Public Comment Regarding OMB's Rule Proposal to Require Political Approval of Federal Awards

In response to OMB's proposed regulations for Federal Financial Assistance (OMB-2026-0034) the Alliance for Higher Education submitted the below letter for public comment.

‍

To Whom It May Concern:

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the OMB proposed Rule “Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance” (OMB-2026-0034) on behalf of the Alliance for Higher Education (the Alliance). 

The Alliance is a coalition created to unite the higher education sector and advance and protect 1) the freedom to teach, learn, and research; 2) fair opportunity for students, faculty, and staff to thrive; and 3) the sector’s autonomy and right to self-govern free from partisan influence.

While the federal government has a legitimate interest in ensuring that recipients of federal assistance comply with applicable law and use the funds responsibly, the proposed Rule threatens First Amendment protections for faculty and students, creates barriers to pursue and advance empirical facts, and establishes a precedent that will allow rules of this nature to shift during every election that places an exceptional burden on institutions and researchers and jeopardizes long-term scientific breakthroughs. 

‍The proposed Rule threatens First Amendment protections for faculty and students: The United States is a dynamic and diverse nation. The lived experiences of individuals and communities across this nation are unique and rooted not only in today’s environment, but also reflect our national, regional, and local histories. The Rule prohibits using federal awards to promote or support theories of disparate-impact liability.

A core pillar of research is that it must follow facts and pursue new ideas and perspectives based on new empirical evidence and/or evaluation of prior theories and knowledge as discoveries are made. Such a ban on research that connects to disparate-impact liability neglects empirical facts and is a clear violation of researchers’ First Amendment rights. In addition, it is critical to advance research that supports the health and well-being of minority communities, which requires the ability to examine policies and elements of society and explore their impacts on people.

The proposed rule will create an exceptional burden on institutions and researchers and establish a precedent for election-driven changes in award requirements: The success of America’s research enterprise following World War II has relied on the pursuit of truth and knowledge. This focus and autonomy led to the basic research that later became GLP-1 medications and cures built upon CRISPR technology. Breakthroughs are the results of decades of studies that build upon each other and expand our knowledge and imaginations. These discoveries would be impossible if they were only amenable during select federal administrations. Disruption of long-term research endeavors will delay society-altering and life-saving findings and also place a substantial burden on institutions and researchers as they will be forced to alter their research activities and infrastructures to accommodate what is amenable to federal administrations. These changes cannot be made quickly and will result in notable and unnecessary costs for institutions, prioritization of short-term initiatives, and create an environment where the United States is less competitive on the global stage.

Conclusion: 

The proposed Rule threatens First Amendment protections for faculty and students, creates barriers to pursue and advance empirical facts, and establishes a precedent that will derail long-term and life-saving scientific and medical progress in order to accommodate federal assistance requirements shifting as the result of every national election. For these reasons, we respectfully urge the withdrawal of this Rule.  Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important matter.

‍

Sincerely, 

Mike Gavin, PhD 

President and CEO of the Alliance for Higher Education

‍