How accurate is this?

A model sorts every comment into support, oppose, or neither. We checked 200 of them.
Back to the comment analysis

The judgment calls we made

Most of these comments are straightforward. For the ones that aren't, this is where we drew the lines, but we don't always hit them.

A comment has to actually engage this rule. A lot of comments here are angry at the administration, or care about what federal grants pay for, but are not specific in terms of discussing the rule. We count those as no position, however clear the commenter's overall sympathies are. “Funding for science is essential for our country” is not necessarily coded as opposition to the rule.

Backing the goal is not backing the rule. The rule says it is about waste and fraud. Wanting less waste is not support unless the comment backs the rule itself.

Asking for a fix is not automatically opposition. A lot of letters take up one provision and ask OMB to change or clarify it. Whether that counts as opposing the rule depends on the tone, and on how much of the letter is the ask versus approval of the rest. I had a really difficult time making judgements about how the model should label some of these as well, and I think even for some of these 200 that I helped label, it could have gone a different way.

How a comment gets labelled

These are the current prompts, and we did not re-run them over everything. They changed part-way through, and only some comments were labelled again afterwards.

1 First pass gpt-5.4-nano Every comment on the docket.

Reads the comment and its attachments, then assigns a position and the concerns it raises.

Changed 2026-08-15. "Unclear" had been reserved for off-topic or unreadable comments, so a comment that engaged the subject but took no position had nowhere to go. It was rewritten to cover comments that are procedural, that only describe the rule, or that argue for something adjacent without endorsing it.

Show the prompt 
You are analyzing public comments about a proposed rule: Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance.
Proposed OMB rule revising the Uniform Guidance for federal financial assistance (2 CFR, including sections 200.205 and 200.340 and several cost-principle sections). Commenters overwhelmingly describe it as shifting grant review and funding decisions away from independent expert peer review toward political appointees, attaching ideological conditions to awards, and restricting allowable costs.

For each comment, extract the following fields:

1. Position & Concerns: Select ALL positions and concerns that apply from the list below (0 or more; exact matches only).
   - Position: Oppose the proposed rule — Explicitly opposes, objects to, disagrees with, or urges withdrawal of the proposed rule
   - Position: Support the proposed rule — Endorses THIS RULE or a named provision of it ("I support this rule", "OMB should finalize this", "we support the performance-measurement requirement"). NOT its goals: wanting less waste, more oversight or accountability, or punishment of fraud is not support unless the comment ties it to backing this rule. Complaining about misspent grant money is a grievance, not an endorsement. Asking to revise or reconsider any part of the rule is not support. If the comment would read the same way had this rule never been proposed, select no position at all rather than this one.

   - Concern: Politicization of grant decisions — Political appointees or officials would control funding decisions; injecting politics/ideology into grants; political favoritism; centralized political control replacing career staff
   - Concern: Undermines peer review / merit-based funding — Weakens or bypasses independent expert peer review; funding should be based on scientific merit judged by experts, not administrators; removes merit review from §200.205
   - Concern: Scientific integrity and independence — Threatens the integrity, objectivity, or independence of federally funded research; censorship or suppression of findings that conflict with the administration's ideology
   - Concern: Harm to U.S. scientific leadership / competitiveness — Damages America's global lead in science and innovation; drives researchers abroad; loss of talent, discoveries, or economic/technological advantage to other nations
   - Concern: Ideological / viewpoint conditions (DEI, 'woke') — Objects to (or endorses) ideological conditions on awards, viewpoint-based restrictions, or the rule's framing of prior grants as advancing a 'woke'/DEI agenda
   - Concern: Restrictions on allowable costs — Objections to limits on indirect costs, conference/travel costs, publication or open-access costs, or other cost principles (e.g. §200.432, 200.454, 200.461, 200.206, 200.450)
   - Concern: Harm to public health and medical research — Threatens medical, health, or clinical research; cures and treatments delayed; harm to patients or public health (NIH, cancer, disease research, etc.)
   - Concern: Chilling effect on researchers / careers — Discourages scientists, students, or early-career researchers; uncertainty harms training pipeline; people leaving research or the country
   - Concern: Separation of powers / rule of law — Rule usurps congressional authority, bypasses statute, violates the Constitution or separation of powers, or represents executive overreach (may name Russ Vought / OMB / the administration)
   - Concern: Administrative burden or unworkable requirements — New requirements are vague, burdensome, delay funding, or are administratively unworkable for agencies or recipients
   - Concern: Waste, fraud, abuse, and accountability — Supports stronger oversight to protect taxpayers and prevent waste, fraud, or abuse of federal funds (typically raised by supporters of the rule)

2. Entity Type: What type of entity is submitting this comment? Choose exactly one from the list below.
   - Individual/Other
   - Researcher/Academic
   - University or Research Institution
   - Scientific/Professional Society
   - Patient/Family/Public Health
   - Nonprofit/Advocacy Organization
   - Industry/Business
   - Elected Official
Default to Individual/Other UNLESS the commenter explicitly self-identifies IN THE COMMENT TEXT. The submitter name or organization field alone is NOT sufficient evidence.
Researcher/Academic: the commenter explicitly identifies as someone who does research or works/studies in academia — scientist, researcher, principal investigator, professor, faculty member, lecturer, postdoc, graduate/PhD student, or research trainee ("I am a professor", "I run a research lab", "as a researcher", "I am a PhD student", "as a scientist"). This is one combined bucket — do not try to split professor vs. student vs. scientist.
University or Research Institution: the comment is submitted BY the institution as an entity (e.g. an official comment from a university, national lab, or research center), not by an individual who happens to work there.
Scientific/Professional Society: submitted BY a society, association, or professional membership organization as an entity.
Patient/Family/Public Health: the commenter identifies as a patient, a family member/caregiver of a patient, or a healthcare professional (physician, nurse, clinician) speaking to health/medical impact.
Nonprofit/Advocacy Organization: submitted BY a non-academic nonprofit or advocacy group.
Industry/Business: submitted BY or on behalf of a company or trade group.
Elected Official: the commenter explicitly identifies as a current or former elected official.
Talking ABOUT science or researchers does NOT make the commenter a researcher — require explicit self-identification. Individuals affiliated with an organization are classified by their personal role (usually Researcher/Academic or Individual/Other); reserve the organizational categories for comments submitted AS the organization.
RECOGNIZING ORGANIZATIONAL SUBMISSIONS (don't miss these — they are high-value): treat a comment as submitted AS the organization when an Organization Name names a real institution, society, association, company, or nonprofit AND the text speaks on its behalf — first-person plural ("we", "our members", "our society/association"), "on behalf of", "the undersigned organizations", or the organization is presented as the author. Use the matching category (University or Research Institution, Scientific/Professional Society, Nonprofit/Advocacy Organization, or Industry/Business) even when a named individual signs it. A short comment like "See attached" or a request to extend the comment period, paired with an organizational Organization Name, is an organizational submission. Do NOT be fooled the other way: an individual who merely lists an employer in the Organization Name but writes in the first person singular ("I am concerned…") is NOT the organization — classify by their personal role.

3. Identified As: Extract a VERBATIM quote from the text that justifies the entity type classification. Must be an exact substring from anywhere in the text including submitter name or organization. Leave empty if no identifying information.

4. State: If the submitter's US state can be identified from any clue in the text (city/state, institution location, etc.), provide the two-letter abbreviation (e.g. CA, TX). Leave empty if no state can be determined.

5. State Quote: Verbatim quote from the text justifying the state identification. Leave empty if no state identified.

6. Political: ONLY if the submitter explicitly self-identifies their political party (e.g. "as a Republican", "registered Democrat"). Do NOT infer from policy positions. Leave empty if no explicit self-identification.
   - Republican
   - Democrat
   - Independent
   - Libertarian

7. Political Quote: Verbatim quote where the submitter self-identifies their political affiliation. Leave empty if none.

8. Key Quote: The most important verbatim quote (max 100 words) capturing the essence of the comment.

9. Rationale: Brief explanation (1-2 sentences) of the classification selections.

Instructions:
- A comment may express multiple concerns or no clear position
- Only select items clearly expressed in the comment
- Be objective and avoid inserting personal opinions
- For entity type, prioritize explicit self-identification in the comment text over the submitter name
- Supporting the goals of oversight or fiscal responsibility while opposing the rule is still Oppose
2 Second pass gpt-5.4-mini Comments the first pass called Support or Unclear.

A stronger model re-reads them and can overturn the first pass.

Changed 2026-08-15. "Support" had counted agreement with the rule's goals, so wanting less waste or more oversight registered as support even when the comment never backed the rule. It now requires endorsing the rule or one of its provisions. Every comment labelled Support was then re-checked against its own text by a separate audit — gpt-5.4-mini, on a different prompt written to disagree rather than confirm — and the ones it disputed were re-run through this second pass, on the prompt shown here. 161 changed. Comments already labelled Oppose or Unclear were not re-run, so they still carry whatever the prompt said when they were labelled.

Show the prompt 
You are reviewing a public comment about a proposed OMB rule revising the Uniform Guidance for federal financial assistance (2 CFR, including sections 200.205 and 200.340). The rule would shift grant review and funding decisions away from independent expert peer review toward political appointees and attach new conditions to federal awards.
IMPORTANT CONTEXT: The vast majority of comments OPPOSE this rule. Classify the comment's overall position as exactly one of: "Oppose", "Support", or "Unclear".
- "Oppose" — opposes the rule. This includes comments that: object to political
  control of grant decisions; defend peer review, scientific merit, or scientific
  independence; warn of harm to research, public health, or U.S. competitiveness;
  criticize OMB, Russ Vought, or the administration over this rule; or express general
  outrage at the proposal even without naming a specific section. Supporting the general
  idea of oversight or fiscal responsibility while objecting to THIS rule is still Oppose.
- "Support" — the comment endorses THIS RULE, or specific provisions of it. Take an
  explicit "I support this rule" / "OMB should finalize this" at face value. Endorsing
  named provisions (e.g. "we support the performance-measurement requirement in
  §200.301") is Support.
  This requires an endorsement, not agreement with a goal. Wanting less waste, more
  oversight, more accountability, punishment of fraud, or political priority-setting is
  NOT Support unless the comment ties that to backing this rule. Complaining about how
  grant money has been misspent is a grievance, not an endorsement. Asking OMB to revise,
  soften, or reconsider any part of the rule is NOT Support. Defending peer review or
  scientific merit is never Support — that is the position this rule is understood to
  weaken. If the comment would read the same way had this rule never been proposed, it
  is "Unclear", not "Support".
- "Unclear" — use this in EITHER of two cases:
  (a) the comment is truly off-topic (not about federal grants or the rule), is a single
  ambiguous word, is incoherent, or is just docket metadata with no substantive content; or
  (b) the comment engages with the subject but states NO position on the rule itself —
  it is procedural (asking to extend the comment period, asking a question about process),
  it only describes or summarises the rule, or it argues for something adjacent (general
  oversight, accountability, fraud prevention, staffing) without endorsing or objecting to
  THIS rule. Wanting a goal the rule claims to serve is NOT the same as supporting the rule.
  If there is ANY indication of opposition sentiment, classify as Oppose. Do NOT reach for
  "Support" merely because the comment is not hostile — silence on the rule is "Unclear".

SARCASM CHECK: before calling something "Support", make sure the praise is sincere. A comment that says the rule is "amazing"/"wonderful" or "I support this" but then describes it causing harm — driving scientists or funding abroad, helping rival nations, ending U.S. scientific leadership, destroying research — is sarcastic and is OPPOSE. Genuine support argues the rule is good policy (oversight, less waste/fraud/abuse, taxpayer accountability).
LEAN TOWARD OPPOSE when the sentiment is negative toward the proposal.
3 Reference labels gpt-5.4 200 sampled comments.

Labels the sample from scratch, without seeing what the pipeline said.

Show the prompt 
You are building a gold-standard evaluation set. A human will review every one of your
labels, so show your work: quote the words you relied on and argue both sides.

THE RULE: Proposed OMB rule revising the Uniform Guidance for federal financial assistance (2 CFR, including sections 200.205 and 200.340 and several cost-principle sections). Commenters overwhelmingly describe it as shifting grant review and funding decisions away from independent expert peer review toward political appointees, attaching ideological conditions to awards, and restricting allowable costs.

Choose exactly one label:

- "oppose" — OPPOSE means the comment objects to this rule, read generously: objecting to any provision, defending peer review or scientific independence, warning of harm to research, public health or U.S. competitiveness from this proposal, criticising OMB or the administration over it, or general outrage at the proposal. It is NOT oppose when the comment states no position, is purely procedural, only describes the rule, is off-topic or incoherent, or in fact supports it.
- "support" — SUPPORT means the comment endorses THIS RULE or specific provisions of it — "I support this rule", "OMB should finalize this", or endorsing a named provision. It is NOT support when the comment merely wants less waste/fraud, more oversight or accountability without tying that to backing this rule; complains about how grant money has been misspent; asks OMB to revise, soften or reconsider any part of the rule; defends peer review or scientific merit (the position this rule weakens); or would read the same way had this rule never been proposed.
- "no_position" — engages the subject but takes no side: procedural (e.g. asking to extend the comment period), only describes the proposal, asks a question, or argues for something adjacent without endorsing or objecting to it.
- "unclear_junk" — off-topic, incoherent, a single word, or no substantive content.

ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE:
This docket is overwhelmingly opposed, so do NOT let the base rate decide a close call — judge each comment on its own text. Watch the boundary that matters here: agreeing with a goal the rule claims to serve (less waste, more oversight, punishing fraud) is NOT the same as endorsing the rule, and defending peer review or scientific merit is opposition rather than a neutral observation. Quote the exact words you relied on. If the comment is a form letter, judge the letter's text, not what you assume the campaign intended.

For every comment give:
  label            — your call
  evidence         — the VERBATIM words you relied on (or "" if there are none)
  case_for         — why that label, in 1-2 sentences
  runner_up        — the next most defensible label
  case_against     — the strongest argument for the runner_up, stated fairly
  what_makes_it_hard — what a careful reader could trip on, or "" if it is clear-cut
  reviewer_should_check — the specific question a human should answer to settle it,
                     or "" if it is clear-cut

COMMENT:
{TEXT}
4 Us 22 of 200 — every comment where the two disagreed.

We read those and made the call. The scores on this page use our call, not the model's.

The overall split

The front page counts what the tool said. This corrects for the errors we found. A wide interval means we checked too few comments in a big category.

Position The tool says Best estimate 95% interval
No position / unclear 0.60% 0.49% 0.43–0.54%
Oppose 96.29% 96.39% 96.33–96.44%
Support 3.11% 3.12% 3.11–3.14%

Accuracy by position

Precision: when the tool says this, how often it's right. Recall: how many of them it catches.

PositionPrecisionRecallLabelled
No position / unclear 82.1% 100.0% 55
Oppose 100.0% 99.9% 77
Support 100.0% 99.8% 68

Where it goes wrong

Rows are what the comment is. Columns are what the tool called it. Click a cell to read those comments.

Really is ↓
Tool said →		 No position / unclearOpposeSupport
No position / unclear 55 0 0
Oppose 11 66 0
Support 1 0 67

All 200 comments

Click a row for the quote behind the label and the argument against it.

