Hi! You're here because you want to write a comment on the OMB grants docket.

See parts 1 and 2 on the archives:

https://buttondown.com/crgibbons/archive/

Want more content like this? Subscribe

Reminders

Public comments are due July 13, 2026. Comments should be submitted through regulations.gov on docket OMB-2026-0034. The docket instructions say to start each part of your comment with the relevant section number in brackets, such as [200.220], [200.340], or [200.333].

Who and what is this for, and why?

Audience: Folks at small colleges, primarily undergraduate institutions (PUIs), HBCUs, MSIs, Tribal Colleges, and community colleges.

Purpose: To help identify how a subset of the proposed rules intersects with your institutional mission, students, communities, and professional experience.

Philosophy: This guide is designed to help you develop your own comments. I did my best not to put my thumb on the scale to say that any provision is beneficial or harmful. Instead, the guide provides context and questions to help you figure out what you think. (I hope.)

Table of Contents

• How to Use This Guide
• Regulations:
  • 200.202(e) — Domestic-First Framework for Research and Development
  • 200.205 — Federal Agency Merit Review of Proposals
  • 200.218 — Prohibition on Using Federal Awards to Promote or Support Theories of Disparate-Impact Liability
  • 200.220 — Covered Foreign Collaborations
  • 200.300(b) — Limitations on Authorized Use of Federal Award Funds
  • 200.333 — Fixed-Amount Subawards
  • 200.340 — Termination of Federal Awards
    • Special Questions for Small Colleges and Teaching-Focused Institutions
    • Special Questions for HBCUs, MSIs, and Access-Oriented Institutions
  • 200.461 — Travel, Conferences, Publications, and Dissemination
• Zoom Out: Reputational Harm and Public Communication Provisions
• Zoom Out: Accessibility, Representation, and Participation

---

How to Use This Guide

0. Optional: Find a friend and agree to swap drafts to provide feedback.

1. Do any of these lenses and perspectives seem compelling to you? If so, write them down on a notecard or post-it and keep them handy.

   • Student opportunity
   • Educational mission
   • Accessibility
   • Community impact
   • Administrative burden
   • Research quality
   • Academic freedom
   • Public accountability
   • Workforce development
   • Equal opportunity
   • Institutional sustainability

2. Read through the regulatory sections and glance at the questions. Do you have a strong response to any of them? If so, jot down some initial impressions. Do not make it perfect. Just get it down somewhere. Repeat for each section.

3. Revisit your notes. Is there a theme running through them that organizes your thoughts? Great. Use that as a frame. If not, that is okay; just polish up your response to the section.
4. Share it with a friend if you completed step 0. If not, sleep on it and read it again.
5. Finalize and post your comment!

---

200.202(e) — Domestic-First Framework for Research and Development

What Changed?

The proposed rule directs Federal agencies to apply a domestic-first framework when designing research and development programs and evaluating applications.

Under this framework, international components may be included only when the agency determines that they are:

• justified,
• consistent with program objectives,
• and in the national interest of the United States.

The proposal does not prohibit international collaboration, but it changes the default assumption from one in which international collaboration is generally permitted to one in which international elements must be affirmatively justified.

200.202(e)(2) — Domestic-First Requirement

When designing research programs and evaluating applications, agencies must begin from the premise that research activities should be conducted domestically whenever possible.

International elements must be specifically justified.

The proposal places responsibility on agencies to determine whether those elements are warranted.

200.202(e)(3) — Factors Agencies Should Consider

The proposal identifies several factors that agencies should evaluate when deciding whether an international component is appropriate.

(i) Necessity to Scientific or Technical Objectives

Agencies should consider:

• whether the international component is necessary,
• whether it is integral to the scientific rationale,
• whether the project could achieve its objectives without it.

This provision focuses on scientific necessity rather than convenience or preference.

(ii) Access to Unique Resources

Agencies should consider whether the international component provides access to:

• unique expertise,
• specialized facilities,
• datasets,
• archives,
• study populations,
• environmental conditions,
• field sites,
• other resources not reasonably available within the United States.

(iii) Benefit to the U.S. Scientific Enterprise

Agencies should consider whether the collaboration strengthens U.S. research capacity through:

• new knowledge,
• methodological advances,
• technology development,
• professional networks,
• domestic applications of internationally generated knowledge.

