (Greenbelt, MD)

Deirdre Shoemaker: “Collaborations strengthen — not diminish — American scientific leadership.”

“I am concerned about provisions that could discourage or complicate responsible international scientific collaboration. My own research depends on partnerships among U.S. universities and international collaborators. As a member of NASA's Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA) Science Team, I help develop the U.S. scientific program for LISA, an ambitious international mission in which NASA and ESA each contribute unique capabilities toward a common scientific goal. This partnership enables the United States to participate in a groundbreaking observatory that no single nation could realistically undertake alone while maintaining appropriate oversight, security, and accountability.

Likewise, the historic first detection of gravitational waves and the emergence of multi-messenger astronomy were possible only through sustained international cooperation. These collaborations strengthen — not diminish — American scientific leadership by allowing U.S. researchers to lead major discoveries, train the next generation of scientists, and maximize the scientific return on federal investments. Policies that unnecessarily impede responsible international collaboration would reduce the competitiveness of U.S. research and diminish our ability to attract and retain the world's best scientific talent.

The technology we develop to lead in space-based gravitational wave astronomy will change the U.S.'s future. Don't let us lose our powerful edge out of fear.”

Deirdre Shoemaker, physics professor at the University of Texas at Austin (Austin, TX)

David Ballantyne: “One of the main research areas in my own career started from seeing a talk at a conference.”

“Attending conferences is crucial for scientists to exchange ideas and teach each other about the latest findings in a research area. Many of the most important breakthroughs in physics were catalyzed at conferences where scientists could gather and discuss research questions.

One of the main research areas in my own career started from seeing a talk at a conference and then meeting the speaker afterwards. That conversation started a collaboration and research direction that continues to that day. Without the flexibility to attend several conferences, that conversation would never have happened which may ultimately have led to me having to abandon my career.

Simply speaking, scientific advances in the U.S. will halt if scientists are unable to publish or be able to access the scientific literature. Scientific knowledge has been disseminated by publications for centuries, and is the fundamental 'deliverable' for scientists. New research and discoveries can only be done by building on the knowledge of the scientific community.

I have published eight papers in academic journals in the last year. Two of those papers were led by young Ph.D. students publishing their first papers. These papers are crucial for the students to complete their degrees and enter the workforce. The Ph.D. students also help teach undergraduate classes. Shrinking scientific research by not providing support for publication costs will cause colleges to cut costs by reducing undergraduate enrollment and/or raising tuition.

Eliminating support for publication costs and conference attendance will significantly reduce the scientific enterprise in the country, forcing scientists to move to other countries in order to continue their work.”

David Ballantyne, physics professor and associate chair for academic programs, Georgia Institute of Technology (Atlanta, GA)

Mel Sabella: “Intellectual merit is a cornerstone of review — the decision should not be left to political appointees without expertise.”

“I am deeply concerned about the ability to override peer reviews by political appointees with little understanding of my area of research, and the possibility of circumventing the hard, rigorous work of peers who spend a great deal of time conducting these reviews. Having been a peer reviewer in the past, I know the amount of time it takes for this work. Intellectual merit is a cornerstone of review — the decision should not be left to political appointees without expertise.

The amount of resources and investment PIs dedicate to these projects is significant, and timelines are in place to accomplish the substantial work. The work will certainly suffer if there is the threat of termination at any time due to the whims of political appointees for any reason. Termination, and even the threat of termination, will limit scientific discovery and project outcomes. This is not the way contract work is done. Contracts and timelines need to be honored if the project proposal is being followed.”

Mel Sabella, physics professor at Chicago State University (Chicago, IL)

Tamara Rivera: “Fewer talented students … would have pathways into research careers.”

“I participate in STEM outreach, mentoring, and educational programs that help students learn about science careers and research opportunities. If these efforts were halted, students would lose valuable opportunities for scientific engagement, mentorship, and career development, weakening efforts to build a skilled and diverse future STEM workforce.

As a post-baccalaureate researcher at Yale University, I was supported by the National Science Foundation Research Experiences for Recent Graduates (NSF-REP) program. The purpose of this program was to provide research opportunities, mentorship, and professional development for recent graduates preparing for careers in science. As a first-generation, low-income student, this support was instrumental in helping me gain advanced research experience and successfully transition into a Ph.D. program. A grant like this could be vulnerable if programs designed to broaden participation in STEM or support workforce development were viewed as inconsistent with changing political priorities. Had this funding not existed, I would have lost access to research training, mentorship, and career development opportunities that were critical to my advancement as a scientist.

The broader consequence of terminating programs like NSF-REP is that fewer talented students, particularly those from historically underrepresented or economically disadvantaged backgrounds, would have pathways into research careers. This would weaken the future scientific workforce and reduce opportunities for individuals who have the potential to make significant contributions to science but may lack access to traditional research networks and resources.”

Tamara Rivera, fourth-year Ph.D. candidate in marine science at the University of Texas Marine Science Institute (Port Aransas, TX)

Iain Stewart: “Cutting off U.S. scientists from those around the world will limit the information we have access to, and thus the science we can do.”

“I am involved in scientific collaborations with people who are currently professors or senior researchers in Austria, Spain, Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Korea. In the past I have collaborated with scientists in China and Canada. These collaborations have led to publications in top journals and major advances in the field.

Science is a worldwide enterprise. Cutting off U.S. scientists from those around the world will limit the information we have access to, and thus the science we can do, putting us at a disadvantage to those in other countries. This exact approach led to a decline in science in Russia, in particular, with a large migration of scientists after the end of the Cold War. Many international collaborations involve multi-billion dollar construction projects, including particle accelerators and satellites for astronomy. These are necessarily funded by many countries and require international engagement of U.S. scientists who would otherwise be left out of new discoveries.

Bans on collaboration and travel to 'covered foreign countries' such as China, would ensure that U.S. scientists lose access to international research advances that may be critical for the future. In particular, as research has become more international, conferences are often hosted in different countries each year, and cutting off U.S. scientists from participation for conferences in China would be detrimental.

Rules that limit U.S. scientists from keeping up with the strongest science in the field by engaging with researchers from around the world, will weaken the U.S. enterprise and economy.”

Iain Stewart, physics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Cambridge, MA)

Note: These individuals submitted public comments in their personal capacity. They do not speak on behalf of their institutions, and their positions do not necessarily reflect those of their respective institutions.