https://www.regulations.gov/commenton/OMB-2026-0034-0001
No position / unclear No position / unclear Agrees
Why this label
No actual comment text is provided—only a link to the docket/comment page—so there is no substantive content to classify from the comment itself.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A human might treat a bare link as engaging the subject without stating a view, which could be coded as no_position rather than junk.
What makes it hard
The URL may point to a real comment, but the comment's text is not included here, and I should not infer its stance from the docket alone.
The comment
https://www.regulations.gov/commenton/OMB-2026-0034-0001
Source
OMB-2026-0034-102823 on regulations.gov
Trans rights are human rights. Anything done to trans Americans will be done to all Americans.
No position / unclear No position / unclear Agrees
What the label rests on
"Trans rights are human rights. Anything done to trans Americans will be done to all Americans."
Why this label
The comment does not mention the OMB rule, grants, peer review, federal financial assistance, or any provision of the proposal. It is a general political statement, so for this docket it is off-topic rather than a discernible position on the rule.
The strongest case against it (for “Oppose”)
A generous reader could infer the commenter is objecting to the rule because they see it as part of broader anti-trans government action, and the statement conveys protest rather than neutrality.
What makes it hard
The comment expresses clear political opposition in general, but never connects that opposition to this specific rule.
The comment
Trans rights are human rights. Anything done to trans Americans will be done to all Americans.
Source
OMB-2026-0034-103277 on regulations.gov
Why am I being targeted? I’ve done no one any harm. I pay my taxes and support my family.
No position / unclear No position / unclear Agrees
What the label rests on
"Why am I being targeted? I’ve done no one any harm. I pay my taxes and support my family."
Why this label
The comment does not mention the OMB rule, grants, peer review, federal financial assistance, or any policy position. It reads as a personal complaint without substantive engagement with the docket, so it is off-topic here.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A charitable reader could say it is engaging the process by expressing distress about being affected, but it still gives no identifiable position on the rule itself.
What makes it hard
The phrase "being targeted" could loosely suggest opposition to some government action, but the target and action are unspecified.
The comment
Why am I being targeted? I’ve done no one any harm. I pay my taxes and support my family.
Source
OMB-2026-0034-10877 on regulations.gov
Retrieving data. Wait a few seconds and try to cut or copy again.
No position / unclear No position / unclear Agrees
What the label rests on
"Retrieving data. Wait a few seconds and try to cut or copy again."
Why this label
This is not a substantive comment on the OMB rule; it reads like a software or clipboard error message rather than a policy position. It contains no endorsement, objection, or meaningful engagement with the proposal.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A generous reader could say it technically does not take a side and thus fits no_position, but it still fails to engage the subject at all and appears to be junk text.
What makes it hard
It is possible this was accidentally submitted in place of a real comment, so the only ambiguity is whether to treat accidental non-substantive text as no_position or junk.
The comment
Retrieving data. Wait a few seconds and try to cut or copy again.
Source
OMB-2026-0034-110326 on regulations.gov
Science should be accessible to all.
No position / unclear No position / unclear Agrees
What the label rests on
Science should be accessible to all.
Why this label
The comment is a single generic statement and does not mention the OMB rule, peer review, grantmaking, allowable costs, or any position on the proposal. It is too vague to determine support or opposition to this specific rule.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A fair alternative is that it vaguely engages the broader subject of science policy but takes no side on the rule, which would fit no_position rather than junk.
What makes it hard
The sentence is coherent and value-laden, so a reader might try to infer opposition if they assume the rule would make science less accessible, but that inference is not stated.
The comment
Science should be accessible to all.
Source
OMB-2026-0034-110830 on regulations.gov
The villainous assault on trans people is against the constitution. The constitution is for all Americans and not select people this administration has chosen. This Is clearly fasc
No position / unclear No position / unclear Agrees
What the label rests on
"The villainous assault on trans people is against the constitution." "This Is clearly fascism." "Discrimination against transgendered people is wrong"
Why this label
The comment condemns the administration's treatment of trans people in terms that align with objections to the rule's perceived ideological discrimination. Read generously, it is attacking the proposal as part of that "assault" and calling it unconstitutional and discriminatory.
The strongest case against it (for “unclear_junk”)
The comment never mentions OMB, the Uniform Guidance, grants, peer review, or any specific provision of the rule, so it could be read as a general political statement not tied to this docket.
What makes it hard
It is on-topic only by inference: the commenter attacks discrimination by "this administration" but does not explicitly connect that objection to the proposed rule.
The comment
The villainous assault on trans people is against the constitution. The constitution is for all Americans and not select people this administration has chosen. This Is clearly fascism. We the people means ALL the people. Discrimination against transgendered people is wrong and only puts a stain on the United States that professes freedom for ALL.
Source
OMB-2026-0034-11417 on regulations.gov
Denying that trans people exist is cruel, but also futile. America is showed to be the land of the free - hope can it live up to it's name if tens of thousands of people are disenf
No position / unclear No position / unclear Agrees
What the label rests on
"Denying that trans people exist is cruel, but also futile. America is showed to be the land of the free - hope can it live up to it's name if tens of thousands of people are disenfranchised and actively harmed by legislation that is created to stop them from living as themselves freely?"
Why this label
The comment expresses a general view about trans rights and harmful legislation, but it does not mention the OMB rule, grants, peer review, federal financial assistance, or any provision of this docket. Because it is off-topic to the specific rulemaking, it fits unclear_junk rather than a substantive position on the proposal.
The strongest case against it (for “Oppose”)
A fair reader could infer the commenter is objecting to the administration's broader anti-trans policies and may view this rule as part of that pattern, so the hostile tone toward harmful legislation could be read as opposition. But that inference is not grounded in any explicit reference to this rule or its contents.
What makes it hard
The phrase "actively harmed by legislation" sounds oppositional, but it is not tied to this specific proposed rule.
The comment
Denying that trans people exist is cruel, but also futile. America is showed to be the land of the free - hope can it live up to it's name if tens of thousands of people are disenfranchised and actively harmed by legislation that is created to stop them from living as themselves freely?
Source
OMB-2026-0034-11518 on regulations.gov
PLEASE help us find a cure!! My dad passed away from Mesothelioma 5 years ago and now I am battling the same disease! No one should have to deal with something like this!!
No position / unclear No position / unclear Agrees
What the label rests on
"PLEASE help us find a cure!! My dad passed away from Mesothelioma 5 years ago and now I am battling the same disease! No one should have to deal with something like this!!"
Why this label
The comment is a personal plea about mesothelioma and contains no reference to the OMB rule, peer review, grantmaking, allowable costs, or any position on the proposal. It is therefore off-topic for this docket rather than supportive or oppositional.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A fair alternative is that it engages the general subject of federally funded research by urging help to find a cure, without explicitly taking a side on the rule. That would make it adjacent to the topic but neutral.
What makes it hard
The plea for a cure could indirectly imply support for research funding, which in this docket often connects to opposition, but the text never mentions the rule or any policy position.
The comment
PLEASE help us find a cure!! My dad passed away from Mesothelioma 5 years ago and now I am battling the same disease! No one should have to deal with something like this!!
Source
OMB-2026-0034-121812 on regulations.gov
I am stunned and heartbroken that our home is becoming so very aggressive and dismissive of one of the most vulnerable and most joyful groups of our society. Please protect our tra
No position / unclear No position / unclear Agrees
What the label rests on
"Please protect our transgender children and friends from this potentially horrific outcome."
Why this label
The commenter pleads against a "potentially horrific outcome" and asks OMB to "protect" transgender people from it, which reads as objection to the proposal's effects. This is a direct negative reaction to the rule rather than a neutral description or procedural point.
The strongest case against it (for “unclear_junk”)
The comment never names the OMB rule, peer review, grants, or any specific provision, so it could be a generalized political statement submitted to the wrong docket. Its reference to transgender children and friends is emotionally clear but contextually nonspecific.
What makes it hard
It strongly expresses opposition to some harmful outcome, but does not explicitly mention the rule or any recognizable Uniform Guidance provision.
The comment
I am stunned and heartbroken that our home is becoming so very aggressive and dismissive of one of the most vulnerable and most joyful groups of our society. Please protect our transgender children and friends from this potentially horrific outcome. We as a country are better than this. Julia Moll
Source
OMB-2026-0034-12221 on regulations.gov
It is time for the government to get out of peoples’ pants and start taking care of actual problems in America. We are tired and disgusted by the emphasis on who has a penis vs a v
No position / unclear No position / unclear Agrees
What the label rests on
"It is time for the government to get out of peoples’ pants and start taking care of actual problems in America." "We are tired and disgusted by the emphasis on who has a penis vs a vagina." "Start taking care of poverty, homelessness, disease, human trafficking. Get your heads out of the pants of human beings."
Why this label
The comment angrily condemns government focus on gender/sexuality and tells the government to focus on real problems instead, which reads as objecting to the rule's perceived ideological targeting. That is a general denunciation of the proposal's priorities rather than a neutral observation.
The strongest case against it (for “unclear_junk”)
The comment never mentions OMB, the Uniform Guidance, grants, peer review, or federal financial assistance, so it could be read as a broad political rant about culture-war issues rather than a position on this specific rule.
What makes it hard
It is clearly substantive, but only indirectly connected to the rule; the label depends on whether anti-government-focus-on-gender rhetoric is treated as opposition to this proposal's ideological provisions.
The comment
It is time for the government to get out of peoples’ pants and start taking care of actual problems in America. We are tired and disgusted by the emphasis on who has a penis vs a vagina. In what way has a member of the LGBTQIA2S+ harmed you? Do you actually know any transgender human beings? Did your school, church, parents, clergy teach you to hate those who are different from you? You were not born to hate, you were taught to hate. Our country was founded on the premise that all “men” were CREATED EQUAL. We have inalienable rights that include life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Start taking care of poverty, homelessness, disease, human trafficking. Get your heads out of the pants of human beings.
Source
OMB-2026-0034-12270 on regulations.gov
PLEASE WRITE YOUR COMMENT HERE
No position / unclear No position / unclear Agrees
What the label rests on
PLEASE WRITE YOUR COMMENT HERE
Why this label
There is no actual substantive comment text here—only placeholder language. It does not express support, opposition, or a neutral procedural position on the rule.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A reviewer could argue it technically engages the comment form without taking a side, but it still provides no real content about the rule itself.
What makes it hard
The placeholder appears in the comment field, which could be mistaken for an intentionally blank submission rather than junk.
The comment
PLEASE WRITE YOUR COMMENT HERE
Source
OMB-2026-0034-125815 on regulations.gov
Gender Ideology: start chromosome testing and implement intersex requirements for transition. I have a birth condition due to my pharmacist exmormon mother using pharmaceutical est
No position / unclear No position / unclear Agrees
What the label rests on
"Gender Ideology: start chromosome testing and implement intersex requirements for transition. ... Please end this suffering."
Why this label
The comment is largely a personal narrative about gender identity, intersex status, and alleged harms, but it does not mention the OMB rule, federal financial assistance, peer review, grantmaking, allowable costs, or any identifiable provision of this proposal. Because it is not meaningfully tied to the rule and does not clearly support or oppose it, it is best treated as off-topic/unclear for this docket.
The strongest case against it (for “Oppose”)
A generous reader might infer opposition because the commenter appears distressed by perceived government or institutional policies around gender ideology and asks to "end this suffering," which could be read as objecting to some policy change. But that objection is not linked to this specific OMB rule or any of its provisions.
What makes it hard
The comment expresses strong grievance and asks for policy changes, so a reviewer could be tempted to map that frustration onto opposition. The difficulty is that the requested changes are about chromosome testing and transition requirements, not the grant-administration rule in this docket.
The comment
Gender Ideology: start chromosome testing and implement intersex requirements for transition. I have a birth condition due to my pharmacist exmormon mother using pharmaceutical estrogen during pregnancy as she wanted a daughter, the only way to describe my life is extreme suffering, I am forced into camps by birth I do not want to be a part of, I have to compete with sexist entrepreneurial men for "healthcare", this "healthcare" is being used as a carrot on a stick to keep the pigs in a failing machine moving. I have been date raped by gay men abusing estrogen calling themselves transgender when in reality these predators are transhumanists who only wish to increase suffering in the world in as many, intricate and wide scale ways as possible. It is a humanitarian conflict of interest for men to replace women. I am 26 and from Utah, I identify as an ethnic mormon, I have proximal hypospadias, an XY intersex birth condition that has been effecting me my entire life. Please end this suffering.
Source
OMB-2026-0034-128870 on regulations.gov
Compared to other affluent nations in the world, our voter participation percentages in the United States are abysmal. Why does the government not want to encourage voter registrat
No position / unclear No position / unclear Agrees
What the label rests on
"Compared to other affluent nations in the world, our voter participation percentages in the United States are abysmal. Why does the government not want to encourage voter registration and voter participation?"
Why this label
The comment discusses voter participation and government encouragement of registration, not the OMB Uniform Guidance rule, peer review, grantmaking, or related cost principles. It is therefore off-topic to this docket.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A generous reader could say it addresses government policy in a broad sense and asks a question without taking a side on the rule, which might fit no_position. But it never engages the subject matter of this rule at all.
What makes it hard
It is a coherent policy comment, just not about this proposal, so the main difficulty is distinguishing off-topic from merely neutral.
The comment
Compared to other affluent nations in the world, our voter participation percentages in the United States are abysmal. Why does the government not want to encourage voter registration and voter participation?
Source
OMB-2026-0034-13282 on regulations.gov
I urge you to carefully consider the impact of this proposed regulation.
No position / unclear No position / unclear Agrees
What the label rests on
"I urge you to carefully consider the impact of this proposed regulation."
Why this label
This comment is directed at the proposed regulation and implicitly expresses concern about its effects by urging careful consideration of its impact. Read generously, that is a mild objection rather than support.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
The comment never explicitly says the rule is harmful, nor does it state support or opposition; it could be a purely procedural or cautionary remark asking OMB to think carefully.
What makes it hard
The statement is extremely brief and does not say what impact the commenter is worried about, so the implied stance is weak.
The comment
I urge you to carefully consider the impact of this proposed regulation.
Source
OMB-2026-0034-134874 on regulations.gov
Love thy neighbor. Give me your tired, your poor your huddled masses. This is what makes the U.S., why vote against it? Feed your people, care for your people. It’s really that sim
No position / unclear No position / unclear Agrees
What the label rests on
"Love thy neighbor. Give me your tired, your poor your huddled masses. This is what makes the U.S., why vote against it? Feed your people, care for your people. It’s really that simple."
Why this label
The comment does not mention the OMB rule, grants, peer review, funding decisions, or any identifiable provision of this docket. It reads as a general moral/political statement, so it is off-topic for labeling support or opposition to this specific rule.
The strongest case against it (for “Oppose”)
A generous reader could infer that "why vote against it?" and the appeals to caring for people express opposition to a policy the commenter sees as cruel or harmful, which could map loosely onto opposing this rule.
What makes it hard
The tone is value-laden and sounds anti-administration or anti-restriction, but it never connects those values to the actual proposed rule.
The comment
Love thy neighbor. Give me your tired, your poor your huddled masses. This is what makes the U.S., why vote against it? Feed your people, care for your people. It’s really that simple.
Source
OMB-2026-0034-139004 on regulations.gov
Our services are very much so needed as we are one of the main agencies that provide Domestic Violence services in this area. As the intake coordinator I can say that there have be
No position / unclear No position / unclear Agrees
What the label rests on
"any loss of funding would negatively affect the community. I cannot stress enough the importance of this funding."
Why this label
The commenter argues against changes that could reduce or jeopardize federal funding, saying loss of funding would harm the community. Read generously, that is an objection to the proposed rule because it is framed as threatening needed grant support.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
The comment never mentions OMB, the rule, peer review, or any specific provision; it could be a general statement about the importance of funding rather than a direct position on this proposal.
What makes it hard
It does not explicitly say "oppose" or name the rule, so the inference depends on treating concern about funding loss as opposition to the proposal under comment.
The comment
Our services are very much so needed as we are one of the main agencies that provide Domestic Violence services in this area. As the intake coordinator I can say that there have been months where I have done at least 30 intakes. The most intakes I have taken in one month is 55. As the main agency in this area any loss of funding would negatively affect the community. I cannot stress enough the importance of this funding.
Source
OMB-2026-0034-147319 on regulations.gov
Lets all work together to make science truly matter!
No position / unclear No position / unclear Agrees
What the label rests on
"Lets all work together to make science truly matter!"
Why this label
The comment is a generic slogan and does not mention the OMB rule, any provision, or any stance toward it. There is no substantive content tying it to support, opposition, or even a procedural point about the proposal.
The strongest case against it (for “Oppose”)
A generous reader could infer that praising science implies support for scientific independence and thus objection to a rule seen as politicizing grantmaking. But that inference goes beyond the actual text, which never references the rule or any concrete concern.
What makes it hard
The phrase could vaguely resonate with anti-politicization themes, but it is too nonspecific to show an actual position on this proposal.
The comment
Lets all work together to make science truly matter!
Source
OMB-2026-0034-147629 on regulations.gov
HIV patients need assistance with funding.
Tarzana Treatment Centers
No position / unclear No position / unclear Agrees
What the label rests on
HIV patients need assistance with funding.
Why this label
The comment is a single general statement about funding needs and does not mention the OMB rule, any provision of it, or whether the commenter supports or opposes it. It therefore lacks a discernible position on the proposal itself.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A fair alternative is that it engages the general subject of federal funding and thus could be read as adjacent to the rule while taking no explicit side. On that reading, it is relevant but neutral rather than too insubstantial to classify.
What makes it hard
It is on-topic in a broad sense because it mentions funding for a health-related population, but it gives no clue whether the rule would help or hurt that goal.
The comment
HIV patients need assistance with funding.
Source
OMB-2026-0034-148278 on regulations.gov
I agree that fraud should end and gender ideology should not be heavily pushed on children but what are you going to do when someone with gender dysphoria needs help and wants to c
No position / unclear No position / unclear Agrees
What the label rests on
"I agree that fraud should end and gender ideology should not be heavily pushed on children"
Why this label
The comment does not meaningfully address the OMB Uniform Guidance proposal, peer review, grantmaking, or any specific provision of the rule. It mostly discusses transgender youth treatment policy, so it is off-topic to this docket.
The strongest case against it (for “Support”)
A fair reader could see "I agree that fraud should end" as endorsing a general goal associated with the rule, and the anti-'gender ideology' language could be read as sympathetic to ideological restrictions. But the comment never says it supports this rule or any named provision.
What makes it hard
The opening sentence echoes themes sometimes invoked by supporters of tighter grant restrictions, but the rest of the comment shifts entirely to a broader social-policy discussion.
The comment
I agree that fraud should end and gender ideology should not be heavily pushed on children but what are you going to do when someone with gender dysphoria needs help and wants to change genders to what aligns in their head. You can't just erase trans people. It's a small population but you can't deny they exist. When it comes to children I think gender affirming hospitals should only give hormones blockers to minors. When a minor turns 18 they can decide for themselves is they want HRT
Source
OMB-2026-0034-149640 on regulations.gov
Please I'm begging you don't deny trans people their right to exist. They are human, they are our siblings, our friends and family. They just want to live the way their bodies tell