(iv) Capacity of the Foreign Partner

Agencies should evaluate whether foreign institutions possess:

• adequate facilities,
• qualified personnel,
• appropriate equipment,
• administrative capacity,

sufficient to perform work at a level comparable to domestic institutions.

Why People Are Discussing It

This section concerns how Federal agencies evaluate the role of international engagement in research.

Many disciplines depend on international activity for reasons that extend beyond direct collaboration.

Examples include:

• field research,
• environmental monitoring,
• archaeological work,
• language study,
• historical archives,
• cultural research,
• global health,
• mathematics,
• astronomy,
• physics,
• international surveys,
• biodiversity research,
• engineering collaborations.

The proposal raises questions about how agencies determine necessity and how much documentation applicants may need to provide.

Questions to Consider

Scholarly Necessity

• Are international collaborations necessary in your field?
• Which activities cannot be replicated domestically?
• What kinds of expertise are uniquely international?
• How would you demonstrate necessity?

Unique Resources

• Does your work depend on archives, datasets, field sites, populations, facilities, or instruments located outside the United States?
• Are comparable resources available domestically?
• If not, how would that be demonstrated?

Professional Networks

• How do collaborations develop in your field?
• Are international networks important for generating new ideas?
• How important are conferences, workshops, and international working groups?

Student Opportunities

• Do students participate in international collaborations?
• Do students gain access to mentors, graduate programs, field experiences, or professional networks through those collaborations?
• How would additional justification requirements affect student participation?

HBCUs, MSIs, PUIs, and Small Institutions

• Do international collaborations provide opportunities that would otherwise be unavailable at your institution?
• Are collaborations used to compensate for limited local infrastructure?
• Would additional proposal requirements create administrative burdens?

Humanities and Social Sciences

• Does your work require access to languages, archives, cultural materials, historical records, or communities located abroad?
• How should agencies evaluate necessity in disciplines where the relevant evidence exists outside the United States?

Mathematics and Theoretical Fields

• Is the primary value of international collaboration access to people rather than facilities?
• How should agencies evaluate intellectual networks that do not depend on physical infrastructure?
• Can the benefits of collaboration always be demonstrated in advance?

Community and Educational Missions

• How do international partnerships contribute to education?
• How do they contribute to workforce development?
• How do they contribute to cultural understanding or language training?

Administrative Implementation

• What documentation would agencies require?
• How much justification would be necessary?
• Would different agencies interpret the standard differently?
• Would uncertainty affect proposal development?

---

200.205 — Federal Agency Merit Review of Proposals

What Changed?

The proposed rule would require Federal agencies to maintain a merit-review process for discretionary awards, but it would also require an additional pre-issuance review conducted by senior political appointees.

The proposal specifies principles that senior appointees must consider when determining whether an application selected through the merit-review process should ultimately receive funding.

The proposal also clarifies that peer-review recommendations remain advisory and are not binding on agency leadership.

200.205(a) — Merit Review Process

Federal agencies must continue to conduct merit review for discretionary awards unless prohibited by statute.

The proposal defines merit review as an objective evaluation process conducted according to written agency standards.

The stated purpose of merit review is to identify recipients most likely to achieve program objectives.

The merit-review process, including the pre-issuance review described below, must be disclosed in the Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO).

Importantly, the proposal states that the pre-issuance review may provide a basis for declining to fund an application that was otherwise selected through merit review.

200.205(b) — Pre-Issuance Review by Senior Appointees

The proposal requires agencies to designate one or more senior appointees to conduct a review of all discretionary awards before funding decisions are finalized.

The review must consider whether proposed awards are:

• consistent with applicable law,
• consistent with agency priorities,
• consistent with the national interest.

The proposal then lists specific principles that reviewers should apply.

(b)(1) Presidential Priorities

Where applicable, discretionary awards should demonstrably advance Presidential policy priorities.

(b)(2) Prohibited Activities

The proposal states that discretionary awards should not be used to support activities involving:

Race-Based Selection

Programs that use race or intentional proxies for race in employment or participation decisions.

Gender Ideology

Activities that deny the sex binary or treat sex as mutable, as defined elsewhere in the proposal.

Illegal Immigration

Activities that promote or facilitate illegal immigration.

