OMG OMB! A Brief Overview of OMB-2026-0034
Written by Irene Ngun, Associate Director of Policy
On May 29, the Office of Management and Budget posted a sweeping regulatory change that will end American science as we know it; it also threatens to catastrophically damage federal assistance that benefits all of society.
Others have already done outstanding work assessing the change. We at the Stand Up for Science Foundation are going to build on their effort by developing a list of the most significant changes and what they mean for science. We encourage other organizations that engage in advocacy to carefully read the text to understand how it impacts your community.
Spoiler alert: the impact is probably large. The changes involve everything from women’s health and school lunch programs to the Peace Corps and Election Assistance Commission. This is a vast expansion of federal power that allows the president to overrule expert judgement on how to pursue the best science.
Political Appointees Take the Wheel: Federal grants would now be approved by political appointees. The expert consideration that had been provided by peer review panels is now just one item in a list of potential considerations. Some government agencies have already made this change in response to an earlier executive order. The Stand Up for Science Foundation has learned that political appointees in those agencies have already contacted universities and other institutions and asked them to change the nature of their work in order to more closely align with the President’s agenda.
Makes funding subject to culture-war politics: The regulation includes extensive new requirements, including demands that awards "demonstrably advance the president’s policy priorities.” This includes prohibiting “denial by the recipient of the sex binary in humans or the notion that sex is a chosen or mutable characteristic” in addition to “initiatives that compromise public safety or promote anti-American values.”
The government may terminate and suspend grants at any time, for any reason: Agencies would now be able to terminate grants at any time if they no longer align with “agency priorities” or current administration policy. Previously, grants could only be canceled due to significant issues like fraud or mismanagement. This is significant when combined with OMB’s proposal to discourage awardsthat give recipients more flexibility, while pushing to lock them into multi-year commitments. The combination allows the government to lock-in projects that are aligned with agency priorities while retaining a way to terminate them if political priorities change.
Unscientific Requirements: The document seems to suggest that only studies that can be replicated would qualify for federal grants. Certain scientific activities, like observations of astronomical or weather events, are inherently not replicable. There is also language prohibiting acknowledgement of sex non-binaries that is incompatible with studying human development (see Chimerism, Sweyer Syndrome, etc.)
No Political Viewpoint Discrimination - Except for Prohibited Political Viewpoints: While the regulation prohibits viewpoint discrimination or discrimination based on political views, it also singles out specific topics, like disparate impact liability, as prohibited from receiving federal awards. It also expressly removes language that federal awards should support the public welfare and the environment.
OMB’s rules are now a requirement: Previously, the OMB gave agencies guidance to assist them in independently running and managing their own programs. This is no longer the case. Under the revised text, all instances of “guidance” have been replaced with language like “regulation” and “requirement.”
English Only, Foreign Collaboration Discouraged: The revised regulation severely restricts the extent to which foreign organizations may be funded by the U.S. government, adopting what it calls a “domestic first framework”. This is in addition to restrictions on cooperation with “covered entities” like institutions supported by the People’s Republic of China. The language, which is designed to extend limitations placed on NASA to the rest of the government, appears to conflict with carve-outs for science in the CHIPS and Science Act, which expressly permitted research projects that involve reciprocal exchanges of information.
The overview text of the document also suggests that awardees should not work with organizations that also work with foreign adversaries, which would generally prevent cooperation with almost all of America’s allies and major international organizations like the World Meteorological Organization (aka the folks who coordinate global weather forecasting) and CERN (where US scientists collaborate on the world’s largest particle collider).Explicit ban on funding directed towards women, people of color, LGBTQ+ communities, and religious minorities: The proposed rule takes aim at DEI, defining it broadly as ‘unlawful discrimination’. This weaponizes civil rights language against the very communities who have been subject to discrimination. The practical implication for science is huge. Research focused on racial equity, health disparities, climate justice— or any projects that incorporate social dimensions or “broader impacts” —will face severe scrutiny or outright elimination. Science funding will be steered towards areas the administration deems aligned with “Gold Standard Science” or national priorities.
More time spent doing administrative tasks: Despite the Trump Administration’s promise to reduce administrative burden on scientists, the elimination of fixed amount awards and subawards removes tools that make it easier for the government to fund science projects, especially for large collaborations. This change significantly increases the amount of accounting and paperwork done by universities, research hospitals, and their partners. It creates significant extra workload for federal staff, who are now expected to micromanage awards.
OMB is bracing for lawsuits: One of the most revealing aspects of this 400-page documents is the extraordinary length of the legal justifications around two sections, the broad ban on DEI and gender ideology programs and the expanded power to terminate grants at any moment. This signals that the agency is anticipating strong legal challenges and that its proposed rules are on shaky ground.