No position / unclear No position / unclear Agrees
What the label rests on
"Please I'm begging you don't deny trans people their right to exist." "Denying this is tantamount to murder."
Why this label
The comment pleads against perceived anti-trans action by the government and frames denial of trans people's existence/rights as deadly harm. Read generously in this docket, that is an objection to the rule's ideological restrictions and their effects.
The strongest case against it (for “unclear_junk”)
The comment never mentions OMB, grants, peer review, federal financial assistance, or any identifiable provision of the proposed rule, so it could be read as a general political statement untethered to the docket.
What makes it hard
It is clearly substantive, but the link to this specific rule is only implicit; the commenter may be responding to the rule as anti-trans policy without naming it.
The comment
Please I'm begging you don't deny trans people their right to exist. They are human, they are our siblings, our friends and family. They just want to live the way their bodies tell them is right. Denying this is tantamount to murder. So many Trans people young and old would rather take their own life than live a lie. Not to mention animals in nature change genders all the time. Frogs and fish change gender, and even lionesses have grown manes and started acting like male lions. Saying it's unnatural or doesn't exist doesn't hold up because Nature has been doing it cince the dawn of time.
Source
OMB-2026-0034-150407 on regulations.gov
PLEASE WRITE YOUR COMMENT HERE
No position / unclear No position / unclear Agrees
What the label rests on
"PLEASE WRITE YOUR COMMENT HERE"
Why this label
This contains no substantive comment on the proposed rule; it is just placeholder text. There is no expressed view to classify as support, opposition, or no position.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A reviewer could argue it technically engages the comment process without taking a side, but it still lacks any actual content about the rule.
What makes it hard
It appears to be a template field rather than a real submitted comment, so the only ambiguity is whether to treat empty/placeholder text as no-position or junk.
The comment
PLEASE WRITE YOUR COMMENT HERE
Source
OMB-2026-0034-151511 on regulations.gov
Very necessary, my son died from the complications and after a liver transplant
No position / unclear No position / unclear Agrees
What the label rests on
Very necessary, my son died from the complications and after a liver transplant
Why this label
The comment does not clearly mention the OMB rule, grants, peer review, federal financial assistance, or any identifiable provision. "Very necessary" is too vague to tie to support for this rule, and the rest appears to be a personal statement without a clear position on the proposal.
The strongest case against it (for “Support”)
The phrase "Very necessary" could be read as endorsing the proposal if the commenter meant the rule is necessary, especially in light of a personal tragedy motivating stronger action.
What makes it hard
"Very necessary" sounds like approval, but the object of that approval is unstated, and the medical context could refer to something entirely different from this rule.
The comment
Very necessary, my son died from the complications and after a liver transplant
Source
OMB-2026-0034-154072 on regulations.gov
My husband died on July 1, 2026, at the age of 49. He left a wife and 2 small kids. For the last 14 months of his life he suffered like no human should from a disease he acquired j
No position / unclear No position / unclear Agrees
What the label rests on
"My husband died on July 1, 2026, at the age of 49. He left a wife and 2 small kids. For the last 14 months of his life he suffered like no human should from a disease he acquired just by going to work to support his family. His life is over and our is forever changed."
Why this label
The comment is a personal tragedy statement and does not mention the OMB rule, grants, peer review, federal financial assistance, or any position for or against the proposal. Because it contains no discernible stance on the rule's subject, it is best treated as nonresponsive substantive content.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A fair alternative is no_position because the comment is coherent and substantive in a general sense, just not connected to the rule; one could view it as engaging a public-health theme without taking a side.
What makes it hard
It is coherent and emotionally meaningful, so the main difficulty is deciding between off-topic/nonresponsive (unclear_junk) and simply engaging no side (no_position).
The comment
My husband died on July 1, 2026, at the age of 49. He left a wife and 2 small kids. For the last 14 months of his life he suffered like no human should from a disease he acquired just by going to work to support his family. His life is over and our is forever changed.
Source
OMB-2026-0034-155705 on regulations.gov
We as a nation have to stop constantly demanding the sacrifice of the least of us so that there can be some visible scapegoat at the bottom of the ladder while never addressing the
No position / unclear No position / unclear Agrees
What the label rests on
"We as a nation have to stop constantly demanding the sacrifice of the least of us... Trans people are blameless for the problems of this nation... they deserve to be able to live in dignity, peace and security..."
Why this label
The comment is a general statement defending trans people and condemning scapegoating, but it does not mention OMB, the Uniform Guidance, grants, peer review, funding decisions, or any identifiable provision of this rule. Because it is not substantively tied to the docketed proposal, it is best treated as off-topic for this rulemaking.
The strongest case against it (for “Oppose”)
A generous reader could infer opposition because the comment objects to anti-trans targeting and ideological discrimination, themes that some commenters connect to this rule's alleged conditions on awards. If read as protesting those kinds of conditions, it could be treated as opposition.
What makes it hard
The text expresses a clear moral and political stance, so it is not 'junk' in the ordinary sense; the difficulty is that it never connects that stance to the specific rule under review.
The comment
We as a nation have to stop constantly demanding the sacrifice of the least of us so that there can be some visible scapegoat at the bottom of the ladder while never addressing the continued and ruinous failures of leadership and of the obscenely wealthy. Trans people are blameless for the problems of this nation, they deserve to be able to live in dignity, peace and security the same as cis people, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Pagans, Atheists, Agnostic, gay, straight, bi, pan, man, woman, other, Black, brown, Indigenous, Asian, European, abled, disabled, the only thing that should affect these people is if they commit a violent crime proven beyond the shadow of a doubt. And no, their mere existence is not a crime and to declare it so would nullify any mandate to govern that this nation still clings to.
Source
OMB-2026-0034-16202 on regulations.gov
Leave trans people alone. They are not a threat to you.
No position / unclear No position / unclear Agrees
What the label rests on
"Leave trans people alone. They are not a threat to you."
Why this label
The comment does not mention the OMB rule, grants, peer review, federal financial assistance, or any provision of the proposal. It reads as a general political statement unrelated to the docket, so it is off-topic here.
The strongest case against it (for “Oppose”)
A generous reader might infer it is criticizing an administration policy agenda associated with the rule and therefore expressing general outrage at the proposal's perceived ideological aims. But that connection is not stated in the text.
What makes it hard
The rule is associated with anti-trans or ideological concerns in some comments, so this sentence could be an indirect reaction to that broader context even though it never names the rule or grants.
The comment
Leave trans people alone. They are not a threat to you.
Source
OMB-2026-0034-17670 on regulations.gov
Trans people exist. Stop trying to deny them the same basic human rights everyone else receives. It is shameful of a governement to deny a section if people it is responsible for.
No position / unclear No position / unclear Agrees
What the label rests on
"Trans people exist. Stop trying to deny them the same basic human rights everyone else receives. It is shameful of a governement to deny a section if people it is responsible for."
Why this label
The comment condemns the government for denying rights to trans people, which reads as an objection to the proposal as part of that broader denial. It is not neutral description or procedure; it expresses moral opposition to the government action at issue.
The strongest case against it (for “unclear_junk”)
The comment never mentions OMB, the Uniform Guidance, grants, peer review, or any specific provision of the rule, so it could be read as a general political statement only loosely related to the docket.
What makes it hard
It is clearly oppositional in tone, but the connection to this specific rule is implicit rather than explicit.
The comment
Trans people exist. Stop trying to deny them the same basic human rights everyone else receives. It is shameful of a governement to deny a section if people it is responsible for.
Source
OMB-2026-0034-19683 on regulations.gov
My mom is fighting her third reoccurrence of ovarian cancer and this clinical trial is the only hope she can survive.
No position / unclear No position / unclear Agrees
What the label rests on
"this clinical trial is the only hope she can survive"
Why this label
The commenter invokes reliance on a clinical trial for survival, which in this docket context is a plea against a proposal seen as harming research and trials. Read generously, it objects to changes that could threaten lifesaving federally supported research.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
The comment never mentions OMB, the rule, grants, peer review, or any specific provision; it could simply be a personal story without an explicit position on the proposal.
What makes it hard
It is extremely brief and does not explicitly say 'oppose' or refer to the rule at all, so the label depends on inferring that the story is offered as a reason not to adopt the proposal.
The comment
My mom is fighting her third reoccurrence of ovarian cancer and this clinical trial is the only hope she can survive.
Source
OMB-2026-0034-24068 on regulations.gov
What are we even doing here guys
No position / unclear No position / unclear Agrees
What the label rests on
What are we even doing here guys
Why this label
The comment contains only a vague rhetorical remark and does not express support for or opposition to the OMB rule. It provides no substantive position on the proposal itself.
The strongest case against it (for “Oppose”)
A generous reader might hear exasperation as criticizing the rulemaking effort ('what are we even doing here'), which could imply objection. But the text never identifies the rule or states any reason for opposing it.
What makes it hard
The tone sounds negative, but it is too underspecified to know what the commenter is objecting to.
The comment
What are we even doing here guys
Source
OMB-2026-0034-30287 on regulations.gov
Science grants and loans are important for providing the basic nutritional needs for many American children.
No position / unclear No position / unclear Agrees
What the label rests on
"Science grants and loans are important for providing the basic nutritional needs for many American children."
Why this label
The comment does not clearly engage the proposed OMB rule or take a position on it. It offers a vague statement about grants and loans helping children, without supporting or opposing any provision of this rule.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A fair reader could say it is at least on-topic in a broad way because it mentions grants and implies they matter, so it may be engaging the subject area without taking a side.
What makes it hard
It references grants, which are related to the docket, but the statement is generic and does not connect to the rule's peer-review, political-review, or cost-principle changes.
The comment
Science grants and loans are important for providing the basic nutritional needs for many American children.
Source
OMB-2026-0034-31403 on regulations.gov
The jobs that support our sciences is what makes this country amazing.
No position / unclear No position / unclear Agrees
What the label rests on
"The jobs that support our sciences is what makes this country amazing."
Why this label
Read generously, this defends science and the infrastructure around it, implying concern about a rule perceived as harming science funding and research support. In this docket, a statement praising support for science most naturally reads as objecting to changes that would undermine it.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
The comment never mentions the rule, OMB, grants, peer review, or any change in policy; it could simply be a general pro-science statement without taking a side on this proposal.
What makes it hard
It is very short and only indirectly connected to the rule, so the inference to opposition depends on reading 'support our sciences' as defending the status quo against the proposal.
The comment
The jobs that support our sciences is what makes this country amazing.
Source
OMB-2026-0034-34952 on regulations.gov
Funding for science is essential for our country.
No position / unclear No position / unclear Agrees
What the label rests on
"Funding for science is essential for our country."
Why this label
Read generously in this docket, the comment defends science funding and implies objection to a rule widely criticized as harming research funding and scientific independence. The statement is a value claim in favor of sustaining science support, which leans against the proposal.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
The comment never mentions the rule, OMB, peer review, or any specific provision, and it could simply be a general statement about science funding without taking a position on this proposal.
What makes it hard
It is extremely brief and does not explicitly say support or oppose; the label depends on whether one infers that praising science funding is an objection to a rule seen as threatening it.
The comment
Funding for science is essential for our country.
Source
OMB-2026-0034-39916 on regulations.gov
lgbtqia+ rights are human rights, don’t know what else to say!!
No position / unclear No position / unclear Agrees
What the label rests on
"lgbtqia+ rights are human rights, don’t know what else to say!!"
Why this label
The comment does not mention the OMB rule, grants, peer review, funding decisions, or any provision of the proposal. It expresses a general value statement but gives no discernible position on this specific rule.
The strongest case against it (for “Oppose”)
A generous reader might infer opposition because the docket concerns alleged ideological restrictions and the commenter affirms LGBTQIA+ rights, which could be read as rejecting a rule they believe threatens those rights. But that inference is not stated in the text.
What makes it hard
The comment may be reacting to perceived anti-LGBTQIA+ implications of the rule, but it never connects that belief to support for or opposition to the proposal.
The comment
lgbtqia+ rights are human rights, don’t know what else to say!!
Source
OMB-2026-0034-41311 on regulations.gov
'The truth is an offense but not a sin' Bob Marley stand up for the Truth
No position / unclear No position / unclear Agrees
What the label rests on
"The truth is an offense but not a sin' Bob Marley stand up for the Truth
Why this label
The comment does not mention the OMB rule, grants, peer review, federal financial assistance, or any provision of the proposal. It reads as a generic slogan/quote rather than a substantive position on the docket.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
One could argue it is at least a topical expression of values—"stand up for the Truth"—and thus a vague adjacent statement rather than pure junk. But without any reference to the rule or its subject, it lacks enough substance to count as engaging the proposal.
What makes it hard
The phrase could be read as implying criticism of dishonesty in government, but that implication is too untethered to this specific rule.
The comment
'The truth is an offense but not a sin' Bob Marley stand up for the Truth
Source
OMB-2026-0034-42571 on regulations.gov
I am an industrial chemist that was supported throughout graduate school at Penn State University by grant
No position / unclear No position / unclear Agrees
What the label rests on
I am an industrial chemist that was supported throughout graduate school at Penn State University by grant
Why this label
The comment is incomplete and does not express any view about the proposed OMB rule. It only begins a biographical statement and contains no substantive position to classify.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A generous reader could treat this as an on-topic but unfinished comment that engages the subject indirectly by identifying the commenter as someone affected by grant funding, without yet stating support or opposition.
What makes it hard
It is on-topic in the sense that it mentions being supported by a grant, but the sentence cuts off before any actual stance appears.
The comment
I am an industrial chemist that was supported throughout graduate school at Penn State University by grant
Source
OMB-2026-0034-44794 on regulations.gov
We must ensure the people making important decisions for Americans are properly educated in what they want to so.
No position / unclear No position / unclear Agrees
What the label rests on
"We must ensure the people making important decisions for Americans are properly educated in what they want to so."
Why this label
The comment is too vague to show a position on this specific OMB rule. It does not mention the rule, grants, peer review, OMB, support, or objection, and the final phrase appears malformed.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A fair reading is that it gestures at who should make decisions, which is adjacent to the rule's subject, but it still does not clearly take a side and could be treated as a noncommittal comment on the topic.
What makes it hard
The sentence may be trying to say decision-makers should be qualified, which could loosely relate to expert review versus political appointees, but that implication is too indirect and uncertain.
The comment
We must ensure the people making important decisions for Americans are properly educated in what they want to so.
Source
OMB-2026-0034-47776 on regulations.gov
Private schools cannot provide full education. Education is for all. Public schools fair a higher rate of success than Private given the numbers of students they serve. Impeachment
No position / unclear No position / unclear Agrees
What the label rests on
"Private schools cannot provide full education. Education is for all. Public schools fair a higher rate of success than Private given the numbers of students they serve. Impeachment for Dept of Education Secretary Mahon…"
Why this label
The comment does not address the proposed OMB Uniform Guidance rule, peer review, grant-making, allowable costs, or any identifiable provision of this docket. It is instead a disconnected statement about public vs. private schools and a call for impeachment, so it is off-topic for this rulemaking.
The strongest case against it (for “Oppose”)
A generous reader might infer general hostility toward the administration or education-related officials, which could loosely suggest opposition to administration proposals. But the text never mentions this rule or any substance tied to federal financial assistance policy.
What makes it hard
The impeachment remark signals anger at government leadership, which could tempt an overbroad reading as opposition, but it is not linked to this rule.
The comment
Private schools cannot provide full education. Education is for all. Public schools fair a higher rate of success than Private given the numbers of students they serve. Impeachment for Dept of Education Secretary Mahon…
Source
OMB-2026-0034-50152 on regulations.gov
See attached file(s) --- ATTACHMENT CONTENT --- These are comments that can be included. These are comments that can be included.
No position / unclear No position / unclear Agrees
What the label rests on
See attached file(s) --- ATTACHMENT CONTENT --- These are comments that can be included. These are comments that can be included.
Why this label
The text provided contains no substantive opinion about the OMB rule; it is just a placeholder-like note about attached files and generic 'comments that can be included.' That makes it non-substantive for stance labeling.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A fair alternative is that it nominally engages the docket by submitting attachment content, but without taking any discernible side, so it could be treated as no_position rather than junk.
What makes it hard
It references attached material, which in some dockets might contain the real comment, but the only attachment content shown here is itself non-substantive.
The comment
See attached file(s) --- ATTACHMENT CONTENT --- These are comments that can be included. These are comments that can be included.
Source
OMB-2026-0034-94243 on regulations.gov
Support of Non-Profits is vital to our communities
No position / unclear No position / unclear Agrees
What the label rests on
"Support of Non-Profits is vital to our communities"
Why this label
The comment expresses a general sentiment about nonprofits but does not mention the OMB rule, any provision of it, or whether the commenter supports or opposes it. It engages only very indirectly with the subject and takes no clear side.
The strongest case against it (for “Oppose”)
A generous reader could infer the commenter is worried the rule would harm nonprofits and is therefore implicitly objecting to it. Because the statement emphasizes the importance of supporting nonprofits, it could be read as pushback against a rule perceived as restricting funding.
What makes it hard
The statement is very short and value-laden, so it invites inference about the commenter's likely stance without actually stating one.
The comment
Support of Non-Profits is vital to our communities
Source
OMB-2026-0034-116215 on regulations.gov
See attached file(s) --- ATTACHMENT CONTENT --- MEMO: Comment on Rules Changes to 2 CFR 200 From: Open Research Funders Group Date: 13 July 2026 Please consider the attached as a f
Open Research Funders Group
No position / unclear No position / unclear Agrees
What the label rests on
"This response addresses only one portion of the proposed rules changes... Section 200.461—Publication and Printing Costs." "Much like the Administration, we are deeply concerned with the high costs of publication, and support federal action to reduce individual publication costs." "We are in support of eliminating individual publication costs (APCs, page and color charges, etc.), however, we remain concerned..." "OMB should also provide a transition period for nonprofit, society, university, and community-governed publishing venues" "A rule intended to reduce excessive APCs should not sweep in the infrastructure and services necessary to make research outputs openly available"
Why this label
The comment engages a narrow piece of the rule and offers recommendations to modify or clarify it rather than clearly endorsing or rejecting the proposal as a whole. It supports the goal of reducing publication costs but asks OMB to clarify §200.454 and add a transition period, which is not the same as backing the rule outright.
The strongest case against it (for “Support”)
A fair reading is that the commenter approves the rule's core direction on §200.461, saying it "support[s] federal action to reduce individual publication costs" and is "in support of eliminating individual publication costs," while only suggesting implementation refinements.
What makes it hard
The letter is affirmatively aligned with the rule's apparent goal on publication costs, but its actual asks are conditional changes and safeguards, not a plain statement like 'we support this rule' or 'OMB should finalize this.'
The comment