"Anti-American Values"

Activities deemed to compromise public safety or promote anti-American values.

The proposal does not further define "anti-American values" in this section.

(b)(3) Preference for Lower Indirect Cost Rates

When other factors are equal, preference should be given to institutions with lower indirect cost rates.

(b)(4) Distribution of Awards

Agencies should seek a mix of recipients and support both:

• projects with near-term results,
• projects with longer-term breakthrough potential.

(b)(5) Gold Standard Science

Applicants should commit to administration policies concerning Gold Standard Science.

(b)(6) Benchmarks and Performance Measures

Awards should include measurable benchmarks and indicators of success.

(b)(7) Institutional Evaluation

Agencies should prioritize demonstrated commitment to rigorous and reproducible scholarship rather than historical reputation or prestige.

For scientific awards, agencies should consider evidence of implementing Gold Standard Science.

(b)(8)

Cross-references additional provisions elsewhere in the proposed rule.

200.205(c) — Independent Judgment

Senior appointees must exercise independent judgment during review.

The proposal states that reviewers should not simply ratify recommendations from staff, peer reviewers, or advisory panels.

200.205(d) — Peer Review

The proposal explicitly permits peer review.

However, peer-review recommendations are advisory only.

The proposal states that:

• peer reviewers cannot effectively make final funding decisions,
• agency leadership should not routinely defer to peer-review recommendations,
• peer review should not become de facto binding.

200.205(e) — Agency Discretion Not to Fund

An agency may decline to issue awards under a funding opportunity if agency leadership concludes:

• proposals are not sufficiently strong,
• funding would be inconsistent with the principles of the rule.

The agency may instead reopen or reissue the competition.

Why People Are Discussing It

This section concerns how Federal funding decisions are made.

Historically, many discretionary research and program awards have involved some combination of:

• expert review,
• peer review,
• agency staff recommendations,
• agency leadership approval.

The proposal creates a more formal role for senior political appointees in evaluating awards after the merit-review process has occurred. As a result, people see implications for:

• research funding,
• educational grants,
• workforce-development programs,
• community-based initiatives,
• scientific independence,
• democratic accountability,
• institutional planning,
• applicant behavior.

Questions to Consider

Role of Expert Review

• What role should subject-matter experts play in funding decisions?
• What role should peer review play?
• What kinds of expertise are most important when evaluating proposals?

Role of Political Leadership

• What role should elected administrations play in directing Federal spending?
• How should political priorities be reflected in discretionary awards?
• How should agencies balance expertise and democratic accountability?

Presidential Priorities

• How might changing administrations affect funding priorities?
• How much continuity should exist across administrations?
• How should applicants plan when priorities change?

Race, Sex, and Program Design

• Do any programs at your institution involve targeted recruitment, mentoring, outreach, or support activities?
• Would those programs require review under the proposed language?
• Are there terms in the proposal that require clarification?

Gender-Related Activities

• Would any federally funded activities at your institution be affected by the proposal’s gender-related provisions?
• How would compliance be evaluated?
• What guidance would institutions need?

Lower Indirect Cost Rates

• Would preference for lower indirect-cost rates affect institutions differently?
• How might the provision affect HBCUs, MSIs, Tribal Colleges, PUIs, research universities, nonprofits, or community organizations?
• Would some institutions be advantaged or disadvantaged?

Gold Standard Science

• What does rigorous and reproducible scholarship mean in your field?
• How should Gold Standard Science be evaluated?
• Does the concept apply equally across disciplines?

Long-Term vs. Immediate Results

• How should agencies balance projects with immediate outcomes and projects with uncertain but potentially transformative outcomes?
• Are some fields more dependent on long-term investments than others?

Institutional Reputation

• How should agencies evaluate institutions?
• What indicators best predict future success?
• Should historical prestige play any role?

Predictability and Planning

• How would an additional review stage affect applicants?
• Would the proposal affect proposal development?
• Would it affect willingness to pursue Federal funding?

---

200.218 — Prohibition on Using Federal Awards to Promote or Support Theories of Disparate-Impact Liability

What Changed?

The proposed rule would prohibit Federal agencies, pass-through entities, recipients, and subrecipients from promoting, supporting, adopting, or enforcing disparate-impact liability theories in connection with Federal awards, to the maximum extent permitted by law.

