The SUFS Guide to Writing Public Comments

Written by: Cole Donovan, Director of Policy and Advocacy and Colette Delawalla, PhD, CEO

BOTTOM LINE UP FRONT: This is an opportunity to tell YOUR government that the OMB-2026-0034 “Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance” is wrong. Making public comment on this proposal accomplishes two things:

1. Lays legal groundwork for lawsuits if the Administration ignores comments and goes through with this rule.

2. Floods the zone to show Congress, the public, and the Administration the will of We The People, which is that this rule is antidemocratic and would harm the public.

There are also two ways to do this, and both ways are important. You don’t need to be policy expert or lawyer to participate.

1. Comment with your oposition to the rule, which helps demonstrate overwhelming public sentiment. This is useful to the press to help understand why they should devote time to an issue and demonstrate to Congress why legislative action is necessary.

2. If you take this approach, even a couple sentences—about how this rule would be unconstitutional, how you want experts to decide what science is funded, or simply that you disagree—COUNTS. Just make sure your words are original. 10,000 of the same comment = 1 comment.
    

3. Comment on the substance of the rule, which can be used to provide expert input that can force changes to the regulation and build a stronger case in court. This can alter how rules are implemented within agencies and demonstrate to courts that agency rulemaking processes are deficient or illegal.

DIVING DEEPER

One of the most impactful ways that the public can influence the direction of government is through “notice and comment” periods on federal regulations and policy. As the legislative branch has turned more and more responsibility for rulemaking to the executive branch, sites like regulations.gov offer a uniquely impactful platform for people to shape the direction of the federal government. It’s safe to say that federal rulemakers frequently have limited experience in the environments that are being regulated, or their positions in government force them to take positions that might be inconsistent with past experience.

The Administrative Procedure Act is what gives public comments their teeth.  If an agency ignores feedback received from the public they can be more easily become the subject of successful litigation. It helps courts determine that the government may have acted unreasonably, ignored important information, or failed to consider how a regulation might interact with other parts of the law. Substantive comments can force agencies to change their position before a rule takes effect.

If the response to a rulemaking is overwhelming, that can give Congressional staff the motivation and cover they need to alter or block the rule through legislation.

I’ve personally seen community comments force the White House and Congress to hit the pause button and go back to the drawing board. Knowledge about how regulations can affect communities can significantly affect the choices made by government agencies when it comes time for final implementation.

With respect to the regulation that prompted this article—the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulation on federal financial assistance—we’ve been told that OMB doesn’t intend to make any changes and has already started telling agencies to update their policies to reflect the proposed rule. If that’s true, that can create an enormous legal hazard to say that OMB didn’t consider the rule’s overall impact and will make it significantly easier for impacted communities to sue the government, later.

Under the previous Trump Administration, OMB actually produced a really helpful guide that describes what a good comment looks like. It also contains an important piece of advice – individualized interventions carry the most weight. This is why the Stand Up for Science Foundation is reluctant to offer a form letter and instead trust the collective knowledge and experience of our community. It is crucial that your comment is original. It doesn’t have to be long.

IF YOU REALLY WANT TO DIVE DEEP

So what does a substance-oriented comment look like, especially in the context of the current administration? It’s unlikely that the current team at OMB are going to give any consideration to policy disagreements. “This is a power grab” usually isn’t too persuasive to the person who wants to grab power, and the courts are much more likely to respond to considerations that describe specific harms.

Substantive comments that are most impactful fall into the following categories:

1. Conflicts between the regulation and existing law: This is one of the most important issues that can create the greatest legal risk for an agency. Conflicts between regulations issued in the government are important, but can be dealt with. Point out language in a proposed regulation that conflicts with legislative language or infringes on Constitutional rights. It’s worth spending the extra time to do your homework and to look at the law and (and especially) recent Supreme Court cases that might support your argument.
    

2. Threats to public safety or national security: Poorly formed regulation that impacts things like public health, science, or foreign interactions can force people to behave in a way that’s counter to the national interest. For instance, a law that prevents collaboration between scientists could prevent people from interacting in an emergency situation, increasing the risk of loss of human life or escallating tensions between superpowers.
    

3. Significant economic impacts: Agencies are required to engage in cost-benefit analysis with respect to the impact of regulations with significant economic impact. Places like SCIMaP and Grant Witness provide data and analysis demonstrating more localized real-world impact. A good letter would identify economic impacts that the agencies did not consider when implementing the regulation, particularly those that might force a reasonable person (and especially a judge) to evaluate whether the agency spent sufficient time assessing the impact of the proposed regulation. These can be changes in compliance costs, jobs lost, or other distortions that might be caused by the rule.
    

4. Tell YOUR story. You don’t need to be a lawyer or policy expert for your comment to be impactful. We are all impacted by science. Choose one provision (e.g., ban on LGBTQ+ research, ban on international collaboration, any grant at risk of being cancelled early) and explain how it would impact YOU as a researcher, member of the public, individual with a specific disease, etc. Your experience, particularly when backed up by real-world examples, can force agencies to change or support the argument that wins in litigation.

The other thing you can do is support the comments of other organizations. On rulemakings we’ve been involved in, large organizations frequently issued their comments supported by comments from member individual institutions who described their specific and individualized impacts. Individualized impacts can be really important in an agency’s considerations. While it might be relatively easy for a large institution to pivot, a smaller institution that needs to introduce entirely new systems could find itself regulated out of existence due to new compliance costs.

Another way to support comments from other organizations is to note the significant impact and request that OMB grant organizations additional time to respond.  For a regulation as large as OMB-2026-0034, this is particularly important. The impacts go way beyond science.  They impact everything from housing for disabled veterans to school lunch programs and Medicare assistance.

TO SUM IT ALL UP

This is YOUR chance to participate in the rule making process. To help folks who want to go deeper, we’re posting a copy of our comment on OMB-2026-0034, below. If you’d like to support the comment in your own and go into greater detail about how it impacts you or your organization, please feel free to do so.