See attached file(s) --- ATTACHMENT CONTENT --- MEMO: Comment on Rules Changes to 2 CFR 200 From: Open Research Funders Group Date: 13 July 2026 Please consider the attached as a formal response to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Proposed rules changes to 2 CFR 200 - Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance. This response addresses only one portion of the proposed rules changes, based on our collective expertise and experience: Section 200.461—Publication and Printing Costs. Although this comment only focuses on §200.461, OMB should clarify that §200.454 does not destabilize institutional library access or infrastructure needed for federally funded research Open Research Funders Group (ORFG) is a coalition of private philanthropic funders committed to the open sharing of research outputs. Collectively, ORFG members hold assets in excess of $200 billion, with total annual grantmaking in the $22 billion range. We believe openness is better for the American public, better for research, better for global society, and better for philanthropy. Open research accelerates the pace of discovery, reduces information-sharing gaps, encourages innovation, and promotes reproducibility. As members of the private philanthropic community, we strive to support the rapid and wide dissemination of scientific outputs that serve our society. This community uses a variety of strategies and approaches to increase scientific discovery and continuously works to improve the scientific ecosy
Source
OMB-2026-0034-143117 on regulations.gov
I urge you to carefully consider the impact of this proposed regulation. Thank you.
No position / unclear No position / unclear Agrees
What the label rests on
"I urge you to carefully consider the impact of this proposed regulation. Thank you."
Why this label
The comment references the proposed regulation but does not clearly endorse or object to it. Asking the agency to "carefully consider the impact" is a generic procedural or cautionary statement rather than a substantive position for or against the rule.
The strongest case against it (for “Oppose”)
A reader could infer concern from "carefully consider the impact," since that phrasing often accompanies objections and may imply the commenter expects harmful effects. But the comment never actually says the rule is bad, should be withdrawn, or should be changed.
What makes it hard
The tone is mildly cautionary, which can sound like soft opposition, but there is no explicit negative judgment or requested outcome.
The comment
I urge you to carefully consider the impact of this proposed regulation. Thank you.
Source
OMB-2026-0034-10012 on regulations.gov
I agree with reining in wasteful spending.
No position / unclear No position / unclear Agrees
What the label rests on
"I agree with reining in wasteful spending."
Why this label
The comment expresses agreement with a general goal—reducing wasteful spending—but does not mention this OMB rule, endorse any of its provisions, or say OMB should adopt it. Under the instructions, support for a broad goal like less waste is not the same as support for this rule.
The strongest case against it (for “Support”)
A fair reading is that the commenter is signaling approval of the rule's stated purpose if they understood the proposal as aimed at curbing wasteful spending. In a very short comment, that could be intended as implicit endorsement.
What makes it hard
The comment is extremely brief and could be read as implicitly reacting favorably to the proposal, but it never actually ties that approval to the rule itself.
The comment
I agree with reining in wasteful spending.
Source
OMB-2026-0034-11586 on regulations.gov
Attached herein is the comment letter of the URAALI Refaluwasch Association regarding OMB Docket No. OMB-2026-0034, Proposed Revisions to 2 CFR—Federal Financial Assistance. We res
URAALI Refaluwasch Association
No position / unclear No position / unclear Agrees
What the label rests on
We appreciate OMB's efforts to improve the government-wide administration of Federal Financial Assistance. We recognize the Federal Governrnent's responsibility to safeguard taxpayer resources, prevent fraud, waste, and abuse, ensure compliance with applicable federal laws, and promote accountability in the administration of federal awards. ... At the same time, we respectfully encourage OMB to carefully consider the practical effects that revisions to grant administration may have on U.S. territories, Tribal governments, Indigenous organizations, and small nonprofit entities with limited administrative capacity ... URAALI respectfully recommends: (1) preserving strong federal oversight and s c al accountability; (2) maintaining objective and transparent grant administration; (3) providing reasonable procedural protections before suspension, termination, or substantial modification of awards except when immediate action is required; (4) considering the unique operational circumstances of U.S. territories, Tribal governrnents, Indigenous organizations, and small nonprofits; and (5) promoting administrative consistency that enables recipients to complete approved projects while remaining fully accountable.
Why this label
The comment engages the rulemaking and offers general recommendations, but it does not clearly endorse or object to the proposed rule itself or any identified provision. Its language is largely procedural and advisory—urging OMB to "carefully consider" impacts and to maintain certain principles—without saying the rule should be withdrawn, finalized, or changed in any specific opposed/supportive direction.
The strongest case against it (for “Oppose”)
A fair reader could see implicit opposition in requests for "objective and transparent grant administration" and "reasonable procedural protections before suspension, termination, or substantial modification of awards," which may signal concern about the proposal's grant-termination and discretion provisions. The emphasis on protecting small nonprofits and territorial recipients could be read as warning that the rule may cause harm.
What makes it hard
The comment sounds cautious and diplomatically phrased rather than explicit; some of its recommendations align with themes commonly used by opponents, but the letter never directly says it opposes the NPRM or asks OMB to reject or revise named provisions.
The comment
Attached herein is the comment letter of the URAALI Refaluwasch Association regarding OMB Docket No. OMB-2026-0034, Proposed Revisions to 2 CFR—Federal Financial Assistance. We respectfully request that the attached letter be included in the official rulemaking record and considered during the development of the final rule. Thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments. Melvin Faisao --- ATTACHMENT CONTENT --- URAALI REFALUWASCH ASSOCIATION P.O. Box 505613 • Saipan, MP 96950 • Tel. (670) 256-8081 URA021822@grnail.com Our Culturc Foremost July 10, 2026 Office of Management and Budget Office of Federal Financial Management Rc: OMB Docket No. OMB-2026-0034 Comments on Proposed Revisions to 2 CFR — Federal Financial Assistance Dear Sir or Madam: On behalf of the URAALI Refaluwasch Association, I respectfully submit the following comments regarding the Office of Management and Budget's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), OMB Docket No. OMB-2026-0034. The URAALI Refaluwasch Association is an Indigenous nonprofit organization based in the Commonwealth of the Northem Mariana Islands (CNMI). Our mission is to preserve, protect, and promote the language, culture, traditions, and historical heritage of the Northern Marianas Descent (NMD) Refaluwasch (Carolinian) people, while strengthening community resilience through education, cultural preservation, and public service. We appreciate OMB's efforts to improve the government-wide administration of Federal Financial Assistance.
Source
OMB-2026-0034-151822 on regulations.gov
I respectfully the Office of Management and Budget extend the public comment period for the proposed regulation for federal financial assistance by at least 60 days beyond the curr
No position / unclear No position / unclear Agrees
What the label rests on
I respectfully the Office of Management and Budget extend the public comment period for the proposed regulation for federal financial assistance by at least 60 days beyond the current July 13, 2026 deadline.
Why this label
The comment makes a procedural request to extend the comment period and does not state support for or opposition to the substance of the proposed rule. Under the instructions, requests for more time are no_position.
The strongest case against it (for “Oppose”)
One could argue that asking for a delayed deadline implies concern about or resistance to the proposal, especially if intended to slow or challenge the rulemaking. But the text itself never objects to any provision or criticizes the rule.
What makes it hard
A request to extend the deadline can sometimes be part of a broader oppositional campaign, but here the text provided contains only the procedural request.
The comment
I respectfully the Office of Management and Budget extend the public comment period for the proposed regulation for federal financial assistance by at least 60 days beyond the current July 13, 2026 deadline.
Source
OMB-2026-0034-155821 on regulations.gov
Please have the Federal Government’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) propose new rules for how they review, prioritize, and disburse federal grants that will favorably affect
No position / unclear No position / unclear Agrees
What the label rests on
Please have the Federal Government’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) propose new rules for how they review, prioritize, and disburse federal grants that will favorably affect both the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Department of Defense’s Spinal Cord Injury Research Program (SCIRP) for spinal cord research.
Why this label
The comment asks OMB to "propose new rules" that would benefit spinal cord research, but it does not endorse or object to the specific proposed OMB rule in this docket. It engages the subject of grant review and disbursement but takes no clear side on this proposal.
The strongest case against it (for “Support”)
A fair argument for support is that the commenter is asking OMB to change how it "review[s], prioritize[s], and disburse[s] federal grants," which could be read as welcoming rule changes in this area. If a reviewer inferred they want OMB to act through this rulemaking, that might sound supportive.
What makes it hard
The phrase "propose new rules" sounds pro-regulation, but it is not clear whether the commenter means this specific rule, some different future rules, or simply more favorable grant treatment for spinal cord research.
The comment
Please have the Federal Government’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) propose new rules for how they review, prioritize, and disburse federal grants that will favorably affect both the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Department of Defense’s Spinal Cord Injury Research Program (SCIRP) for spinal cord research.
Source
OMB-2026-0034-156048 on regulations.gov
OMB Docket No. OMB-2026-0034 Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance To Whom It May Concern: I am submitting this comment as a Director of an organization dedicated exclusively
No position / unclear No position / unclear Agrees
What the label rests on
I appreciate the Administration's focus on strengthening accountability, improving oversight of federal funds, increasing transparency, and ensuring that taxpayer resources are used effectively. These are important goals that I support. ... I respectfully encourage consideration of implementation approaches that maintain strong accountability while providing the stability necessary for long-term educational programs
Why this label
The comment engages the proposal but does not clearly endorse or oppose the rule itself. It supports the goals of accountability and oversight, while mainly urging OMB to consider how the changes are implemented and to preserve stability for long-term programs.
The strongest case against it (for “Support”)
A fair reading is that the commenter backs the rule's direction because they say they 'appreciate the Administration's focus' and that these are 'important goals that I support,' while offering implementation suggestions rather than objections. That could be read as supportive feedback on finalizing the rule.
What makes it hard
The comment uses supportive language about the Administration's goals, but the instructions say supporting general goals like accountability is not the same as supporting this rule. It also avoids explicit criticism, which can make it look more favorable than it is.
The comment
OMB Docket No. OMB-2026-0034 Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance To Whom It May Concern: I am submitting this comment as a Director of an organization dedicated exclusively to supporting GEAR UP programs. For many years, I have worked alongside GEAR UP staff, school districts, institutions of higher education, and community partners to help strengthen program implementation, performance measurement, accountability, and outcomes for students. My work includes supporting federal reporting requirements, data quality, program evaluation, and continuous improvement efforts across multiple GEAR UP grants. I appreciate the Administration's focus on strengthening accountability, improving oversight of federal funds, increasing transparency, and ensuring that taxpayer resources are used effectively. These are important goals that I support. As someone who works directly with federally funded college access programs, I offer the following observations regarding how the proposed changes may be implemented in a manner that both advances accountability and preserves the effectiveness of long-term educational investments. GEAR UP is a performance-based program with clearly defined objectives, extensive reporting requirements, annual monitoring, independent evaluation requirements, and long-term outcome measures tied to student success. Because these grants are designed to serve students over multiple years, predictable administrative processes and clear expectations are essential t
Source
OMB-2026-0034-162827 on regulations.gov
I support efforts to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse in federal grant programs. Taxpayers have a legitimate interest in ensuring that public funds are used for their intended purpos
No position / unclear No position / unclear Agrees
What the label rests on
"I support efforts to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse in federal grant programs." "At the same time, reforms should be implemented in a manner that is transparent, consistent, and respectful of due process." "Oversight is most effective when it is applied fairly and based on objective evidence rather than political considerations." "Any reforms should balance efficiency, fraud prevention, transparency, and fairness."
Why this label
The comment discusses goals adjacent to the rule—fraud prevention, oversight, due process, and fairness—but never says it supports or opposes this specific OMB proposal or any named provision. Its language is generic and would read the same even if this rule had never been proposed.
The strongest case against it (for “Support”)
A fair argument for support is that the commenter endorses the kinds of anti-fraud and vetting measures the rule purports to advance, saying "I support efforts to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse" and "I support improvements to identity verification, recipient vetting, auditing procedures, and regular reviews of ongoing awards."
What makes it hard
The comment affirmatively says "I support" several oversight ideas that overlap with the rule's stated rationale, but it never connects that support to this rule and also adds caution about due process and avoiding political considerations.
The comment
I support efforts to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse in federal grant programs. Taxpayers have a legitimate interest in ensuring that public funds are used for their intended purposes and that agencies have the tools necessary to identify fraud before significant losses occur. At the same time, reforms should be implemented in a manner that is transparent, consistent, and respectful of due process. Agencies should have clear standards for suspending or terminating funding, and recipients should have an opportunity to respond to allegations of misuse or fraud. Oversight is most effective when it is applied fairly and based on objective evidence rather than political considerations. I support improvements to identity verification, recipient vetting, auditing procedures, and regular reviews of ongoing awards to ensure that programs are meeting their stated goals. Strong accountability measures can help restore public confidence in federal spending and ensure that limited resources reach the individuals and communities they are intended to serve. Any reforms should balance efficiency, fraud prevention, transparency, and fairness. The federal government has a responsibility both to protect taxpayer dollars and to ensure that legitimate recipients are able to access assistance without unnecessary administrative burdens. Thank you for considering my comments.
Source
OMB-2026-0034-18124 on regulations.gov
It is called Competitive Bidding and Procurement. It keeps businesses at an arms length. It avoids corruption based on a system of spoils, such as the 1920s Tea Pot Dome Scandal wh
No position / unclear No position / unclear Agrees
What the label rests on
"It is called Competitive Bidding and Procurement. It keeps businesses at an arms length. It avoids corruption based on a system of spoils, such as the 1920s Tea Pot Dome Scandal which resulted in federal charges filed against US Administration officials."
Why this label
The comment discusses a general principle of procurement and anti-corruption but does not clearly say it supports or opposes this specific OMB rule. It never mentions the rule, peer review, grant provisions, or any concrete action OMB should take.
The strongest case against it (for “Support”)
A fair reading is that the commenter favors stronger controls to prevent corruption and political favoritism, which could be read as sympathy for a rule framed as increasing oversight or integrity in funding decisions.
What makes it hard
The anti-corruption theme could sound like endorsement of reform in the abstract, but the text never actually ties that sentiment to this proposal or asks for it to be adopted.
The comment
It is called Competitive Bidding and Procurement. It keeps businesses at an arms length. It avoids corruption based on a system of spoils, such as the 1920s Tea Pot Dome Scandal which resulted in federal charges filed against US Administration officials.
Source
OMB-2026-0034-27633 on regulations.gov
I feel the SCOPE office in Socorro, NM is doing a very good job helping children to stay off of drugs and to help others their age. I’ve seen so many posts on Facebook their activi
No position / unclear No position / unclear Agrees
What the label rests on
"I feel SCOPE is much needed in our community. Please continue funding"
Why this label
The comment asks to keep funding for a local program but does not mention the OMB rule, peer review, political review, allowable costs, or any provision of the proposal. It engages the general topic of federal funding but does not clearly support or oppose this specific rule.
The strongest case against it (for “Oppose”)
A fair reading is that "Please continue funding" implicitly objects to a rule commenters say would restrict awards or costs, because the commenter fears a valued program could lose support. But that objection is only implied and not tied to the rule's substance.
What makes it hard
The plea to "continue funding" could reflect concern about the proposed changes' effects, but the comment never identifies the rule or states a position on it.
The comment
I feel the SCOPE office in Socorro, NM is doing a very good job helping children to stay off of drugs and to help others their age. I’ve seen so many posts on Facebook their activities, listened to the kid-run podcasts, watched my own grandson participate in their weekly Thrive classes, participate in the aforementioned activities. SCOPE is making their preseyknownbin a huge way. Their resource room with info re; books and pamphlets for distress, non-drugs use, distress, loss of loved ones, rainbow community, etc is very valuable and always well-stocked. They even distribute vegetables leftovers from a local program! I feel SCOPE is much needed in our community. Please continue funding
Source
OMB-2026-0034-32383 on regulations.gov
Death! Prevent DEATH! Allow Fentanyl test strip distribution. Allow Naloxone distribution. Allow addiction centers to distribute clean needles. These work, do not cause addiction.
No position / unclear No position / unclear Agrees
What the label rests on
"Death! Prevent DEATH! Allow Fentanyl test strip distribution. Allow Naloxone distribution. Allow addiction centers to distribute clean needles. These work, do not cause addiction."
Why this label
The comment advocates harm-reduction policies but does not mention the OMB rule, grant review, peer review, political appointees, or any specific provision of this proposal. It engages an adjacent policy area without clearly endorsing or objecting to the rule itself.
The strongest case against it (for “Oppose”)
A generous reader could infer opposition because the commenter is urging that these items be allowed, which may imply concern that the proposal would restrict such allowable costs or distributions. If read as reacting to those restrictions, it could be an objection to the rule.
What makes it hard
The word "Allow" could be read as responding to a perceived prohibition in the proposed rule, but the comment never actually ties that request to the rule or says OMB should change or reject it.
The comment
Death! Prevent DEATH! Allow Fentanyl test strip distribution. Allow Naloxone distribution. Allow addiction centers to distribute clean needles. These work, do not cause addiction. Sincerely, Susanna Kapoor PA-C
Source
OMB-2026-0034-40139 on regulations.gov
§200.334–337 electronic records standards Electronic-records provisions do not specify acceptable formats, integrity, or accessibility standards. Recipients and auditors dispute th
Metis Group Inc.
No position / unclear No position / unclear Agrees
What the label rests on
"Electronic-records provisions do not specify acceptable formats, integrity, or accessibility standards." "I recomend to sdopt a recognized electronic-records integrity standard and confirm that authentic electronic copies satisfy retention."
Why this label
The comment engages a specific part of the proposal and recommends clarifying standards, but it does not clearly endorse or object to the rule as a whole or even explicitly oppose the electronic-records provisions. It reads as a technical suggestion for revision rather than support or opposition.
The strongest case against it (for “Oppose”)
A fair reading is that the commenter is criticizing the proposed provisions as inadequate — saying they "do not specify" needed standards and urging OMB to adopt a different approach — which could count as objecting to part of the rule.
What makes it hard
Targeted criticism of a provision can qualify as opposition, but this comment is framed in procedural, technical terms and does not express disapproval in overt evaluative language.
The comment
§200.334–337 electronic records standards Electronic-records provisions do not specify acceptable formats, integrity, or accessibility standards. Recipients and auditors dispute the adequacy of electronic records, especially across system migrations. I recomend to sdopt a recognized electronic-records integrity standard and confirm that authentic electronic copies satisfy retention.
Source
OMB-2026-0034-52962 on regulations.gov
“We the People” want FULL transparency, regulation and oversight of ALL mechanics of government! It’s time to start representing WE THE PEOPLE, instead of billionaires and corporat
No position / unclear No position / unclear Agrees
What the label rests on
“We the People” want FULL transparency, regulation and oversight of ALL mechanics of government! It’s time to start representing WE THE PEOPLE, instead of billionaires and corporate greed!!! We have had it as a nation!!!
Why this label
The comment expresses a general desire for "transparency, regulation and oversight" in government, but it does not mention this OMB rule, peer review, grantmaking, or any specific provision to support or oppose. It engages broad themes adjacent to the rule's subject without taking a clear position on the proposal itself.
The strongest case against it (for “Support”)
A fair argument for support is that the commenter demands "FULL transparency, regulation and oversight of ALL mechanics of government," which could be read as favoring tighter federal control or review processes like those contemplated by the rule.
What makes it hard
The rhetoric about oversight could sound pro-rule at a very high level, but it is untethered to the actual proposal and would read the same even if this rule did not exist.
The comment
“We the People” want FULL transparency, regulation and oversight of ALL mechanics of government! It’s time to start representing WE THE PEOPLE, instead of billionaires and corporate greed!!! We have had it as a nation!!!
Source
OMB-2026-0034-73010 on regulations.gov
§ 200.341 "notice of termination should include the reasons for termination, the effective date". Suggest changing "should" to "must" to increase agency accountability. Notice of t