The proposal states that disparate-impact liability is inconsistent with constitutional principles and Federal civil-rights laws and directs agencies and recipients to revise policies accordingly.

200.218(a) — General Prohibition

Federal agencies must eliminate the use of disparate-impact liability in all contexts relevant to Federal awards to the maximum extent permitted by law.

The proposal states that disparate-impact liability should not be used as a basis for administering Federal financial assistance.

200.218(b) — Federal Agency and Pass-Through Entity Responsibilities

Federal agencies and pass-through entities would be required to:

(b)(1) Restrict Certain Activities

Ensure that Federal awards are not used to support:

• disparate-impact studies,
• disparate-impact litigation,
• activities related to disparate-impact liability,
• activities undertaken because of assumed disparate-impact risk.

(b)(2) Revise Guidance and Award Requirements

Not adopt, issue, or enforce:

• award conditions,
• guidance,
• policies,
• procedures,

that promote, support, or incorporate disparate-impact liability.

(b)(3) Review Existing Materials

Review existing terms, guidance, policies, and procedures to ensure consistency with the rule.

200.218(c) — Recipient and Subrecipient Responsibilities

Recipients and subrecipients would be required to:

(c)(1) Avoid Disparate-Impact Standards

Not adopt, issue, or enforce disparate-impact liability standards in administering federally supported activities.

(c)(2) Review Existing Policies

Review policies and procedures associated with Federal financial assistance and revise them as necessary.

200.218(d) — Internal Analysis Exception

Recipients may conduct statistical or demographic analysis for internal purposes.

Examples include:

• research,
• program evaluation,
• internal assessment.

However:

• Federal award funds may not be used to conduct such analyses; and
• the results may not be used to adjust activities supported by the Federal award in ways prohibited by the section.

200.218(e) — Definition of Disparate-Impact Liability

The proposal defines disparate-impact liability as a theory under which a facially neutral policy may be treated as discriminatory because different groups experience different outcomes, even when:

• no discriminatory policy exists,
• no discriminatory intent exists,
• equal opportunity is provided.

The proposal states that such theories encourage consideration of protected characteristics such as race or sex and may conflict with principles of equal treatment and merit-based decision-making.

Why People Are Discussing It

This section affects how institutions think about:

• civil-rights compliance,
• program evaluation,
• student success initiatives,
• accessibility efforts,
• demographic data collection,
• hiring practices,
• recruitment practices,
• outreach programs,
• educational opportunity,
• performance measurement.

The proposal addresses lawsuits, but also how organizations evaluate and respond to differences in outcomes among groups. As a result, people see implications in many different parts of institutional life.

Questions to Consider

Program Evaluation

• How does your organization currently evaluate whether programs are reaching intended populations?
• What information is collected?
• How are demographic outcomes assessed?
• Would the proposed rule affect those evaluations?

Data Collection and Analysis

• Does your institution collect demographic information related to participation, retention, completion, hiring, or advancement?
• How is that information used?
• Which analyses currently rely on Federal support?
• Would the proposal affect how data are collected, analyzed, or interpreted?

Educational Opportunity

• How does your institution identify barriers to participation?
• How does it identify populations that may be underserved?
• What information is used to make those determinations?
• Would the proposal affect those processes?

Accessibility

• How are accessibility needs identified?
• How does your institution determine whether programs are accessible?
• What forms of assessment are currently used?
• Would the proposal affect those assessments?

Student Success and Retention

• Does your institution monitor differences in outcomes among student populations?
• How are those findings used?
• Would the proposal affect efforts designed to improve retention, completion, or student support?

Hiring and Employment

• Does your institution review hiring outcomes?
• What role do demographic analyses play?
• Would the proposal affect employment-related practices supported through Federal awards?

Research Activities

• Are federally funded research projects studying educational outcomes, social inequality, public policy, demographics, public health, or related topics?
• Could the proposal affect those projects?
• How should agencies distinguish research from program administration?

HBCUs, MSIs, Tribal Colleges, Community Colleges, and Access-Oriented Institutions

• How does your institution assess whether it is fulfilling its mission?
• How does it identify populations that may face barriers?
• What role does demographic analysis play in that process?
• Would the proposal affect how success is measured?

