ASA Connect

Dear ASA Community,

The Office of Management and Budget has proposed a final rule beginning Fiscal Year 2026 to establish political oversight of all federal grants (NSF, DOD, NIH, etc.). The comment period is open in the Federal Register until July 13, 2026, 11:59 PM ET. I urge you to comment before the due date. I beseech you to contact your US representatives before they take mandatory summer recess for all of August. You may discuss all of the provisions that trouble you, but if that becomes too overwhelming, you may concentrate on particular provisions that you understand the most. For example, I commented on the political appointee approval of the peer review process and how scientific councils, peer reviewers, and program must evaluate applications based on scientific merit and institutional support and not political affiliations because medical conditions such as cancer and dementia to not afflict patients based on ideologies. 

Stand Up For Science has provided an example of a script that may help you, and you may copy and paste as you see fit. If you are a federal employee, please comment as a private citizen, during your off-duty hours, and not on your government-furnished equipment, especially when contacting your representatives so that you abide by the Hatch Act.

Sincerely,

------------------------------
Theresa Y Kim (she/her)
------------------------------

Hi all:

I have replied on the OMB Rule.  Over my career, for 15 years, I was on several standing NIH study sections (grant review committees) and chaired one.  The strength of  US Federal Grant Systems is that politics have been almost entirely kept out.  Being on grant review committees is largely volunteer work and I encourage all of you who play this role to continue to do so.   To respond to the rule proposal, it is better to remind the rule makers of the following than put the proposers down. (1) These grants are highly complex and nuanced.  There are downstream implications of each grant, meaning that if you fail to support a grant, follow-up research is also curtailed, Expert subject matter experts are well tuned to this;(2) For NIH grants, some diseases have been stigmatized. Researchers should be free to make proposals that help cure disease, regardless of what the disease is (3) If politics overrules the will of a study section and federal council, it sends a chilling message to these volunteer reviewers and NIH faculty. This could erode the quality of the review process; (4)The US Research grant system is the envy of the world and has accomplished amazing things. Keep it that way by disallowing politics to dictate grant decisions.

Thanks to Theresa from bringing this to our attention.

Best,

Jon

------------------------------
Jonathan Shuster
------------------------------

Thanks to Theresa and Jon for their comments on this proposed rule. The ASA is very concerned about it and know this concern is shared widely by scores of other science societies with whom we meet weekly. We are discussing the proposed rule with them as well as how best to respond. One of the things we will ask of you is to do what Jon has already done: Submit a comment by July 13. A large number of responses from a diversity of perspectives will help to send a strong message. We also ask you to spread the word broader with your networks. The ASA will also be submitting a comment and you are welcome to suggest content for it via email to me (spierson@amstat.org).

Science's Jeff Mervis has an article on this: https://www.science.org/content/article/white-house-seeks-tighten-political-oversight-grantmaking. 

Steve

------------------------------
Steve Pierson
Director of Science Policy
American Statistical Association
------------------------------

Original Message:
Sent: 06-01-2026 17:04
From: Jonathan Shuster
Subject: OMB Final Rule on Regulating Federal Financial Assistance

Hi all:

I have replied on the OMB Rule.  Over my career, for 15 years, I was on several standing NIH study sections (grant review committees) and chaired one.  The strength of  US Federal Grant Systems is that politics have been almost entirely kept out.  Being on grant review committees is largely volunteer work and I encourage all of you who play this role to continue to do so.   To respond to the rule proposal, it is better to remind the rule makers of the following than put the proposers down. (1) These grants are highly complex and nuanced.  There are downstream implications of each grant, meaning that if you fail to support a grant, follow-up research is also curtailed, Expert subject matter experts are well tuned to this;(2) For NIH grants, some diseases have been stigmatized. Researchers should be free to make proposals that help cure disease, regardless of what the disease is (3) If politics overrules the will of a study section and federal council, it sends a chilling message to these volunteer reviewers and NIH faculty. This could erode the quality of the review process; (4)The US Research grant system is the envy of the world and has accomplished amazing things. Keep it that way by disallowing politics to dictate grant decisions.

Thanks to Theresa from bringing this to our attention.

Best,

Jon

------------------------------
Jonathan Shuster
------------------------------