I’m writing to call the attention of your readership to a proposal by the Office of Management and Budget to revamp the grants funding process that will have far-reaching and dramatic consequences for all federal grant recipients. The reach of this change touches nearly every aspect of our lives.
For instance, in San Diego, this includes social and human services (County CalWORKS and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block grants), city and county housing and community development block grants, public safety (San Diego first responders), highway/road and building projects (state Route 11 and Otay Mesa East Port of Entry), sanitation and water projects (Pure Water program), after-school programs and small businesses, in addition to scientific research, to name just a few. Any program that employs contractors or workers will face substantially increased auditing and accounting work to ensure compliance with E-Verify and financial use regulations, and businesses that rely on patents will face increased cost, risk and burden of patent filings.
Scientific and technical innovation will suffer as the rules place sole power for approving, shaping and terminating grants in the hands of political appointees, ultimately in the Office of Management and Budget. Expert review is considered advisory and optional. Funding stability is not assured, as funding can be terminated at any time by political appointees.
This proposal appears to turn federal support of research into a mechanism for driving ideologically driven pseudoscience, but is in fact much broader and more dangerous, affecting approximately $882.8 billion spread across 1,183 funded federal grant programs.
This proposal was published the day before (May 29) a holiday weekend and allows only a 45-day period for comments. The text of the proposal is 412 pages, and it is scheduled to take effect Oct. 1. In contrast, the federal regulations that govern research and development of new drugs (21CFR 312 and 314), number approximately 150 pages and have been evolving since 1962.
The articles that are hyperlinked above were written by a retired senior National Institutes of Health grants official who articulately lays out the threats and provides concrete and pragmatic steps for opposing this proposal based on her deep expertise.
Ask yourself: If my tax dollars are not going to be used for funds to benefit me, where are they going to go? Then file comments at regulations.gov/document/OMB-2026-0034-0001 by July 13. When you write:
— Be clear (about why you are concerned).
— Be specific about which section of the proposal you are commenting on (see the hyperlinked articles).
— Be personal about how this proposal will affect you.
— Don’t be afraid. Others are standing up with you, and you are the expert on what affects you.
The first and most immediate steps are to 1. File comments to the Federal Register docket requesting that the comment period be extended to Sept. 11, and 2. Prepare and file your substantive comments.
This is a serious matter that requires our entire community to mobilize. Please file comments expressing your concerns. By law, all comments must be reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget and the entire record will be archived and can be used in future legal proceedings. Please also contact your local, state and/or federal legislators to urge them to act in opposition to this proposed rule.
Kobayashi is an oncologist, clinical pharmacologist and drug development executive who lives in Rancho Santa Fe.