Compliance and Implementation

• Which existing policies would require review?
• Which offices would be responsible for implementation?
• Are the boundaries of the prohibition sufficiently clear?
• What guidance would institutions need?

For folks at HBCUs, HSIs, Tribal Colleges, women's colleges, disability-serving organizations, and many small liberal-arts colleges, it might help to ask yourself:

If your institution observes differences in participation, retention, graduation, hiring, promotion, accessibility, or program outcomes among different populations, what actions are currently taken in response, and would any of those actions need to change under the proposed rule?

---

200.220 — Covered Foreign Collaborations

What Changed?

The proposed rule creates a broad prohibition on the use of Federal funds in support of collaborations involving certain foreign countries and foreign entities.

200.220(a) — General Prohibition

Recipients and subrecipients may not obligate or expend Federal funds to support a bilateral or multilateral collaboration, agreement, program, or activity involving:

• a covered foreign country, or
• a covered foreign entity.

The prohibition applies unless an exception is granted under 200.220(c).

200.220(b) — Scope of the Prohibition

The prohibition applies regardless of how Federal funds are used. The rule explicitly includes:

• research activities,
• technical assistance,
• travel,
• direct programmatic costs,
• indirect costs allocable to the collaboration.

As written, the proposal is not limited to direct research funding.

200.220(c) — Exceptions

A Federal agency may authorize an exception when:

• a Federal statute expressly permits the activity, or
• the agency head or designee determines that the activity:
  • does not pose a national-security risk, and
  • is in the national interest of the United States.

200.220(d) — Definitions

Covered Foreign Country

A country designated through statute, Executive Order, or other Federal law as:

• a foreign adversary,
• a country of particular concern,
• or a country subject to national-security-related sanctions or restrictions.

Covered Foreign Entity

An entity that is:

• owned or controlled by a covered foreign country,
• acting on behalf of a covered foreign country,
• identified on certain Federal concern lists,
• affiliated with military, intelligence, or security services of a covered foreign country.

Why People Are Discussing It

This section addresses national security, international engagement, institutional compliance, and the structure of modern research collaboration. Notice that the administration may add to the covered entities list by issuing an Executive Order, which is not checked by any other part of government.

Many academic, educational, scientific, technical, and community partnerships involve international participants.

The proposal raises questions about:

• how covered entities will be identified,
• how recipients will determine compliance,
• how existing collaborations will be treated,
• how exceptions will be granted,
• how broadly the prohibition will be interpreted.

Because the prohibition extends beyond direct research expenditures, commenters are also examining potential effects on educational activities, conferences, travel, mentoring relationships, and professional networks.

Questions to Consider

Existing Collaborations

• Does your institution currently participate in international collaborations?
• How many of those collaborations involve entities that could potentially fall within these definitions?
• How would existing agreements be affected?
• Would collaborations need to be terminated, restructured, or reviewed?

Compliance and Administration

• How would recipients determine whether a foreign entity is covered?
• Who would be responsible for making those determinations?
• What information would institutions need from Federal agencies?
• How often could covered-country or covered-entity designations change?
• How much administrative burden would compliance create?

Research and Scholarship

• How important are international collaborations in your field?
• Are important datasets, facilities, archives, field sites, or research communities located abroad?
• Could some research questions become more difficult to pursue?
• How might the proposal affect collaborative publications or joint projects?

Conferences, Travel, and Professional Activities

• How important are international conferences in your field?
• How do researchers establish collaborations?
• How do students enter professional networks?
• Would uncertainty about compliance affect participation in international meetings?

Student Opportunities

• How do students benefit from international engagement?
• Are students involved in collaborative research projects?
• Do students participate in international conferences, exchanges, field experiences, or workshops?
• Would the proposal affect those opportunities?

HBCUs, MSIs, PUIs, and Smaller Institutions

• Do international collaborations provide opportunities that are otherwise unavailable locally?
• How would smaller institutions evaluate compliance risks?
• Would uncertainty make institutions more cautious about international engagement?
• Would institutions with limited legal and compliance resources face unique challenges?

Community and Diaspora Connections

• Does your institution serve communities with strong international ties?
• Could the proposal affect educational, cultural, scientific, or community partnerships?
• Could the effects differ across fields or populations?

