Colleagues,
On May 29, OMB published a proposed rule rewriting 2 CFR Part 200 (the Uniform Guidance), representing the largest revision since 2013. The rule, titled "Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance," would give political appointees the authority to review grant proposals, decide whether they're funded, and terminate active awards deemed inconsistent with agency priorities.
In a recent LinkedIn [post](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/ron-wasserstein_2026-10817pdf-share-7467671811132915712-pT4y/), Ron Wasserstein has shared the ASA's position: the ASA (1) shares the broader scientific community's concerns about the rule, including the potential for political rather than scientific influence over which research gets funded, and (2) is drafting an official comment, informed by member feedback. He's asked members to get familiar with the rule and share their thoughts with the ASA and their networks. His post links to Jeffrey Mervis's overview in Science: https://www.science.org/content/article/white-house-seeks-tighten-political-oversight-grantmaking
David Skorton (AAMC) also published a piece in STAT this week on the implications for the research enterprise: https://www.statnews.com/2026/06/12/omb-grantmaking-rule-uniform-guidance-politics-science/
As someone who writes and collaborates on federally funded grants, two concerns stand out to me personally that I'd like to highlight:
- Study design and power. Every power analysis I write assumes the study runs to completion. A framework permitting mid-award termination undermines the design of any multi-year study - think longitudinal cohorts, stepped-wedge trials, anything with planned interim analyses.
- Merit review. While peer review evaluates whether the methods can actually answer the question, a political review is not contingent on the methods section at all. Funding decisions would turn on considerations entirely orthogonal a study's quality and rigor.
I'm sure others here have their own thoughts from consulting practice, and I'd be interested to hear them both for discussion and hopefully as input for the ASA's draft. Individual comments are also open through July 13 at regulations.gov, where perspectives grounded in technical expertise carry particular weight in the rulemaking record.
------------------------------
Ryan Peterson
ASA Statistical Consulting Section Chair 2026
Associate Professor
University of Iowa
------------------------------