The root of the opposition to the Office of Management and Budget’s changes to the Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance is that there was no unified voice at the top. Released at the end of May, the proposed rules would put political appointees, not professional peer reviewers, in charge of awarding federal grants. They would allow the government to freeze active subsidies at any time, for any reason, and block funding for projects that promote “anti-American values” (without specifying what those are); international cooperation would be limited.
In less than two months, scientists have written op-eds against the proposal, researchers have expressed anger to journalists, scientific organizations have criticized the rules in a statement and 300 organizations have asked Russell Vought, director of the OMB, to extend the comment period of 45 days so they can pass the 400-page proposal. (He refused to agree to their request.)
The flood-the-zone approach to public comment on the regulations resulted in more than 300,000 submissions being placed in the public docket by Monday’s 11:59 pm deadline. That’s the second most noted rule in Trump’s second draft, just behind the 572,000 submitted for review of the Endangerment Finding and Greenhouse Gas Vehicle Standards of 2009. Compared to other top ed-related proposals, the total is even more staggering: The Department of Education received about 8,500 public comments for its new income test rule and 400 for the new Workforce Pell rules.
A Washington Post analyzing Friday’s comments, when they totaled just over 100,000, they found that at least 88 percent expressed opposition to the OMB’s proposal.
Even Moody’s has warned that credit ratings will be affected if agencies are allowed to cut grants at will, leaving public financiers in a bind to finance infrastructure projects such as affordable housing or new roads.
This rare opportunity to bring together an entire industry is unparalleled. Since the Trump administration took office and launched a series of attacks against higher education and academic research, the field has struggled to mount a collective defense. Several college presidents risked publicly criticizing the administration’s initial efforts to criminalize DEI or undermine institutional autonomy. Others rely on member organizations including the American Council on Education and the American Association of Universities to push back with lawsuits, amicus briefs and public letters.
The administration mainly targets wealthy, private institutions that receive a lot of attention from the mainstream media but do not control most of the elite institutions, and therefore, are less likely to find many friends who will have their backs. Some criticisms of higher ed—lack of affordability, low graduation rates, millions in debt and no degrees, unclear financial aid, loss of public trust—may apply, but they do not apply to all institutions to the same extent. And in any case, colleges can’t agree on how to combat it.
Unlike previous disjointed responses, urgency has strengthened this one. OMB released the proposal at the end of May with a 45-day window for public comment. It plans to implement the rules on October 1, meaning they will apply to all grants issued in fiscal year 2027, which begins on that date. Nor can a new administration or an act of congress easily reverse the regulations; retreats will have to go through a lengthy, administrative process in the same way.
The clock is ticking, and the impact of the regulations is becoming apparent. As severe were the cuts to federal research funding, at once incomprehensible—billions of dollars for research behemoths—and difficult to track from researcher to researcher. Even without reading OMB’s 400-page proposal, it’s easy to understand what’s on the line: peer review in grant awards, consistent funding commitments and support for young scholars to attend conferences and publish their work.
Read public opinion and you will find opposition spread everywhere. People from state colleges, community colleges, elite programs, small liberal arts colleges and public districts all voiced their opposition, along with coalitions of health care providers, community members, city council members and lawmakers.
We will not know for a while what the result of this opposition campaign will be. If lawmakers have their way, it will take OMB a year to respond to public comments, delaying implementation of the rules. If the regulations are adopted, there is no doubt that the proceedings against them have been written. And legal backlash may be successful, if previous rulings against government efforts to politicize public funds are upheld. But one success that is already certain is how leaders, organizations and organizations have overcome institutional fragmentation and disciplinary silos to come together for the future of US federal funding. In a difficult field, let that be a constant motivation in the battles to come.