National Security and Risk Management

• What national-security concerns should agencies address?
• What types of collaborations raise legitimate concerns?
• How should agencies distinguish high-risk and low-risk activities?
• What information should be required before granting exceptions?

Exceptions Process

• Is the proposed exceptions process sufficiently clear?
• What standards should agencies use when evaluating exceptions?
• How quickly should requests be processed?
• What level of transparency should accompany exception decisions?
• (Are international collaborations primarily a research activity at your institution, or are they also an educational activity?
• Does scholarly collaboration function as the mechanism through which undergraduates at your institution gain access to research communities, conferences, mentors, graduate-school pathways, and professional networks?

---

200.300(b) — Limitations on Authorized Use of Federal Award Funds

What Changed?

The proposed rule would require Federal agencies and pass-through entities, to the maximum extent permitted by law, to ensure that Federal awards and subawards are not used to fund, promote, encourage, subsidize, or facilitate certain activities.

The proposal identifies three categories.

200.300(b)(1) — DEI and DEIA Activities

Federal funds could not be used to support DEI or DEIA policies, principles, or practices that violate applicable Federal anti-discrimination laws.

The proposal specifically references:

• racial preferences,
• racial discrimination,
• the use of race,
• the use of intentional proxies for race,

in employment or program participation decisions.

The proposal also cross-references 200.218.

200.300(b)(2) — Gender Ideology

Federal funds could not be used to support what the proposal defines as "gender ideology," referencing Executive Order 14168.

The proposal incorporates the Executive Order’s definition.

200.300(b)(3) — Transition of Minors

Federal funds could not be used to support activities associated with the transition of individuals under age 19 from one sex to another, as defined through Executive Order 14187.

The proposal incorporates the Executive Order’s definitions and terminology.

Why People Are Discussing It

This section does not primarily concern accounting or reporting.

Instead, it concerns the scope of activities that may be supported with Federal funds.

Organizations are examining how the language could affect:

• hiring practices,
• student-support programs,
• mentoring initiatives,
• outreach activities,
• accessibility efforts,
• training programs,
• health-related services,
• educational programming,
• research activities,
• community partnerships,
• compliance responsibilities.

Because the proposal incorporates definitions from Executive Orders, commenters may also be considering how those definitions would be interpreted in practice.

Questions to Consider

Compliance and Implementation

• How would your institution determine whether a program falls within these restrictions?
• Who would make those determinations?
• What guidance would recipients need?
• Are the relevant terms sufficiently clear?
• How much administrative review would be required?

Educational Programs

• Does your institution operate programs intended to broaden participation in particular fields?
• How are those programs structured?
• Would the proposed language affect them?
• Would any existing programs require modification?

Student Support and Mentoring

• Are there mentoring programs intended to support particular student populations?
• How are those programs funded?
• Would the proposed language affect eligibility criteria or program design?

Accessibility and Inclusion

• How does your institution approach accessibility and inclusion?
• Which activities are currently supported with Federal funds?
• Would the proposal change how those activities are designed or described?

Research Participation

• Are there federally funded efforts intended to increase participation in research?
• How are those programs evaluated?
• Would the proposal affect recruitment, retention, or outreach efforts?

Gender-Related Activities

• Are there federally funded activities that involve gender identity, gender-related health, or gender-related educational programming?
• How would the proposal affect those activities?
• What guidance would institutions need to ensure compliance?

Institutional Mission

• Does your institution have goals related to access, representation, inclusion, accessibility, or broadening participation?
• Would the proposal affect how those goals are pursued?
• Would the proposal affect how those goals are described in grant proposals or reports?

Legal and Administrative Uncertainty

• Are there terms in the proposal that require additional clarification?
• Could different institutions interpret the requirements differently?
• What compliance challenges might arise?

---

200.333 — Fixed-Amount Subawards

What Changed?

The proposed rule would eliminate or substantially restrict the use of fixed-amount subawards. Under a fixed-amount structure, recipients and subrecipients agree in advance on a defined proposal and payment amount. The proposed approach would generally require greater reliance on actual-cost reimbursement.

Why People Are Discussing It

Fixed-amount subawards are often used for:

• workshops,
• educational activities,
• community partnerships,
• small research collaborations,
• summer programs,
• technical assistance,
• well-defined deliverables.

