Update on Federal Research Grants

May 29, 2026

Background

On May 29, 2026, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), together with more than 40 federal grant-making agencies, published a proposed rule that would substantially revise the government-wide Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance, which governs how virtually all federal grants and cooperative agreements are awarded and administered. 


The proposal implements the August 2025 executive order on Improving Oversight of Federal Grantmaking (EO 14332). OMB states three primary objectives: improving transparency, accountability, and oversight of federal funds; clarifying the regulatory status of the “Uniform Guidance” in Title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations; and reducing recipient burden. The rule frames many of these changes as a response to what the administration characterizes as “wasteful” spending and “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) priorities funded under the prior administration. 


Of particular concern to the research community, the proposal would require senior political appointees at federal agencies to conduct a mandatory pre-issuance review of every discretionary award and would instruct those appointees not to defer to the recommendations of scientific peer review, which the rule designates as “advisory” only. As reported by Scientific American, appointees would review proposals for alignment with presidential priorities. The proposal also imposes new content-based conditions on which research may be funded, makes publication costs an unallowable charge to federal awards, and expands the grounds on which awards may be terminated at agency discretion. 


The public has 45 days to comment. Comments are due July 13, 2026, and may be submitted through regulations.gov under docket OMB-2026-0034.

APA/APASI Assessment

APA is analyzing the proposed rule in detail and its implications for psychological science and the researchers, institutions, and communities that depend on federal funding. Key considerations include: 


  • Content-based limits on what science may be funded. The rule directs appointees to withhold funding from proposals associated with certain disfavored topics — including, in the rule’s own terms, research touching “the sex binary in humans” and whether sex is a “chosen or mutable characteristic.” This language directly implicates established, peer-reviewed areas of psychological science on gender identity and sexual orientation, making funding eligibility turn on subject matter and viewpoint rather than scientific quality. 
  • Instructing decision-makers to override expert review. Rather than preserving the long-standing role of expert peer review, the rule requires appointees to apply their “independent judgment” and forbids them from treating peer-review recommendations as binding. Substituting political alignment for the expert assessment of rigor, innovation, and impact is likely to weaken both the quality of funded science and public trust in it. 
  • A narrow, politically driven definition of “wasteful” research. Treating value as only what is immediately demonstrable threatens longitudinal studies, basic behavioral science, and foundational work whose payoff is long-term — precisely the research that underpins future breakthroughs. 
  • Defunding the dissemination of results. The rule makes publication costs — including page charges, article processing charges, and open-access fees — unallowable charges to federal awards, even as federal policy continues to require that federally funded results be made publicly available. Researchers would be required to share their findings while losing the means to pay for open publication, with the heaviest burden falling on early-career and less-resourced investigators. 
  • Reduced transparency and predictability. Centralizing decisions under broad “national priorities” criteria, without required findings or reasoned explanation, makes outcomes harder to anticipate and leaves applicants little insight into how or why decisions are made. 
  • Expanded termination authority and retroactive risk. Broadened discretionary-termination provisions could increase compliance demands and create uncertainty for ongoing awards, diverting time and resources away from research itself. 
  • An unusually short comment window. A 45-day period for a government-wide rewrite of this scope provides limited time for the research community to assess and respond. 

APA's Position

APA supports genuine accountability and the responsible stewardship of public funds and maintains that any oversight framework must protect the fundamental principles of scientific inquiry. APA’s position is that federal grantmaking policy must: 


  • Keep funding decisions grounded in scientific merit as assessed by expert peer review, and must not instruct agency officials to disregard that review 
  • Judge every proposal on its scientific merit alone, keeping funding open to legitimate psychological science whatever question it asks, regardless of subject matter or viewpoint 
  • Uphold investigator-initiated research as a primary driver of innovation and discovery 
  • Reject a narrow definition of “wasteful spending” that disproportionately harms foundational behavioral and social science 
  • Preserve researchers’ ability to disseminate federally funded results, consistent with federal public-access requirements 
  • Maintain transparency, reasoned decision-making, and fairness so that applicants understand how decisions are made 
  • Keep administrative requirements lean so resources stay directed towards research rather than toward compliance 


What APA/APASI Is Doing

In response to the proposed rule, APA Services is taking concrete steps to advocate for psychological science and the research community: 


  • Submitting formal comments: APA Services intends to file detailed, section-specific comments before the July 13, 2026, deadline, documenting the rule’s likely impact on psychological research with specific examples. 
  • Engaging directly with policymakers: APA Services is communicating with federal agencies and congressional offices to share our analysis. 
  • Broadening coalitions: APA is coordinating with other scientific societies, research universities, and advocacy organizations on a unified response. 
  • Informing our members: Through updates like this one, APA is committed to keeping members informed and equipped to act as the rulemaking unfolds.

Stay Informed


We will continue to monitor this situation closely and provide updates as they become available.