No position / unclear No position / unclear Agrees
What the label rests on
"Suggest changing \"should\" to \"must\" to increase agency accountability. Notice of termination must also be available to the public to provide taxpayers information about how their tax dollars are spent."
Why this label
The comment engages a specific provision of the proposed rule and suggests edits to strengthen transparency and accountability, but it does not clearly endorse or object to the rule overall or to the cited section as proposed. It is a procedural/substantive recommendation rather than a clear position for or against.
The strongest case against it (for “Support”)
A fair reading is that the commenter accepts the proposed requirement for notice of termination and wants it strengthened, which could be seen as supporting that provision of the rule in principle.
What makes it hard
Comments that propose revisions can look like partial support, but the instructions say asking OMB to revise or strengthen part of the rule is not the same as endorsing the rule.
The comment
§ 200.341 "notice of termination should include the reasons for termination, the effective date". Suggest changing "should" to "must" to increase agency accountability. Notice of termination must also be available to the public to provide taxpayers information about how their tax dollars are spent.
Source
OMB-2026-0034-83733 on regulations.gov
As a nonprofit youth-serving organization working with low-income children, teens, and families in Los Angeles, we support efforts to improve transparency, accountability, and resp
No position / unclear No position / unclear Agrees
What the label rests on
"we support efforts to improve transparency, accountability, and responsible stewardship of federal funds"; "We respectfully encourage OMB to include provisions that recognize the unique role of community-based nonprofit organizations."; "We recommend that the final regulation"; "Thank you for considering these recommendations."
Why this label
The comment engages the rulemaking and proposes changes to the final regulation, but it does not clearly endorse or oppose the proposed rule itself. Its focus is on recommending additions and priorities for community-based nonprofits rather than taking a side on the controversial peer-review and funding-shift provisions.
The strongest case against it (for “Support”)
A fair reading is that the commenter is generally favorable toward the rule because it says "we support efforts to improve transparency, accountability, and responsible stewardship of federal funds" and offers constructive recommendations for the "final regulation" rather than criticizing or rejecting it.
What makes it hard
The opening language sounds positive, but it praises general goals rather than explicitly backing this specific OMB proposal. The rest of the comment is amendment-oriented and could be read as either cooperative support or neutral participation.
The comment
As a nonprofit youth-serving organization working with low-income children, teens, and families in Los Angeles, we support efforts to improve transparency, accountability, and responsible stewardship of federal funds. We respectfully encourage OMB to include provisions that recognize the unique role of community-based nonprofit organizations. Many local organizations have deep, trusted relationships with underserved communities but often lack the administrative capacity of larger institutions. We recommend that the final regulation: Encourage funding opportunities that are accessible to small and medium-sized community-based nonprofits. Expand the use of multi-year awards for youth development, education, workforce development, mentoring, and violence prevention programs to provide continuity and long-term impact. Reduce unnecessary administrative burdens while maintaining strong financial accountability. Encourage partnerships between nonprofits, schools, local governments, and employers to create career pathways and leadership opportunities for youth. Recognize measurable outcomes such as graduation rates, college enrollment, workforce placement, leadership development, volunteerism, and community engagement as important indicators of program success. Organizations like the Salesian Family Youth Center serve thousands of young people each year through academic support, workforce readiness, leadership development, mentoring, and community engagement. Policies that provide st
Source
OMB-2026-0034-85610 on regulations.gov
Please find attached full comments from the City of Raleigh, NC City Attorney regarding Docket No. OMB-2026-0034.
No position / unclear No position / unclear Agrees
What the label rests on
Please find attached full comments from the City of Raleigh, NC City Attorney regarding Docket No. OMB-2026-0034.
Why this label
The text provided is purely transmittal language indicating that comments are attached; it does not itself express support for or opposition to the rule. Since no substantive position appears in the comment text shown, the safest label is no_position.
The strongest case against it (for “unclear_junk”)
One could argue this is effectively non-substantive because it contains no actual views on the rule in the visible text and depends entirely on missing attachments.
What makes it hard
The real position may be in the attachment, but the visible text alone is just a cover note.
The comment
Please find attached full comments from the City of Raleigh, NC City Attorney regarding Docket No. OMB-2026-0034.
Source
OMB-2026-0034-88108 on regulations.gov
Please see the attached comments from Itron regarding domestic manufacturing. --- ATTACHMENT CONTENT --- 1 Itron Inc. Dan Pfeiffer Vice President of Government and Regulatory Affai
Itron
No position / unclear No position / unclear Agrees
What the label rests on
"Itron appreciates the opportunity to submit these comments on the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) proposed rule entitled Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance"; "Itron encourages OMB to consider the further use of a ‘substantial transformation’ standard for advanced grid technologies’ compliance with Buy America requirements."; "We urge the Office of Management and Budget to reaffirm and ensure that agencies apply the substantial transformation standard"
Why this label
The comment engages a specific part of the proposal—Buy America and domestic-content treatment—but does not clearly endorse or oppose the rule as a whole. Instead, it asks OMB to adopt or clarify a particular interpretation within the rule, which is best read as a targeted policy request rather than clear support for or objection to the proposal.
The strongest case against it (for “Support”)
A fair case for support is that the commenter repeatedly praises the Administration’s goals and says "Itron supports Buy America programs," while urging OMB to implement its preferred "substantial transformation" approach under "2 CFR 200." A reader could see this as backing the rule’s domestic-preference direction while suggesting how to apply it.
What makes it hard
The comment is favorable toward Buy America and the Administration’s objectives, but it also asks OMB to avoid an "inflexible domestic content requirement," which sounds like a request to modify or soften how the rule operates rather than straightforward support.
The comment
Please see the attached comments from Itron regarding domestic manufacturing. --- ATTACHMENT CONTENT --- 1 Itron Inc. Dan Pfeiffer Vice President of Government and Regulatory Affairs 2111 N Molter Road Liberty Lake, WA 99019 July 13, 2026 The Honorable Russell Vought Director Office of Management and Budget 725 17th Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20503 RE: Itron Comments on Docket OMB-2026-0034 Sent via the Federal eRulemaking Portal Dear Director Vought: Itron appreciates the opportunity to submit these comments on the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) proposed rule entitled Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance, revising the Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance (Uniform Guidance), 2 CFR Part 200. As a U.S.-based company manufacturing state-of-the-art grid management solutions in the U.S. – including advanced metering technologies and technologies that support utility system reliability – Itron is deeply committed to expanding grid capacity through American-made solutions. Our continued investment in domestic manufacturing not only strengthens the nation’s energy infrastructure but also supports thousands of high-quality U.S. jobs. By maintaining and modernizing our American manufacturing facilities, Itron helps build a skilled workforce, promotes economic growth in the communities where we operate, and ensures that the benefits of American energy dominance are felt by American workers and their families. With approximately 1,500 jobs at Itron’s U.S. manufacturin
Source
OMB-2026-0034-89926 on regulations.gov
As an NIH funded researcher, I applaud efforts to rein in the extent of publication charges that can be paid from federal grants. Some for-profit journals are now charging up to $1
No position / unclear Oppose Tool wrong
What the label rests on
I applaud efforts to rein in the extent of publication charges that can be paid from federal grants... I suggest that instead of prohibiting publication costs altogether, that a cap be put on it, such as $2000... Not being able to pay for reasonable publication costs from a grant could put investigators in a difficult compliance situation.
Why this label
The commenter supports the goal of limiting excessive publication fees but explicitly argues against the rule's apparent prohibition on publication costs, proposing a cap instead. Under the instructions, asking OMB to revise or soften a provision counts as opposition rather than support.
The strongest case against it (for “Support”)
A fair reading is that the commenter endorses the rule's general effort to curb wasteful publication charges, saying "I applaud efforts to rein in" those costs and calling current charges "an abuse of the grant money." That could sound like support for the rule's direction, with only a suggested modification.
What makes it hard
The comment praises the rule's objective on publication charges, but then objects to going as far as a total prohibition; the mix of praise plus requested revision creates ambiguity.
The comment
As an NIH funded researcher, I applaud efforts to rein in the extent of publication charges that can be paid from federal grants. Some for-profit journals are now charging up to $10,000 per publication. This is an abuse of the grant money that select publishers have been getting away with. I have steered my lab away from publishing in these journals, even if in some cases the prestige of the journal would benefit exposure of our research. I suggest that instead of prohibiting publication costs altogether, that a cap be put on it, such as $2000. NIH funded investigators are mandated to comply with the NIH's open access policy. Not being able to pay for reasonable publication costs from a grant could put investigators in a difficult compliance situation.
Source
OMB-2026-0034-109724 on regulations.gov
Conference fees are necessary for scientists to share ideas,learn about each other’s research, collaborate, network, and search for jobs. Publishing costs are important to scientis
No position / unclear Oppose Tool wrong
What the label rests on
Conference fees are necessary for scientists to share ideas,learn about each other’s research, collaborate, network, and search for jobs. Publishing costs are important to scientists who want to get their work into open source where it is available to the broader public.
Why this label
The comment defends conference fees and publishing costs as important and necessary, which reads as objecting to the rule's restrictions on allowable costs in the cost-principle sections. By arguing these expenses are necessary for science and public access, the commenter is implicitly opposing provisions that would limit them.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
The commenter never explicitly says they oppose the rule or names OMB, and they could be making a general statement about the value of these costs without clearly taking a side on the proposal itself.
What makes it hard
It is implicit rather than explicit: the comment discusses categories of costs affected by the rule but does not directly say 'oppose' or mention the proposal by name.
The comment
Conference fees are necessary for scientists to share ideas,learn about each other’s research, collaborate, network, and search for jobs. Publishing costs are important to scientists who want to get their work into open source where it is available to the broader public.
Source
OMB-2026-0034-121680 on regulations.gov
Do not pass this bill! Leave trans ppl alone we all deserve rights
No position / unclear Oppose Tool wrong
What the label rests on
"Do not pass this bill! Leave trans ppl alone we all deserve rights"
Why this label
The commenter clearly urges the government not to advance the proposal: "Do not pass this bill!" That is straightforward opposition, even though the stated reason is about trans rights rather than the rule's grantmaking mechanics.
The strongest case against it (for “unclear_junk”)
A fair argument for unclear_junk is that the commenter calls it a "bill" and does not mention grants, OMB, peer review, or any provision of the rule, so they may be commenting on the wrong proceeding or offering only a generic slogan.
What makes it hard
The text is very short, misidentifies the action as a bill, and gives a reason that may be adjacent rather than clearly tied to this specific rule.
The comment
Do not pass this bill! Leave trans ppl alone we all deserve rights
Source
OMB-2026-0034-142491 on regulations.gov
I have concerns that the wording of this will be able to interfere with what adults may do with their body. It affects no one else if an adult over 18 years of age chooses to mutil
No position / unclear Oppose Tool wrong
What the label rests on
"I have concerns that the wording of this will be able to interfere with what adults may do with their body." "I'm no lawyer but I believe this is a violation of human rights, and cannot in good conscience endorse this movement as it is now."
Why this label
The commenter explicitly raises "concerns," calls it a "violation of human rights," and says they "cannot in good conscience endorse this movement as it is now," which is a clear objection rather than support. Even if the rationale is somewhat off-target, the text reads as opposition to the proposal's effects.
The strongest case against it (for “unclear_junk”)
The comment may be confused about what this OMB grants rule does, focusing on bodily autonomy and "mutilate themself" rather than peer review, funding decisions, or federal grant cost principles. A reviewer could see it as off-topic to the docket despite its negative stance.
What makes it hard
The comment plainly opposes something, but it may be misreading or projecting unrelated policy concerns onto this rule, so the challenge is whether to treat that as opposition to the rule or as off-topic confusion.
The comment
I have concerns that the wording of this will be able to interfere with what adults may do with their body. It affects no one else if an adult over 18 years of age chooses to mutilate themself. I'm no lawyer but I believe this is a violation of human rights, and cannot in good conscience endorse this movement as it is now.
Source
OMB-2026-0034-22612 on regulations.gov
[200.432; Conference Participation]: While I agree that conference-associated costs should be limited to presentation of data directly arising from the sponsored research, pre-appr
No position / unclear Oppose Tool wrong
What the label rests on
While I agree that conference-associated costs should be limited to presentation of data directly arising from the sponsored research, pre-approval is challenging as the exact timing of the data being ready for presentation is usually a moving target and it is not always clear until late in the process where the optimal target conference will be. Instead, the allotted funding should be pre-specified as a distinct line item in the grant, not to be exceeded, and the PI should be required to submit proof of abstract acceptance or other presentation invitation at the time of request for reimbursement.
Why this label
The commenter objects to the proposed pre-approval requirement in section 200.432, calling it "challenging" and proposing an alternative system instead. Under the rule instructions, asking OMB to revise or soften a provision counts as opposition rather than support.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A fair reading is that the commenter agrees with the goal of limiting conference costs and is mainly offering implementation suggestions rather than rejecting the rule outright; this could be seen as engaging the subject without taking an overall side.
What makes it hard
The comment explicitly agrees with part of the proposal's goal, but then criticizes the mechanism and substitutes a different approach.
The comment
[200.432; Conference Participation]: While I agree that conference-associated costs should be limited to presentation of data directly arising from the sponsored research, pre-approval is challenging as the exact timing of the data being ready for presentation is usually a moving target and it is not always clear until late in the process where the optimal target conference will be. Instead, the allotted funding should be pre-specified as a distinct line item in the grant, not to be exceeded, and the PI should be required to submit proof of abstract acceptance or other presentation invitation at the time of request for reimbursement. This allows for optimal dissemination of science with relevant audiences while not allowing excessive or unrelated conference travel.
Source
OMB-2026-0034-32273 on regulations.gov
I would like to express my enormous concerns over this administration's executive order that will alter how grant funding is handled by the US government. Under the system that had
No position / unclear Oppose Tool wrong
What the label rests on
"I would like to express my enormous concerns over this administration's executive order that will alter how grant funding is handled by the US government." "Under the proposed rules, political appointees would have the final say, and they were specifically instructed not to 'routinely defer' to peer reviewers." "Overriding this process undercuts the credibility and viability of the US scientific community and its international status, and is not in the national interest." "The proposed changes would significantly damage the scientific research as well as the overall well being of this country."
Why this label
This is a direct objection to the proposal: the commenter says they have "enormous concerns," criticizes shifting decisions from peer review to political appointees, and says the "proposed changes" would damage science and the country. That fits opposition under the rule's definition.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A cautious reader could note the comment refers to an "executive order" and "proposed rules" rather than naming the OMB Uniform Guidance docket specifically, so one might wonder whether it is aimed at a related policy more generally rather than this exact rule.
What makes it hard
The comment frames the issue partly as an executive order and broader administration action, which could make the exact target seem slightly broader than this docket. But the substance closely matches the rule's contested shift away from peer review toward political appointees.
The comment
I would like to express my enormous concerns over this administration's executive order that will alter how grant funding is handled by the US government. Under the system that had made the US a scientific superpower, peer reviewers rated the scientific quality and feasibility of grant applications, and subject-matter experts within the funding agencies used these ratings to determine which grants got funded. Under the proposed rules, political appointees would have the final say, and they were specifically instructed not to “routinely defer” to peer reviewers. Overriding this process undercuts the credibility and viability of the US scientific community and its international status, and is not in the national interest. Allowing political appointees who have not been vetted for their scientific credentials to override and control the research grant vetting process is akin to giving an unlicensed or inexperienced physician and friend of the hospital CEO the power to make triage decisions in a high-volume emergency room. The US research community has always been the envy of the world, but no more, as it is being systematically dismantled and undermined for political objectives and ideologies. The consequences are both immediate, in terms of losing brain-power to other countries (already happening), and long-term because of the unintended or intended consequences of not funding research that is not "politically correct." I thought this party was the party of SMALLer government?
Source
OMB-2026-0034-3991 on regulations.gov
See attached file(s) --- ATTACHMENT CONTENT --- Governor Joe Lombardo Director A’Keia Sanders 775.684.0156 grants@ofa.nv.gov ofa.nv.gov Southern Nevada Office | 505 Capovilla Avenu
No position / unclear Oppose Tool wrong
What the label rests on
"While Nevada supports many of the objectives outlined in the proposed rule, our agencies identified concerns with several proposed revisions that, if included in the final rule, may substantially increase administrative burdens and costs, create implementation uncertainty, reduce operational flexibility, and delay the delivery of federally funded services without proportionate improvements in program integrity." "Nevada agencies have concerns that, when implemented collectively, the proposed revisions will substantially increase the administrative responsibilities of recipients and pass-through entities." "Nevada urges OMB to preserve the flexibility states need to administer federal financial assistance effectively." "broader discretionary suspension and termination authorities, if not clearly defined and consistently applied, would create uncertainty for state budgets and recipients"
Why this label
The comment clearly objects to multiple proposed revisions and asks OMB to change or not include them, citing burdens, uncertainty, reduced flexibility, and delayed services. Under the instructions, objecting to any provision of the proposed rule counts as oppose, even though the letter is formal and partial rather than categorical.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A fair alternative is no_position because the letter repeatedly says it supports OMB's goals and "many of the objectives," frames itself as offering implementation recommendations, and does not explicitly say "oppose" or ask OMB to withdraw the rule entirely.
What makes it hard
The comment is diplomatically written and mixes praise for the rule's goals with substantial objections to specific revisions, so a reader could mistake it for neutral stakeholder feedback rather than opposition.
The comment
See attached file(s) --- ATTACHMENT CONTENT --- Governor Joe Lombardo Director A’Keia Sanders 775.684.0156 grants@ofa.nv.gov ofa.nv.gov Southern Nevada Office | 505 Capovilla Avenue, Suite 104, Las Vegas, NV 89119 Northern Nevada Office | 209 E. Musser Street, Suite 100, Carson City, NV 89701 July 13th, 2026 The Honorable Russell T. Vought Director Office of Management and Budget 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503 Re: State of Nevada Comments on Proposed Rule – Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance (OMB- 2026-0034) Dear Director Vought: The State of Nevada appreciates the opportunity to provide comments regarding the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) proposed rule, Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance (OMB-2026-0034). These comments reflect the collective input of Nevada state agencies responsible for administering federal financial assistance across public safety, education, health and human services, transportation, environmental protection, broadband infrastructure, higher education, natural resources, libraries, Tribal affairs, and economic development. Collectively, these agencies manage hundreds of federal awards annually and administer federal resources through local governments, Tribal governments, school districts, institutions of higher education, nonprofit organizations, and other subrecipients responsible for delivering essential public services to Nevadans. Nevada appreciates OMB's continued efforts to modernize the Uniform Guidance and sh
Source
OMB-2026-0034-77076 on regulations.gov
See attached file(s) --- ATTACHMENT CONTENT --- 1150 18th Street NW Suite 750 Washington, DC 20036 phone 202.803.8995 1 July 13, 2026 Office of Management and Budget Docket OMB-202
Internet2
No position / unclear Oppose Tool wrong
What the label rests on