The proposed change raises questions about accountability, administrative burden, and the feasibility of small collaborations.

Questions to Consider

• Does your organization participate in fixed-amount subawards?
• What activities use them?
• How much administrative effort do they save?
• What additional documentation would be required under reimbursement models?
• Would some partnerships become less attractive?
• Would community organizations be affected?
• Would smaller institutions be affected differently than larger institutions?
• How should agencies balance flexibility and accountability?

---

200.340 — Termination of Federal Awards

What Changed?

The proposed rule revises Federal award termination provisions and establishes circumstances under which agencies and pass-through entities may terminate awards.

The most significant addition is a new discretionary termination authority allowing agencies to terminate awards when they determine that continued funding is no longer consistent with:

• program goals,
• agency priorities,
• or the national interest,

as those priorities exist at the time the termination decision is made.

The proposal also requires agencies to incorporate termination provisions into award terms and conditions.

200.340(a)(1) — Termination for Noncompliance

A Federal award may be terminated if a recipient or subrecipient fails to comply with award requirements.

Examples may include:

• reporting failures,
• compliance violations,
• failure to satisfy award conditions,
• failure to report required subawards.

This is generally consistent with existing grant-management practices.

200.340(a)(2) — Discretionary Termination

A Federal agency or pass-through entity may terminate an award, in whole or in part, when it determines that termination is in its interest.

The proposal specifically includes situations in which the award no longer advances:

• program goals,
• agency priorities,
• the national interest.

Importantly, the rule refers to priorities and interests "as they exist at the time of the termination."

The proposal does not require a finding of misconduct or noncompliance before such a termination occurs.

200.340(a)(3) — Mutual Agreement

An award may be terminated by agreement between the parties. The parties may negotiate:

• effective dates,
• termination conditions,
• treatment of remaining activities,
• treatment of remaining funds.

200.340(a)(4) — Recipient-Initiated Termination

Recipients and subrecipients may terminate awards by providing written notice. However, the agency may terminate the entire award if it determines that the remaining activities can no longer accomplish the original purpose of the award.

200.340(a)(5) — Additional Termination Provisions

Agencies and pass-through entities may include additional termination provisions in award agreements if otherwise authorized by law. This allows agencies to establish award-specific termination clauses beyond those listed in the regulation.

200.340(b) — Required Award Language

The proposal requires agencies and pass-through entities to clearly specify termination provisions in award terms and conditions. The proposal requires awards to permit termination under:

• noncompliance,
• discretionary termination,
• mutual agreement,
• recipient notification.

Additional termination provisions may also be included.

200.340(b)(2) — Exceptions

Certain categories of awards wouldn't be subject to the discretionary termination authority. Examples include:

• formula grants,
• entitlement programs,
• many block grants,
• certain disaster-recovery awards,
• specified Commerce Department and CHIPS Act programs,
• certain awards tied to international trade agreements.

Additional exceptions would generally require OMB approval.

Why People Are Discussing It

This section concerns predictability, planning, and the relationship between award recipients and funding agencies.

Many federally funded activities require long planning horizons.

Organizations often make commitments involving:

• personnel,
• students,
• equipment,
• facilities,
• community partnerships,
• multi-year research projects,
• student support,
• faculty hiring,
• staff hiring,
• postdoctoral appointments,
• research programs,
• educational programs,
• infrastructure development.

The proposed discretionary termination authority raises questions about how recipients should plan when agency priorities may change over time.

Questions to Consider

Long-Term Planning

• How far in advance does your organization plan activities supported by Federal awards?
• What commitments are made at the beginning of an award?
• How would increased termination authority affect those decisions?

Student Support

• Are students supported through grant-funded positions, stipends, scholarships, or research opportunities?
• How would mid-award termination affect those students?
• How would institutions manage disruptions?

Faculty and Staff Hiring

• Are employees hired using grant funds?
• What obligations exist to those employees?
• How would termination risk affect hiring decisions?

Community Partnerships

• Does your institution collaborate with schools, nonprofits, clinics, museums, community organizations, or local governments?
• How would unexpected termination affect those partnerships?
• Could trust be affected?

Research Projects

• Do projects require multi-year planning?
• Are some disciplines more vulnerable than others?
• What happens when projects depend on continuity?

