200,000 comments and the state of US science

Innovation PolicyState Capacity

by Jordan Dworkin · about work by Alex Tabarrok, Chris Marcum, Abigail Haddad

This Monday was the deadline for public comments on OMB’s proposed rewrite of the rules governing federal grantmaking. The response was immense, with more than 200k comments submitted over the past few weeks. As expected, responses poured in from scientists, universities, societies, and publishing outfits. But because of the scope of the OMB proposal (it affects over $1 trillion in annual federal assistance), concern came from well beyond science, with the National Association of Counties filing its own comment, and the National League of Cities and Moody’s raising the potential negative impacts on project financing and credit for state and local borrowers. In Marginal Revolution, Alex Tabarrok highlighted broader, increasing alarm from organizations and thinkers not inclined towards hyperbole.

For Tech Policy Press, Chris Marcum and Abigail Haddad analyzed the ~50,000 comments posted by last week, and found roughly 94% opposed and 6% in support, with opposition largely grassroots (only ~1/8 of opposing comments came from a form letter) and comments in support almost entirely organized (nearly 9/10 supportive comments were from a single form-letter campaign). The dominant objections were the politicization of grant decisions and review, and the expanded termination authority. OMB has said it wants to finalize the rule by October 1 and has declined requests for an extension of the comment period. But litigation seems likely.

Even in the absence of the new rules, US science is continuing to strain under the pressure of this administration. NSF is on track for its worst grantmaking year since 1985 (~2,200 awards so far in FY26 compared to an FY21-24 average of almost 6,000); PhD admissions across top research universities fell 15% this year after a drop of 11% last year, with Caltech cutting its incoming class by 40%; and last week NSF moved to ban collaborations with nearly all Chinese research institutions, dropping an existing risk mitigation approach (TRUST) in favor of a flat prohibition.