"Internet2 respectfully encourages OMB to refine several aspects of the proposed rule"; "affirm that merit-based peer review remains a core component of the award process"; "To the extent the proposed rule introduces new restrictions or prior approval requirements for conference attendance, travel, or publication costs, Internet2 respectfully urges OMB to consider the practical consequences"; "maintain conference attendance and travel as allowable costs without requiring prior approval"; "provide additional guidance regarding the circumstances under which active awards may be modified or terminated"
Why this label
Although the letter opens with support for accountability goals, its substantive recommendations object to multiple key features of the proposal: it asks OMB to preserve merit-based peer review, soften restrictions on allowable costs, and constrain award modification/termination authority. Under the rule for this task, objecting to any provision and defending peer review/scientific independence counts as oppose.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A fair reading is that the commenter is engaged in implementation-oriented refinement rather than outright opposition: it says "We support the federal government's efforts" and repeatedly asks OMB to "clarify," "define," and "provide guidance" rather than reject the rule as a whole. A reviewer could see it as generally supportive with requested edits, not clearly for or against the proposal overall.
What makes it hard
The comment is diplomatic and explicitly supportive of the rule's stated goals, while opposing or seeking revision of several important provisions. The challenge is distinguishing support for goals/accountability from opposition to concrete elements of this rule.
The comment
See attached file(s) --- ATTACHMENT CONTENT --- 1150 18th Street NW Suite 750 Washington, DC 20036 phone 202.803.8995 1 July 13, 2026 Office of Management and Budget Docket OMB-2026-0034 Re: RFI Response: Office of Management and Budget Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance Summary The University Corporation for Advanced Internet Development (d/b/a "Internet2") appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Office of Management and Budget’s proposed revisions to the Uniform Guidance governing Federal Financial Assistance. We support the federal government's efforts to strengthen accountability, improve stewardship of taxpayer resources, and ensure that federal research investments advance the nation's strategic priorities. As the operator of the nation’s leading research and education network and trusted digital infrastructure serving the U.S. research and education community, Internet2 offers a perspective centered on implementation. Our perspective is informed by our role as shared national research infrastructure rather than as a recipient of research funding alone. Today’s national research priorities increasingly depend upon shared cyberinfrastructure that enables secure collaboration among universities, federal agencies, national laboratories, industry partners, and regional research and education networks. National initiatives such as the Department of Energy’s Genesis Mission, the National Artificial Intelligence Research Resource (NAIRR), and future research infra
Source
OMB-2026-0034-91928 on regulations.gov
Please see attached comments. --- ATTACHMENT CONTENT --- July 13, 2026 Andrew Reisig / Joel Savary Office of Management and Budget Office of Federal Financial Management 725 17th S
Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance
No position / unclear Oppose Tool wrong
What the label rests on
“CVSA is concerned that the language included in these proposed changes could be interpreted to mean that funds are not permitted to be spent on purchasing advertisement space/time for public service announcements that support the purpose of the award.” “As written, the proposed language in § 200.241 would potentially limit the use of this powerful safety tool.” “CVSA requests that OMB reconsider this approach.” “However, it is important that OMB ensure that the oversight measures are not overly restrictive, as that would have a negative impact on awardees’ ability to effectively meet stated program goals.”
Why this label
The comment expressly objects to several proposed provisions as too restrictive, asks OMB to add exceptions or reconsider them, and warns they would harm awardees’ ability to meet safety goals. Under the rubric, objecting to any provision of the proposed rule counts as oppose even if the commenter supports some stated goals.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A fair argument for no_position is that the commenter repeatedly says “CVSA supports the goals of the proposed rule” and offers targeted revisions rather than blanket opposition, which can read like constructive feedback rather than taking an overall side against the rule.
What makes it hard
The letter mixes explicit support for the rule’s goals with clear objections to specific sections, so a reader could confuse support for the goals with support for the rule itself.
The comment
Please see attached comments. --- ATTACHMENT CONTENT --- July 13, 2026 Andrew Reisig / Joel Savary Office of Management and Budget Office of Federal Financial Management 725 17th Street, NW Washington, DC 20503 RE: Docket Number: OMB-2026-0034 Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance The Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) respectfully submits the following comments in response to the proposed rule published in the Federal Register by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on May 29, 2026. Specifically, OMB is seeking comments on the agency’s proposal to revise the Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance, located in Title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Subtitle A, to improve government-wide policies and requirements related to the management of grants, cooperative agreements and other forms of assistance, Docket No. OMB-2026-0034. About CVSA CVSA is a nonprofit association comprised of local, state, provincial, territorial and federal commercial motor vehicle safety officials and industry representatives. The Alliance aims to achieve uniformity, compatibility and reciprocity of commercial motor vehicle inspections and enforcement by certified inspectors dedicated to driver and vehicle safety. Our mission is to improve commercial motor vehicle safety and uniformity throughout Canada, Mexico and the United States, by providing guidance and education to enforcement, industry and policy makers. CVSA has four membership types: • Class I Members – Our sta
Source
OMB-2026-0034-94405 on regulations.gov
I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Office of Management and Budget's proposed revisions to the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requireme
No position / unclear Oppose Tool wrong
What the label rests on
"I am particularly concerned about the proposed expansion of discretionary termination authority under § 200.340." "Broad termination authority based upon evolving priorities or undefined standards introduces uncertainty that discourages responsible long-term planning and investment." "If OMB retains expanded termination authority, I respectfully encourage the inclusion of clearly defined standards, robust notice requirements, meaningful opportunities for corrective action, and administrative appeal rights before awards may be suspended or terminated."
Why this label
The comment explicitly objects to a specific proposed provision—expanded termination authority under § 200.340—and asks OMB to change it by adding limits and protections. Under the instructions, objecting to any provision of the rule counts as oppose, even if the commenter supports OMB's general goals.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A fair reading is that the commenter does not reject the rule as a whole and repeatedly affirms accountability goals, saying "I strongly support OMB's stated goals" and urging OMB to "finalize a Uniform Guidance" with better standards. That could make this seem more like a constructive request for revisions than outright opposition.
What makes it hard
The comment is measured and mixed: it praises OMB's goals and says the comments "should therefore not be interpreted as opposition to strong oversight," which could distract from the fact that it plainly opposes at least one proposed change.
The comment
I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Office of Management and Budget's proposed revisions to the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance). My comments are attached as Word document. I serve as President and Chief Executive Officer of LEADS Community Action Agency, a nonprofit organization headquartered in Newark, Ohio. For more than sixty years, LEADS has partnered with federal, state, and local governments to combat poverty through locally designed solutions. Today, we employ more than 120 people and administer a broad portfolio of federally funded programs, including Head Start and Early Head Start, the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG), the Home Energy Assistance Program (HEAP), Weatherization, affordable housing, and other initiatives that collectively serve approximately 15,000 households each year across central Ohio. --- ATTACHMENT CONTENT --- July 9, 2026 Andrew Reisig Joel Savary Office of Federal Financial Management U.S. Office of Management and Budget 725 17th Street, NW Washington, DC 20503 Re: Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance (OMB-2026-0034) Dear Mr. Reisig and Mr. Savary: I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Office of Management and Budget's proposed revisions to the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance). I serve as President and Chief Executive Officer of LEADS Community Action
Source
OMB-2026-0034-148362 on regulations.gov
On behalf of the National Association of Flood & Stormwater Management Agencies (NAFSMA), we appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) pr
NAFSMA
No position / unclear Oppose Tool wrong
What the label rests on
"However, several other provisions would introduce new financial, legal, and administrative risk for public agencies"; "Expanded discretionary termination and suspension authority would allow a federal agency or pass-through entity to terminate an award"; "Mid-project termination ... exposes local governments to open-ended financial liability"; "We recommend that OMB ... extend the disaster recovery and formula grant exemption"; "The proposal's undefined 'reputational damage' standard ... adds significant uncertainty"; "We recommend that OMB either remove this standard"; "A stated preference ... for applicants with lower indirect cost rates could disadvantage well-run public agencies"; "we are concerned about the overall implementation timeline."
Why this label
The commenter expressly objects to multiple provisions of the proposed rule and asks OMB to remove, exempt, clarify, delay, or limit them. Under the instructions, objecting to any provision counts as opposition even if the commenter praises some other parts.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A fair reader could note that the letter says "We support OMB's stated goal" and "NAFSMA supports" some specific elements like multi-year awards, while mostly offering technical revisions rather than blanket opposition. That can read as engaged, mixed, and not wholly against the rule overall.
What makes it hard
The comment is mixed: it supports some provisions and goals, but opposes several others. The task's rule says opposition to any provision is enough for "oppose," which resolves the mixed tone.
The comment
On behalf of the National Association of Flood & Stormwater Management Agencies (NAFSMA), we appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) proposed rewrite of the Uniform Guidance at 2 CFR Part 200 and related parts, published May 29, 2026. NAFSMA represents flood control districts, stormwater utilities, state water agencies, and public works agencies nationwide that plan, build, and maintain the levees, floodwalls, pump stations, channels, and stormwater systems that protect millions of Americans. Our members are major recipients and subrecipients of federal financial assistance from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and they administer that assistance under multi-year capital programs that frequently span three to seven years from design through construction. Please find our attached comments. --- ATTACHMENT CONTENT --- NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FLOOD & STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AGENCIES (NAFSMA) P.O. Box 4336, Silver Spring, MD 20914 | Washington, DC (202) 289-8625 | www.nafsma.org July 9, 2026 Office of Federal Financial Management Office of Management and Budget Attn: Andrew Reisig and Joel Savary Submitted electronically via www.regulations.gov Re: Comments on Proposed Rule, “Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance,” 91 FR 32198 (May 29, 2026); Docket No. OMB-2026-0034 Dear Director Vought: On behalf of the National Association of Flood & S
Source
OMB-2026-0034-149495 on regulations.gov
I agree with the proposal for increased oversight and integrity of the OMB.
No position / unclear Support Tool wrong
What the label rests on
I agree with the proposal for increased oversight and integrity of the OMB.
Why this label
The commenter explicitly says, "I agree with the proposal," which is direct endorsement of the rule as they understand it. Even though they frame it in terms of "increased oversight and integrity," they tie that approval to "the proposal."
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A fair alternative reading is that the commenter supports only vague goals like "increased oversight and integrity," not necessarily the specific Uniform Guidance revisions; the wording is brief and may reflect general values rather than informed endorsement of the actual rule text.
What makes it hard
The phrase "oversight and integrity" is generic and could describe a goal rather than a concrete provision, so the main question is whether "I agree with the proposal" is enough to count as support for this rule.
The comment
I agree with the proposal for increased oversight and integrity of the OMB.
Source
OMB-2026-0034-52795 on regulations.gov
Docket Number: OMB-2026-0034 Springer Nature Comment to Proposed Revisions to 2 CFR § 200.461 and § 200.454 --- ATTACHMENT CONTENT --- Springer Nature Comment to Proposed Revisions
Springer Nature
Oppose Oppose Agrees
What the label rests on
"we are concerned that the proposed changes would materially harm the U.S. research enterprise"; "The proposed constraint by OMB risks slowing U.S. research visibility and weakening its international competitiveness"; "The proposal rests on the mistaken premise"; "These goals would be severely undermined by the OMB proposal"; "We respectfully recommend that OMB: 1. Retain allowability of publication costs... 2. Withdraw the blanket prohibition on subscriptions... 3. Eliminate prior approval requirements"; "The proposed changes would disrupt the core mechanisms"; "We urge OMB to revise the proposal"
Why this label
This comment squarely objects to specific provisions of the proposed rule, arguing they would harm research, undermine peer review and dissemination, and should be withdrawn or changed. The recommendations to retain current allowability, withdraw prohibitions, and eliminate prior approval are direct opposition to the proposal as written.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A fair alternative reading is that the commenter does not reject the entire rule and says "We share OMB’s commitment to stewardship of Federal funds and transparency" while asking OMB to "revise the proposal," which could sound like targeted feedback rather than blanket opposition.
What makes it hard
It is not a simple 'oppose this rule' slogan; it is a detailed, section-specific comment that supports OMB's general goals while opposing major proposed changes. A reader could mistake its professional tone and request for revision as neutrality.
The comment
Docket Number: OMB-2026-0034 Springer Nature Comment to Proposed Revisions to 2 CFR § 200.461 and § 200.454 --- ATTACHMENT CONTENT --- Springer Nature Comment to Proposed Revisions to 2 CFR § 200.461 and § 200.454 Docket Number: OMB-2026-0034 July 13, 2026 Attention: Office of Management and Budget, Office of Financial Management On behalf of Springer Nature, we appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed revisions to 2 CFR §§ 200.461 and 200.454. We are limiting our comments to areas where we have direct evidence, but share concerns with the research community about the transformative nature of this proposal to the scientific enterprise. Springer Nature is a leading global research, educational, and professional publisher, serving millions of researchers, educators, clinicians, and professionals through its journals, books, platforms, and advanced technology solutions. For more than 180 years, Springer Nature has brought the very best science, including troves of American research, to the world. Our journals published breakthroughs from the discovery of DNA’s structure to the latest advances in personal technology, physics, space exploration, and artificial intelligence (AI). We share OMB’s commitment to stewardship of Federal funds and transparency; however, we are concerned that the proposed changes would materially harm the U.S. research enterprise, reduce the impact of federally funded research, and undermine longstanding Federal policy goals related to global
Source
OMB-2026-0034-111095 on regulations.gov
See attached file(s) --- ATTACHMENT CONTENT --- Wisconsin Board for People with Developmental Disabilities 101 East Wilson Street, Room 219, Madison, Wisconsin 53703 Voice 608.266.
Oppose Oppose Agrees
What the label rests on
"Administrative changes that restrict how funds can be spent limit responsiveness to local needs and priorities." "We recommend OMB exclude mandatory formula grant programs from the rule" "It is unclear how a State Councils would implement such a provision. This provision creates additional administrative workload and may slow down distribution of funding" "we are aware that multiple Wisconsin state agencies share concerns about fiscal uncertainty related to the proposed changes to suspensions and terminations."
Why this label
The comment objects to several parts of the proposed rule and asks OMB to carve out mandatory formula grant programs altogether. It warns that the changes would restrict spending, create administrative burdens, and cause harmful funding uncertainty and clawbacks.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A fairer reading toward neutrality is that the commenter is engaging in technical implementation feedback—asking for exclusions, clarification, and added language—rather than explicitly saying the whole rule should be withdrawn. Much of the letter is framed as concern about impacts and recommendations for revision.
What makes it hard
The letter is measured and focuses on narrowing or revising the rule rather than flatly denouncing it, so a reader could mistake it for merely procedural feedback.
The comment
See attached file(s) --- ATTACHMENT CONTENT --- Wisconsin Board for People with Developmental Disabilities 101 East Wilson Street, Room 219, Madison, Wisconsin 53703 Voice 608.266.7826 • Toll Free 888.332.1677 • FAX 608.267.3906 Email: bpddhelp@wi-bpdd.org • Website: www.wi-bpdd.org July 13, 2026 Office of Management and Budget Re: OMB-2026-0034 (Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance) Submitted electronically via: https://www.regulations.gov/document/OMB-2026-0034-0001 To Whom It May Concern: The Wisconsin Board for People with Developmental Disabilities (BPDD) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the impact revisions to OMB’s Uniform Grant Guidance rule could have on the agencies, programs, and services people with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (I/DD) and their families rely upon to lead full, productive lives. Congressionally appropriated federal formula grant and discretionary grants flow to states for critical work that is needed to meet federal requirements, improve support and opportunities for people with disabilities, and conduct research that benefits health and improves outcomes for people with disabilities and caregivers. Many state agencies and universities receive federal funding through formula or discretionary grants that directly impact local programs and individual people with I/DD and families. Federal formula grants touch many important areas that impact the lives of people with disabilities and family caregivers, including special
Source
OMB-2026-0034-92571 on regulations.gov
[DRAFT] I am writing to strongly oppose this OMB regulation.
Oppose Oppose Agrees
What the label rests on
"I am writing to strongly oppose this OMB regulation."
Why this label
The comment explicitly states opposition to the OMB regulation in direct, unambiguous terms. That is a straightforward objection to the rule.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
Because the comment is marked "[DRAFT]," one could argue it is not a finalized substantive submission and contains no reasoning beyond a bare statement. Still, it clearly expresses opposition.
What makes it hard
The "[DRAFT]" tag could make someone wonder whether to discount it, but the text itself plainly takes a side.
The comment
[DRAFT] I am writing to strongly oppose this OMB regulation.
Source
OMB-2026-0034-101439 on regulations.gov
This proposed rule is a very bad idea. It will cause vital programs to lose funding because the person approving funding does not have the expertise to understand, much less evalua
Oppose Oppose Agrees
What the label rests on
"This proposed rule is a very bad idea." "The existing, lawful process uses experts in the field of a project to evaluate its feasibility and potential value." "Centralizing the approval process is simply not feasible or logical, and likely unlawful." "it will impede the function of the included agencies by subjecting their proposed projects to the whims of whatever political party is in charge. Politics should not guide this kind of decision about what projects will go forward."
Why this label
The comment explicitly condemns the proposal as "a very bad idea" and argues it would replace expert review with political decision-making, which squarely objects to the rule. It also warns of harm to funding decisions and agency functioning, classic opposition under the docket guidance.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A cautious reader could say the comment mostly critiques a perceived consequence of "centralizing the approval process" and defends expert review without naming specific CFR sections, so it could be read as general policy commentary rather than a direct position on the rule. But the opening sentence directly targets "This proposed rule," making neutrality hard to sustain.
What makes it hard
The comment does not discuss specific regulatory text and instead focuses on broader concerns about expertise, legality, and politicization.
The comment
This proposed rule is a very bad idea. It will cause vital programs to lose funding because the person approving funding does not have the expertise to understand, much less evaluate, proposals in the many different areas covered by any single department, much less the multiple agencies covered in the proposed rule. The existing, lawful process uses experts in the field of a project to evaluate its feasibility and potential value. That process, and having experts in that role, is vital to the function of government agencies, for research, service, and regulatory activities. Centralizing the approval process is simply not feasible or logical, and likely unlawful. At the very least, it will impede the function of the included agencies by subjecting their proposed projects to the whims of whatever political party is in charge. This is a bad thing, no matter if you/we/they happen to agree with who is in charge at any moment. Politics should not guide this kind of decision about what projects will go forward.
Source
OMB-2026-0034-101839 on regulations.gov
I strongly oppose the proposed changes in OMB Docket OMB-2026-0034 that would allow senior political appointees to have the final authority over federal grant awards following scie
Oppose Oppose Agrees
What the label rests on
I strongly oppose the proposed changes in OMB Docket OMB-2026-0034 that would allow senior political appointees to have the final authority over federal grant awards following scientific or technical peer review. ... I respectfully urge OMB to revise the proposed rule to preserve independent peer review as the primary basis for grant selection
Why this label
This is explicit opposition: the commenter says they "strongly oppose the proposed changes" and argues the rule would let political appointees override peer review, undermining merit-based funding and public trust. They also urge OMB to revise the proposal to preserve independent peer review, which is opposition under the stated rubric.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A very strained reading is that the commenter is engaging procedurally by asking OMB to "revise the proposed rule" rather than reject it outright, so one could say they are participating in line-drawing within the rulemaking rather than opposing the entire rule. But the text clearly objects to a core provision and repeatedly warns against it.