HBCUs, MSIs, Tribal Colleges, Community Colleges, and PUIs

• Do Federal awards support programs that would otherwise not exist?
• How much institutional flexibility exists to absorb a termination?
• Would smaller institutions experience termination differently than larger institutions?

Institutional Risk Management

• Would institutions become more cautious about pursuing Federal awards?
• Would institutions change the kinds of projects they propose?
• Would contingency planning become more important?

Agency Priorities

• How should agencies define program goals?
• How should changing priorities be managed?
• How much continuity should exist across administrations?
• Should priorities at the time of award or priorities at the time of termination carry greater weight?

Notice and Due Process

• What notice should recipients receive before termination?
• Should recipients have an opportunity to respond?
• What information should agencies provide when terminating an award?

Additional Termination Clauses

• How should recipients evaluate award-specific termination provisions?
• Are there limits that should be placed on additional termination authority?

Special Questions for Small Colleges and Teaching-Focused Institutions

At many small colleges, a Federal award does more than fund a project.

It may fund:

• undergraduate researchers,
• summer programs,
• travel opportunities,
• community partnerships,
• graduate-school preparation,
• faculty scholarship.

Ask yourself:

If a project could be terminated because agency priorities or the national interest change during the award period, would that affect the kinds of commitments your institution is willing to make to students, faculty, staff, or community partners?

Special Questions for HBCUs, MSIs, and Access-Oriented Institutions

Many institutions use Federal awards to create long-term pathways into research, graduate education, workforce development, and community engagement.

Ask yourself:

How much stability is necessary to build programs that require sustained mentoring, recruitment, retention, and student support over multiple years?

---

200.461 — Travel, Conferences, Publications, and Dissemination

What Changed?

The proposed rule limits or conditions the allowability of certain dissemination-related expenses.

These may include:

• conference participation,
• professional travel,
• publication expenses,
• outreach activities,
• public dissemination efforts.

Why People Are Discussing It

Research is communicated through publications, conferences, workshops, seminars, public engagement, and professional networks. In some fields, dissemination is an integral part of research rather than a separate activity.

Questions to Consider

• How do researchers in your field share knowledge?
• What role do conferences play?
• How do students benefit from professional meetings?
• How do collaborations begin?
• How important are publications?
• How do community members access research findings?
• How might dissemination restrictions affect educational opportunities?
• Could effects differ across disciplines?
• How should agencies balance accountability and communication?

---

Zoom Out: Reputational Harm and Public Communication Provisions

What Changed?

Several proposed provisions create new considerations regarding public communications, dissemination activities, and activities that agencies may view as inconsistent with federal priorities. The proposal also raises questions about the circumstances under which awards may be reviewed, restricted, or terminated based on broader policy concerns.

Why People Are Discussing It

Research institutions frequently engage in:

• public scholarship,
• community engagement,
• policy discussion,
• educational outreach,
• public-facing communication.

Commenters are discussing how proposed language might affect these activities.

Questions to Consider

• How important is public communication to your work?
• How should agencies distinguish research findings from advocacy?
• How should agencies evaluate reputational concerns?
• Could uncertainty affect what organizations choose to communicate publicly?
• How might public engagement activities be affected?
• How should academic freedom be balanced against agency priorities?
• How should agencies protect public trust while supporting open inquiry?

---

Zoom Out: Accessibility, Representation, and Participation

What Changed?

Several provisions throughout the proposed rule affect how agencies define success, evaluate programs, assess impacts, monitor recipients, and establish priorities. Taken together, these changes will influence who participates in federally funded research, education, and public programs.

Why People Are Discussing It

Different institutions and communities experience federal programs differently.

Commenters may wish to discuss impacts on:

• students,
• early-career researchers,
• community organizations,
• HBCUs,
• Tribal Colleges,
• HSIs,
• community colleges,
• small colleges,
• rural institutions,
• people with disabilities,
• historically underserved populations.

Questions to Consider

• Who benefits from federally funded programs?
• Who participates in federally funded research?
• What barriers currently exist?
• How should agencies evaluate participation?
• How should agencies evaluate accessibility?
• How should agencies identify unintended consequences?
• How should agencies assess community impact?
• What outcomes matter most to your institution or community?
• Which outcomes are currently measured?
• Which outcomes are not measured?