On May 29, 2026, the Office of Management and Budget published a proposed rule in the Federal Register that would overhaul the Uniform Grants Guidance, the administrative framework governing all federal grantmaking. The rule, jointly issued with about 40 federal agencies, would convert the existing non-binding guidance into a binding regulation called the Uniform Grants Regulation, giving OMB's future rulemaking automatic legal effect across all agencies without the need for each agency to adopt it separately. (Source 1, 2)
The public comment period closed July 13, 2026, with 496,769 comments submitted to the docket, compared with approximately 2,200 comments on the last revision of the Uniform Guidance in 2024. (Source 4)
What the rule would change
The proposed rule would require each federal agency to designate a senior political appointee to conduct a pre-issuance review of all discretionary awards, applying principles that awards must demonstrably advance the President's policy priorities. (Source 2) It would prohibit using federal awards to fund DEI initiatives, gender ideology as defined by Executive Order 14168, transition of a child under 19 under Executive Order 14187, disparate-impact liability, and other initiatives that compromise public safety or promote anti-American values, though the rule generally does not define those terms. (Source 3) Conference and advertising costs would become unallowable without pre-approval from the awarding agency. (Source 3) States would be required to conduct additional verification before disbursing federal grant funds to school districts. (Source 3) The rule would also allow agencies to terminate awards at their discretion if the award no longer effectuates program goals, agency priorities, or the national interest as they exist at the time of termination, with no minimum notice period or appeal process specified. (Source 2) Portions of the changes apply to formula grants including Title I and IDEA, while Impact Aid and the National School Lunch Program are partially exempt. (Source 3) OMB has proposed an effective date of October 1, 2026, for the final rule. (Source 2)
Public response
An analysis of the first 52,322 posted comments, conducted by STAT and researchers at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, found that about 95 percent opposed the proposed rule and about 1 percent supported it. (Source 4) A separate analysis by TechPolicy.Press of all posted comments found roughly 94 percent opposed and 6 percent supported, with form letters making up about 16 percent of comments. (Source 5) Support was almost entirely organized, with nearly nine in ten supportive comments coming from a single form-letter campaign, while opposition was mostly grassroots. (Source 5)
Comparative precedent
The most recent prior update to the Uniform Guidance, in 2024 under the Biden administration, drew about 2,200 comments. (Source 4) The Trump administration's attempts to mass terminate grants in 2025 and 2026 resulted in multiple lawsuits, and the proposed rule's discretionary termination provisions are described as a direct response to those legal challenges, providing a regulatory framework for termination for convenience similar to clauses in the Federal Acquisition Regulation for government contracts. (Source 2) The proposed conversion of the Uniform Guidance into a binding regulation mirrors the structure of the Federal Acquisition Regulation, which serves as baseline procurement regulations for all federal agencies and is supplemented through agency-specific regulations such as the Defense FAR Supplement. (Source 8)
Education sector reaction
The National Education Association, representing about three million members, submitted comments in strong opposition, arguing the rule would fundamentally reshape the rules governing how federal grants are awarded, administered, monitored, suspended, and terminated by expanding political review and diminishing the role of independent expert review. (Source 6) Three education research organizations—the National Academy of Education (signed by 19 other groups), the American Educational Research Association, and the Knowledge Alliance—asked for the entire proposal to be withdrawn. (Source 7) They argued the pre-issuance review requirement could reduce the role of independent scientific review, the DEI and disparate-impact restrictions could narrow the questions researchers study, and the alignment-with-federal-priorities requirement could give political considerations too much influence in funding decisions. (Source 7) The Education Department and the National Science Foundation have already begun advancing adoption of the UGG changes in their own regulations, ahead of the final rule. (Source 3)