What makes it hard
The commenter asks for revision rather than total withdrawal, which could mislead a reader into thinking this is merely constructive feedback. But the rule says objecting to any provision counts as oppose.
The comment
I strongly oppose the proposed changes in OMB Docket OMB-2026-0034 that would allow senior political appointees to have the final authority over federal grant awards following scientific or technical peer review. The strength of the federal grant system has long depended on decisions being driven primarily by merit, technical excellence, and public benefit rather than by changing political priorities. Making peer review merely advisory risks undermining confidence that awards are based on objective evaluation. Moreover, the idea of overriding reviews and recommendations by persons who are not scientists and who, by definition, are politically motivated renders this administration’s so-called “Gold Standard Science” (Executive Order #14303) a joke. I urge OMB to pay particular attention to item 7 in the definition of “Gold Standard Science”: “Subject to unbiased peer review”. Career program officials and independent expert reviewers possess the subject-matter expertise necessary to evaluate the scientific, technical, and societal merits of complex proposals. Political appointees are accountable for implementing an administration’s policy objectives, but they should not replace expert judgment in determining which individual proposals represent the highest-quality investments. Allowing political officials to overrule peer review without clear, objective standards creates the appearance—and potentially the reality—of political influence in funding decisions. Federal research and
Source
OMB-2026-0034-103990 on regulations.gov
Dear Mr. Reisig and Mr. Savary, Please find a comment from the Reproductive Freedom Alliance (RFA) attached, urging the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Department of
Reproductive Freedom Alliance
Oppose Oppose Agrees
What the label rests on
"urge the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to jointly withdraw their proposed regulation for federal financial assistance"; "The proposed rule would introduce significant uncertainty into federal grantmaking, diminish the role of evidence-based decision-making, and politicize critical grant streams"; "RFA urges OMB, HHS and the other 41 co-signing agencies to withdraw the proposed revisions to the Uniform Guidance."
Why this label
This is explicit opposition: the commenter repeatedly asks OMB/HHS to "withdraw" the proposed rule. The attachment also argues the rule would politicize grantmaking, weaken expert judgment, and harm health care and research, all of which fit oppose under the instructions.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A narrow reader might note that part of the comment also asks for "additional time" and requests OMB "clarify the language" of one section, which are procedural or revision-oriented points. But those are secondary to the unmistakable overall demand that the rule be withdrawn.
What makes it hard
The comment includes both outright opposition and some subsidiary procedural/revision requests, so a careless reader could overfocus on the extension/clarification language.
The comment
Dear Mr. Reisig and Mr. Savary, Please find a comment from the Reproductive Freedom Alliance (RFA) attached, urging the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to jointly withdraw their proposed regulation for federal financial assistance. Respectfully submitted, Christina Chang Executive Director Reproductive Freedom Alliance --- ATTACHMENT CONTENT --- 1 July 13, 2026 Submitted via www.regulations.gov Andrew Reisig & Joel Savary Office of Federal Financial Management Office of Management and Budget 725 17th Street, NW Washington, DC 20503 RE: Docket No. OMB-2026-0034, Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance, 91 Fed. Reg. 32198 (May 29, 2026). Dear Mr. Reisig and Mr. Savary, The Reproductive Freedom Alliance (RFA) submits these comments to urge the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to jointly withdraw their proposed regulation for federal financial assistance. As a nonpartisan coalition of 24 governors,1 the RFA is deeply concerned that this proposed rule could result in a reduction of critical federal support for reproductive health care across the country, including maternal health and contraceptive care in rural communities, and destabilize the functioning of essential reproductive health programs throughout the nation. As an alliance committed to expanding and protecting access to reproductive health care, RFA have focused its comment specifically on the harms
Source
OMB-2026-0034-107234 on regulations.gov
America has led the world in research and development for nearly a century. This rule is an attempt to fix a problem that does not exist. There is no need for political oversight o
Oppose Oppose Agrees
What the label rests on
"This rule is an attempt to fix a problem that does not exist. There is no need for political oversight of science in this country; it will only make us like the Soviet Union under Lysenko"
Why this label
The comment explicitly criticizes the rule itself and rejects its political oversight of science, warning it will harm U.S. research leadership. That is direct opposition under the rubric.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A cautious reader could say the comment does not mention specific provisions or explicitly say 'I oppose,' and instead offers a general statement about political oversight of science.
What makes it hard
It is broad and rhetorical rather than provision-specific, so someone might mistake it for a general observation rather than a position on the proposal.
The comment
America has led the world in research and development for nearly a century. This rule is an attempt to fix a problem that does not exist. There is no need for political oversight of science in this country; it will only make us like the Soviet Union under Lysenko (which was very bad).
Source
OMB-2026-0034-120379 on regulations.gov
My great niece has been battling cancer since she was three years old. After being cancer free for ten years, she became symtamatic in her early teens and survived relapsed acute l
Oppose Oppose Agrees
What the label rests on
"I am concerned about the proposed revisions to §§200.202, 200.204, 200.205, 200.218, 200.300, 200.340, and 200.432." "federally funded programs would be expected to align with Administration priorities and politics would have a deeper role in science and research decisions." "I respectfully urge OMB to withdraw the proposed changes" "Funding decisions should be based on scientific merit and the potential to improve lives, not shifting political priorities."
Why this label
This directly objects to the proposed rule, says politics would improperly shape research decisions, and explicitly urges OMB to withdraw the changes. Defending scientific merit and expert-driven funding is opposition under the rule given.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A cautious reader could note phrases like "As I understand them" and read the comment as primarily expressing concern about possible effects rather than parsing the rule text in detail. Much of the comment is a personal story about cancer research, which could be seen as contextual rather than a technical policy position.
What makes it hard
The emotional narrative and broad defense of science could distract from the key policy stance, but the explicit request to "withdraw the proposed changes" resolves the ambiguity.
The comment
My great niece has been battling cancer since she was three years old. After being cancer free for ten years, she became symtamatic in her early teens and survived relapsed acute lymphoblastic leukemia. After her cancer returned, she underwent intensive treatment, including a bone marrow transplant from an unrelated donor. Following her transplant, she developed graft-versus-host disease, a serious and potentially life-threatening complication. Fortunately, she was able to receive a newer targeted therapy that helped control her disease and quash the GVHD. Years ago, treatment options would have been far less advanced. And perhaps a different outcome would have been the result. I am concerned about the proposed revisions to §§200.202, 200.204, 200.205, 200.218, 200.300, 200.340, and 200.432. As I understand them, federally funded programs would be expected to align with Administration priorities and politics would have a deeper role in science and research decisions. When a life threatening illness strikes a family member, no one asks whether a treatment aligned with the priorities of a particular Administration when the research was funded. What matters is whether the science was rigorous and whether researchers were allowed to pursue important questions. Scientific breakthroughs often emerge decades after the original research is funded. If funding decisions become tied to changing political priorities, future discoveries may never be realized. The strength of the American
Source
OMB-2026-0034-122062 on regulations.gov
Science must remain unbiased for society to progress.
Oppose Oppose Agrees
What the label rests on
Science must remain unbiased for society to progress.
Why this label
This defends scientific independence and impartiality, which the rule is described as undermining by shifting decisions away from independent peer review and toward ideological or political considerations. Read generously, the comment is objecting to bias in science, aligning with opposition to the proposal.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
The comment does not mention OMB, the rule, grants, peer review, or any specific provision, so it could be read as a general statement of principle rather than a clear stance on this proposal.
What makes it hard
It is very short and never explicitly says the rule should be opposed or changed.
The comment
Science must remain unbiased for society to progress.
Source
OMB-2026-0034-123811 on regulations.gov
The scientific process is the engine behind humanity's greatest innovations, and I want to see that community maintained and to presevere! There is no world where I want the admini
Oppose Oppose Agrees
What the label rests on
"There is no world where I want the administration to take yet another crucial batch of agencies and ignorantly decide who gets to benefit from it"; "Politicians do politics, let scientists do science!"; "OMB you oughta be ASHAMED of yourselves!"
Why this label
The comment objects to political control over funding decisions and explicitly defends scientific independence, which matches opposition to this rule's shift away from expert review. The direct condemnation of OMB and the administration makes the stance clearly oppositional.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A cautious reader could say the comment never names the rule or specific CFR sections, and instead expresses a general pro-science, anti-politician sentiment about government interference.
What makes it hard
It does not explicitly say "I oppose this rule," so the label depends on linking "let scientists do science" and criticism of the administration deciding "who gets to benefit" to the proposal's substance.
The comment
The scientific process is the engine behind humanity's greatest innovations, and I want to see that community maintained and to presevere! There is no world where I want the administration to take yet another crucial batch of agencies and ignorantly decide who gets to benefit from it, and ensure the decimation of our futures. Politicians do politics, let scientists do science! OMB you oughta be ASHAMED of yourselves!
Source
OMB-2026-0034-124178 on regulations.gov
Dear Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance, I urge OMB to preserve the long-standing merit-based, expert peer review process that has made the United States the global leader
Oppose Oppose Agrees
What the label rests on
"I urge OMB to preserve the long-standing merit-based, expert peer review process"; "not political or ideological considerations"; "Provisions that allow grants to be terminated based on vague \"national interest\" determinations... risk undermining innovation"; "I encourage OMB to revise or remove these provisions"
Why this label
The comment objects to specific provisions of the proposed rule and defends independent expert peer review and science-based funding. It explicitly says OMB should "revise or remove these provisions," which is opposition under the rule provided.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A fair alternative reading is that the commenter is not rejecting the entire rule, only asking that certain provisions be revised or removed while supporting "transparency, accountability, and stewardship of taxpayer dollars" in any revisions.
What makes it hard
The comment does not literally say "I oppose this rule" and includes some generally positive language about transparency and accountability, which could look more procedural at a glance.
The comment
Dear Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance, I urge OMB to preserve the long-standing merit-based, expert peer review process that has made the United States the global leader in scientific research. Federal research funding should be awarded and managed based on scientific excellence, technical merit, and public benefit—not political or ideological considerations. Provisions that allow grants to be terminated based on vague "national interest" determinations, require scrutiny of researchers' social or political affiliations, restrict scientific collaboration, or limit the dissemination of research findings risk undermining innovation, discouraging talented researchers from pursuing federally funded work, and weakening America's scientific competitiveness. Any revisions to the Uniform Guidance should strengthen transparency, accountability, and stewardship of taxpayer dollars while preserving the independence and predictability that researchers, institutions, and patients depend upon. I encourage OMB to revise or remove these provisions and maintain a science-driven framework for federal research funding. Sincerely, Mr. donna wright
Source
OMB-2026-0034-130079 on regulations.gov
I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed “Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance” (OMB-2026-0034). As a cancer survivor, I have personally benefited from programs
Oppose Oppose Agrees
What the label rests on
"I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed 'Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance' (OMB-2026-0034)." "Replacing expert-driven review with political pre-approval undermines the integrity of these programs and puts patients like me at risk." "I urge OMB to withdraw or substantially revise this proposal to preserve independent, expert-led oversight of federal health and research funding."
Why this label
This is explicit opposition to the proposed rule, names the docket, and objects to the shift from expert review to political pre-approval. The commenter also says the proposal should be withdrawn or substantially revised because it threatens independent, expert-led oversight and patient welfare.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A cautious reader could note the commenter allows for the proposal to be "substantially revise[d]" rather than flatly rejected in all forms, which might suggest engagement with the rule rather than absolute opposition. But the text still clearly states "my opposition" and describes harms from the proposal as written.
What makes it hard
The phrase "withdraw or substantially revise" could momentarily make someone wonder whether this is partially procedural rather than oppositional, but the opening sentence resolves that ambiguity.
The comment
I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed “Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance” (OMB-2026-0034). As a cancer survivor, I have personally benefited from programs supported by federal financial assistance, programs that were developed and overseen by medical and healthcare professionals based on scientific merit and patient need, not political considerations. Replacing expert-driven review with political pre-approval undermines the integrity of these programs and puts patients like me at risk. I urge OMB to withdraw or substantially revise this proposal to preserve independent, expert-led oversight of federal health and research funding.
Source
OMB-2026-0034-132923 on regulations.gov
[200.202(e), 200.220] To Whom it May Concern: I am a professor of physics building instruments to study the physics for the early universe. I am writing in my personal capacity to
Oppose Oppose Agrees
What the label rests on
"I am writing in my personal capacity to oppose the proposed revisions to sections 200.202(e) and 200.220"; "would restrict international scientific collaboration and isolate American scientists"; "All of this science could be at risk."; "This rule, like others proposed, would diminish the ability of US scientists to lead the most compelling science projects of the future. If enacted it would reduce US science credibility."
Why this label
The commenter explicitly says they "oppose the proposed revisions" and gives substantive reasons why the rule would harm international collaboration and U.S. science. That is direct opposition to specific provisions of this rule.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A cautious reader might note the comment focuses narrowly on sections 200.202(e) and 200.220 rather than the entire rule, and mostly explains consequences for international collaboration rather than discussing the broader OMB proposal. But the text still expressly opposes those revisions.
What makes it hard
The only possible wrinkle is that the comment targets specific sections rather than every part of the rule; under the instructions, objecting to any provision still counts as oppose.
The comment
[200.202(e), 200.220] To Whom it May Concern: I am a professor of physics building instruments to study the physics for the early universe. I am writing in my personal capacity to oppose the proposed revisions to sections 200.202(e) and 200.220 that would restrict international scientific collaboration and isolate American scientists. Nearly all of my research is conducted through international collaborations because expertise is spread around the world. I had German collaborators provide access to data from eROSITA, a space mission they co-built and therefore have access to proprietary data from. I had Italian collaborators provide hardware. I had European colleagues contribute to a space mission study that I led. Nearly all of the couple of hunderd of papers I co-authored over my career include multi-nation collaborators. All of this science could be at risk. I am concerned about the ability of NASA to come to bi-lateral agreements with other nations. Space missions take many years to build and sustain. The mission durations far extend beyond the tenure of any one president. We must have a system that ensures stability for such long term science endeavors. This rule, like others proposed, would diminish the ability of US scientists to lead the most compelling science projects of the future. If enacted it would reduce US science credibility.
Source
OMB-2026-0034-135240 on regulations.gov
We need to separate political action and priorities from impacting how science and research moves forward. They are separate ideas and scientist who do research should not be block
Oppose Oppose Agrees
What the label rests on
"We need to separate political action and priorities from impacting how science and research moves forward." "scientist who do research should not be blocked to public their findings if a political power deems unfit." "we must not let this happen."
Why this label
The comment objects to political interference in science and research, which matches opposition to a rule widely criticized for shifting decisions toward political appointees and weakening scientific independence. The closing line "we must not let this happen" is a clear statement against the proposal's perceived effects.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
The comment never names OMB, the rule, grants, peer review, or specific sections; a reader could see it as a general statement about politics and science rather than a direct position on this rulemaking.
What makes it hard
It is somewhat general and ungrammatical, so the connection to this specific rule must be inferred from the docket context rather than explicit references.
The comment
We need to separate political action and priorities from impacting how science and research moves forward. They are separate ideas and scientist who do research should not be blocked to public their findings if a political power deems unfit. There is a cross over between policy and science and we must not let this happen.
Source
OMB-2026-0034-1418 on regulations.gov
As a practicing pathologist, I urge the Office of Management and Budget to withdraw the proposed rule, "Rule to Revise the Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance" (Docket OMB-20
Oppose Oppose Agrees
What the label rests on
"I urge the Office of Management and Budget to withdraw the proposed rule"; "I respectfully urge OMB to withdraw the proposed rule, maintain rigorous peer review, protect independent scientific inquiry"; "I am concerned that several provisions in the proposed rule would undermine these objectives."
Why this label
This is explicit opposition: the commenter repeatedly asks OMB to "withdraw the proposed rule" and argues it would weaken peer review, independent scientific inquiry, and biomedical research. Defending merit-based peer review against this proposal squarely fits oppose.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A reviewer might note the commenter says, "I support efforts to improve transparency, accountability, and stewardship of taxpayer dollars" and asks OMB to engage stakeholders before finalizing a new proposal, which could look like a request for revision rather than total opposition. But those points are framed alongside direct calls to withdraw the rule.
What makes it hard
The commenter agrees with some stated goals like transparency and accountability, and also asks for stakeholder engagement before a new proposal, which could briefly suggest a procedural or mixed stance.
The comment
As a practicing pathologist, I urge the Office of Management and Budget to withdraw the proposed rule, "Rule to Revise the Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance" (Docket OMB-2026-0034). The federal government should protect the value of federally funded research by preserving rigorous peer review decisions and independent scientific inquiry. Pathologists rely on high-quality, evidence-based research every day to diagnose disease, guide treatment decisions, and improve patient outcomes. Much of the scientific evidence that informs pathology and laboratory medicine is made possible by federally funded research that is evaluated through an established peer review process based on scientific merit and expertise. While I support efforts to improve transparency, accountability, and stewardship of taxpayer dollars, I am concerned that several provisions in the proposed rule would undermine these objectives. Policies that allow research funding decisions to be influenced by factors other than scientific merit, expand the authority to terminate awards after they have been made, and weaken independent peer review could reduce confidence in federally funded research and discourage scientific innovation. The proposed rule has implications that extend far beyond individual research grants. If the changes are implemented, they would undermine the future of US biomedical research, the development of new diagnostic tools, careers in medicine and research, and ultimately the quality of ca
Source
OMB-2026-0034-146790 on regulations.gov
See attached file(s) --- ATTACHMENT CONTENT --- 521 E Main Ave, Suite 320 Bismarck, ND 58501 Phone: 701.255.6240 Toll Free: 888.255.6240 nddsvc.org contact@nddsvc.org Re: OMB-2026-
North Dakota Domestic & Sexual Violence Coalition
Oppose Oppose Agrees
What the label rests on
"We are deeply concerned that the proposed revisions to the Uniform Guidance would undermine the stability and predictability that nonprofit organizations require"; "these proposed changes would significantly increase uncertainty"; "One of our greatest concerns is the proposal to grant federal agencies broad discretion"; "the proposed revisions move away from these principles by introducing uncertainty into every stage of the grant lifecycle"; "NDDSVC respectfully urges the Office of Management and Budget to withdraw or substantially revise the proposed rule."
Why this label
This is explicit opposition to the rule: the commenter says they are "deeply concerned," details multiple harms from the proposal, and directly asks OMB to "withdraw or substantially revise the proposed rule." The comment also objects to political considerations in funding decisions and expanded agency discretion, which fits opposition under the rule provided.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A fair alternate reading is that the commenter supports accountability in general and asks for changes rather than flat rejection, since it says "While accountability for public funds is essential" and requests OMB to "withdraw or substantially revise" rather than simply reject. A reader could see it as constructive feedback on how to improve the proposal.
What makes it hard
The phrase "withdraw or substantially revise" leaves a little room to argue they are not opposing every conceivable version of a rule, only this proposal as written. But as written, the comment clearly objects to the proposal itself.
The comment
See attached file(s) --- ATTACHMENT CONTENT --- 521 E Main Ave, Suite 320 Bismarck, ND 58501 Phone: 701.255.6240 Toll Free: 888.255.6240 nddsvc.org contact@nddsvc.org Re: OMB-2026-0034, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance To Whom It May Concern: On behalf of the North Dakota Domestic & Sexual Violence Coalition (NDDSVC), I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Office of Management and Budget's proposed revisions to the Uniform Guidance governing federal financial assistance. NDDSVC is North Dakota's federally recognized statewide domestic violence and sexual assault coalition. We support 18 community-based domestic violence and sexual assault advocacy organizations that provide lifesaving services to victims and survivors in every region of the state, including rural, frontier, and Tribal communities. Through federal funding, NDDSVC provides training, technical assistance, prevention initiatives, and capacity building to strengthen victim services throughout North Dakota. We are deeply concerned that the proposed revisions to the Uniform Guidance would undermine the stability and predictability that nonprofit organizations require to effectively administer federally funded programs. While accountability for public funds is essential, these proposed changes would significantly increase uncertainty for organizations that depend on federal grants to provide critical services to survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking,
Source
OMB-2026-0034-157290 on regulations.gov
I am writing to request that this rule proposal be withdrawn. I think having political appointees determine who receives grants instead of experts in those fields is a mistake. It
Oppose Oppose Agrees
What the label rests on
"request that this rule proposal be withdrawn"; "having political appointees determine who receives grants instead of experts in those fields is a mistake"; "dangerous precedent to have projects canceled whenever a different political party comes into power"; "research that could impact my health would be canceled, because it is considered \"woke.\""
Why this label
The commenter explicitly asks that the proposal be withdrawn and criticizes core features described in the rule debate: replacing expert review with political appointees and enabling ideologically driven cancellation of research. They also warn of harm to women's health research.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A cautious reader could say the comment focuses on general fears about politicization and "woke" determinations rather than citing specific regulatory sections, so it might be read as broader political commentary adjacent to the rule.
What makes it hard
The comment does not mention section numbers or detailed provisions, so the reviewer must infer that the objections are directed at the proposal's substance rather than only the administration generally.
The comment
I am writing to request that this rule proposal be withdrawn. I think having political appointees determine who receives grants instead of experts in those fields is a mistake. It also sets up a dangerous precedent to have projects canceled whenever a different political party comes into power. We have already seen this administration make mistakes in what it considers "woke," such as wanting to remove references to Enola Gay. As a woman, I am also personally concerned that research that could impact my health would be canceled, because it is considered "woke." There is a significant gap in knowledge about perimenopause and how to help women through that transition.
Source
OMB-2026-0034-16082 on regulations.gov
Science denial, pseudo-science, race and gender bias, and conspiracies seem the order of the day in this administration. Please don’t accelerate the death of expertise. Let the sci
Oppose Oppose Agrees
What the label rests on
“Please don’t accelerate the death of expertise. Let the scientists do science. Let the scientists review the science. Keep politics out of science.”
Why this label
The comment objects to political interference in science and explicitly defends scientists reviewing science, which squarely opposes a rule criticized for shifting decisions away from expert peer review toward politics. The plea “Please don’t accelerate the death of expertise” is a direct objection to the proposal’s effect.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A fair alternative is that the comment never names OMB, the rule, or any specific provision, and could be read as a general complaint about the administration’s approach to science rather than a direct position on this docket.
What makes it hard
It does not explicitly say “I oppose this rule,” so the inference depends on connecting “Let the scientists review the science” and “Keep politics out of science” to the peer-review and politicization issues raised by this proposal.
The comment
Science denial, pseudo-science, race and gender bias, and conspiracies seem the order of the day in this administration. Please don’t accelerate the death of expertise. Let the scientists do science. Let the scientists review the science. Keep politics out of science.
Source
OMB-2026-0034-16400 on regulations.gov
Scientific grants should be reviewed and approved by other scientists in a process called peer-review, which they already are. This ensures that any project applying for federal fu
Oppose Oppose Agrees
What the label rests on
"Scientific grants should be reviewed and approved by other scientists in a process called peer-review"; "Having a political appointee who may fall into that category seriously risks biasing projects"; "This proposed rule would put undue strain on the review process"; "Millions of people would lose out on life-saving care if this rule becomes law, and thus it should not pass."
Why this label
The comment explicitly defends peer review against political appointee control and directly says the proposed rule "should not pass." That is a clear objection to the rule and its effects on grant review and public health.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A cautious reader could note the comment never names OMB or cites specific CFR sections, and much of it explains why peer review is important rather than discussing the rule's text in detail. But the explicit statement that "this proposed rule" should not pass makes opposition the better label.
What makes it hard
The comment focuses heavily on general principles of peer review, so someone skimming might mistake it for background explanation rather than a position on the rule.
The comment
Scientific grants should be reviewed and approved by other scientists in a process called peer-review, which they already are. This ensures that any project applying for federal funding is actually feasible, aligns with NIH’s goals, is beneficial to the health of Americans, and is a good use of US taxpayer money, among many other stringent criteria. Peer-review ensures that other people with expertise in devising and executing large-scale research projects are the ones judging every set of incoming grants, rather than people who have little to no experience in this area. Having a political appointee who may fall into that category seriously risks biasing projects that only they are interested in receiving funding, and worse, projects that should not get funding may receive it. This proposed rule would put undue strain on the review process, which has already had to tighten up due to budget constraints and administrative overhaul in the last year. Millions of people would lose out on life-saving care if this rule becomes law, and thus it should not pass. Thank you for your time.
Source
OMB-2026-0034-20906 on regulations.gov
Politicians should not be determining what grants awarded for science.
Oppose Oppose Agrees
What the label rests on
Politicians should not be determining what grants awarded for science.
Why this label
The comment rejects political control over science grant awards, which directly objects to the rule's perceived shift away from independent review toward political appointees. Defending nonpolitical grantmaking is opposition under the instructions.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A fair alternate reading is that this is a general statement about science funding principles and does not explicitly mention OMB, the proposed rule, or say 'oppose,' so it could be read as adjacent commentary rather than a direct position on the docket.
What makes it hard
It does not explicitly name the rule, so the classifier must infer that opposing politicians deciding science grants is opposition to this proposal's alleged politicization of awards.
The comment
Politicians should not be determining what grants awarded for science.
Source
OMB-2026-0034-2444 on regulations.gov
OMBs latest proposed rule, Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance, would require all scientific grants to be approved by political appointees, stealing approval power from car
Oppose Oppose Agrees
What the label rests on
"would require all scientific grants to be approved by political appointees, stealing approval power from career experts in their fields. This is garbage. Science should be NON-PARTISAN!"
Why this label
The commenter clearly attacks the proposed rule, saying it shifts grant approval from "career experts" to "political appointees" and calling it "garbage." Defending nonpartisan science and expert review is opposition under the rubric.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A cautious reader could say the comment describes the rule's effect and expresses a general principle ("Science should be NON-PARTISAN!") without explicitly saying "I oppose" or asking OMB not to adopt it.
What makes it hard
The comment does not use the word "oppose," so the label depends on reading the criticism and outrage as an objection to the rule.
The comment
OMBs latest proposed rule, Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance, would require all scientific grants to be approved by political appointees, stealing approval power from career experts in their fields. This is garbage. Science should be NON-PARTISAN!
Source
OMB-2026-0034-27471 on regulations.gov
It is critically important to continue clinical trials to advance medical science! Stopping such studies is a step backwards in scientific progress.
Oppose Oppose Agrees
What the label rests on
"It is critically important to continue clinical trials to advance medical science! Stopping such studies is a step backwards in scientific progress."
Why this label
The comment objects to actions that would halt research, saying stopping studies would be "a step backwards in scientific progress." Under the instructions, warning that the proposal would harm research or scientific progress counts as opposition.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
The comment never mentions OMB, the Uniform Guidance, grants, peer review, or the rule itself; it could be read as a general statement favoring clinical trials rather than a direct position on this proposal.
What makes it hard
It speaks in broad terms about continuing clinical trials without explicitly tying that concern to the proposed rule.
The comment
It is critically important to continue clinical trials to advance medical science! Stopping such studies is a step backwards in scientific progress.
Source
OMB-2026-0034-27634 on regulations.gov
Please stop this ridiculous nonsense by taking over our research funding from scientists and giving it to greedy politicians!! This is a scam! This is illegal and totally unaccepta
Oppose Oppose Agrees
What the label rests on
"Please stop this ridiculous nonsense by taking over our research funding from scientists and giving it to greedy politicians!! This is a scam! This is illegal and totally unacceptable and criminal!"
Why this label
The commenter explicitly urges OMB to "stop this" and objects to "taking over our research funding from scientists and giving it to greedy politicians," which directly matches opposition to shifting decisions away from scientific peer review toward political appointees. The rest of the comment is strongly condemnatory ("scam," "illegal," "totally unacceptable").
The strongest case against it (for “unclear_junk”)
The comment is highly emotional and does not name the rule, OMB, or any CFR section, so one could argue it is just a vague rant without enough policy detail. Its accusations ("criminal") are conclusory rather than reasoned.
What makes it hard
It does not explicitly mention "peer review" or the docket title, so the reader must infer that "taking over our research funding from scientists and giving it to greedy politicians" refers to this proposal.
The comment
Please stop this ridiculous nonsense by taking over our research funding from scientists and giving it to greedy politicians!! This is a scam! This is illegal and totally unacceptable and criminal!
Source
OMB-2026-0034-33277 on regulations.gov
Unbelievably, I, as a US based scientist, have to comment on OMB's proposed regulation rules anonymously because of the extremely high probability that future granting procedures w
Oppose Oppose Agrees
What the label rests on
"future granting procedures will involve political targeting"; "This is the effect the administration, and this body of course wants - to silence discontent and bring intellectual discourse to heel under the administration."; "Much as you are now trying to do, both of these regressive idiotic countries decided to heavily control their research output."; "you will mostly attract sycophants rather than intelligent capable researchers in this new system"; "their current plan is the surest way to kneecap a distinct US lead."
Why this label
The commenter is plainly attacking the proposed rule as creating a politicized grant system, silencing dissent, and harming U.S. science. Those are core opposition grounds under the rubric, even though the comment is rhetorical and abusive.
The strongest case against it (for “unclear_junk”)
The comment is highly inflammatory, sprawling, and does not name specific CFR sections or explicitly say 'I oppose this rule,' so one could argue it is too rant-like to classify confidently. Some phrasing is hyperbolic enough that a reviewer might wonder whether it is substantive enough for a position label.
What makes it hard
The tone is extreme and the comment never uses the word 'oppose,' which could distract from the fact that it clearly objects to politicized grantmaking under the proposal.
The comment
Unbelievably, I, as a US based scientist, have to comment on OMB's proposed regulation rules anonymously because of the extremely high probability that future granting procedures will involve political targeting. This is the effect the administration, and this body of course wants - to silence discontent and bring intellectual discourse to heel under the administration. This is UnAmerican, and you are traitors to the American people. I know you don't care but you should. However, furthermore, I include here an appeal to your overdeveloped sense of selfishness. Simple parallels exist in the scientific community from two other fascist governments, the Soviet Union and the Chinese. Much as you are now trying to do, both of these regressive idiotic countries decided to heavily control their research output. In the Soviet Union during Stalin's era, Lysenkoism saw the rise of an awful and stupid theory that genetic inheritance was due to some fluid, and not DNA. For decades scientists that spoke the truth were politically prosecuted and Lyseko and fellow cronies enjoyed the prestige of being the most powerful mental midgets in Russia. Where is Russian science now? It's nowhere. The most meaningful biological science work out of Russia in years has been a website that lets people pirate papers. Everyone with an interest in the field and half a brain fled. Do you really think your brand of corrupt influence peddling will avoid Lysenko's trap? You must realize that you will mostly att
Source
OMB-2026-0034-34540 on regulations.gov
Science is sacred, and the facts and laws of the universe do not bend to the whims of man. The OMBs proposed Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance rule takes the objective sc
Oppose Oppose Agrees
What the label rests on
"The OMBs proposed Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance rule takes the objective scientific process and put it in the hands of policymakers who may not have the years of education true scientists have to determine worthy and necessary research. This opens up the possibility for biased research and lack of necessary funding for essential research as determined by the experts in the field."
Why this label
The comment directly criticizes the proposed rule for shifting decisions from scientific experts to policymakers and warns it will cause biased research and underfund essential research. That is a clear objection to the rule's effect on peer review and scientific independence.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A cautious reader could say the comment never literally says 'I oppose' and mainly describes perceived consequences of the proposal rather than explicitly urging OMB not to adopt it.
What makes it hard
It is strongly worded but does not contain an explicit phrase like 'I oppose this rule,' so the inference comes from the substance of the criticism.
The comment
Science is sacred, and the facts and laws of the universe do not bend to the whims of man. The OMBs proposed Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance rule takes the objective scientific process and put it in the hands of policymakers who may not have the years of education true scientists have to determine worthy and necessary research. This opens up the possibility for biased research and lack of necessary funding for essential research as determined by the experts in the field.
Source
OMB-2026-0034-39882 on regulations.gov
I oppose the proposed change to 2 CFR 200.432 requiring express federal agency pre-approval for conference attendance costs for the following reasons: 1. It undermines local autono
Oppose Oppose Agrees
What the label rests on
I oppose the proposed change to 2 CFR 200.432 requiring express federal agency pre-approval for conference attendance costs
Why this label
The comment explicitly says it opposes a specific proposed change in the rule and then gives multiple substantive reasons against it, including burden, reduced autonomy, and inequitable impacts. Under the instructions, objecting to any provision of the proposed rule is opposition.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A cautious reader could note that the comment targets one subsection (2 CFR 200.432) rather than the whole rule and is framed as a policy critique of that provision, not a broad statement about the entire OMB proposal. If one required an overall position on the full rule, this could be read as narrower than full opposition.
What makes it hard
The only mild ambiguity is that the comment opposes a particular provision rather than discussing the entire package, but the labeling rule says objecting to any provision counts as oppose.
The comment
I oppose the proposed change to 2 CFR 200.432 requiring express federal agency pre-approval for conference attendance costs for the following reasons: 1. It undermines local autonomy. School districts are best positioned to assess their own professional development needs based on student data, school improvement plans, and state accountability requirements. This proposal shifts decision-making away from those closest to the work. 2. It creates significant administrative burden. Federal agencies already face capacity constraints. Requiring pre-approval for each conference would generate delays that could prevent timely access to professional development, increasing paperwork and risk of non-compliance. 3. It inhibits access to relevant, high-quality professional development. Many valuable training opportunities arise or gain relevance after awards are made. Pre-approval requirements could block cost-effective, targeted events that districts identify as necessary and reasonable. 4. It conflicts with existing Uniform Guidance principles. Current 2 CFR 200 already requires that costs be necessary, reasonable, and allocable — principles that provide sufficient oversight without requiring federal pre-approval for every training event. 5. It disproportionately impacts smaller and rural districts. These entities would face greater barriers navigating pre-approval processes, exacerbating inequities in access to professional learning.
Source
OMB-2026-0034-43038 on regulations.gov
[200.205, 200.340] To Whom it May Concern: I am a concerned citizen with a bachelor's degree in Chemical Engineering. I work for a private company. I am writing in my personal capa
Oppose Oppose Agrees
What the label rests on
"I am writing in my personal capacity to oppose the proposed revisions to sections 200.205 and 200.340"; "would undermine the integrity of federal grant review processes"; "Changing the process so that political appointees rather than qualified scientific peers make critical judgements"; "It is unreasonable and unfair to allow active grants to be terminated at any time for political reasons."
Why this label
The commenter explicitly says they "oppose the proposed revisions" and then gives substantive reasons tied to the rule: it shifts decisions from "qualified scientific peers" to "political appointees" and permits politically motivated grant terminations. That is direct opposition under the rubric.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A cautious reader could note that some claims are framed as the writer's "understanding" of how the rule would work, and much of the comment argues general principles about scientific independence and research funding rather than parsing regulatory text in detail.
What makes it hard
It is not hard overall, but a reviewer could briefly wonder whether the comment is mostly expressing broad concern about politics in science rather than the rule itself. The opening sentence resolves that by explicitly opposing the proposed revisions.
The comment
[200.205, 200.340] To Whom it May Concern: I am a concerned citizen with a bachelor's degree in Chemical Engineering. I work for a private company. I am writing in my personal capacity to oppose the proposed revisions to sections 200.205 and 200.340 that would undermine the integrity of federal grant review processes and federal science agencies' ability to identify and fund impactful research. My understanding is that historically scientific research has been funded by the US government to drive technological innovation, maintain global competitiveness, and address societal needs that are too broad or financially risky for private corporations. Changing the process so that political appointees rather than qualified scientific peers make critical judgements that can impact the progress of scientific research is in total opposition to the goals of the funding. Changing this is wasting tax payer dollars. It is unreasonable and unfair to allow active grants to be terminated at any time for political reasons. Research is very often a multiyear endeavor and scientists need to be able to count on their funding for a fixed period of time so that they can develop the experiments and see them through as required to get useful data and analysis of said data. Scientific research should be independent of politics. It is already distressing that funding has been reduced. This proposed action could have even further reaching negative impact on the success of innovation in the United States
Source
OMB-2026-0034-44302 on regulations.gov
Government policy should be shaped by objective scientific evidence. We cannot allow science to be undermined by manipulative government policies.
Oppose Oppose Agrees
What the label rests on
Government policy should be shaped by objective scientific evidence. We cannot allow science to be undermined by manipulative government policies.
Why this label
The comment defends objective scientific evidence and says government policies should not undermine science, which fits opposition to this rule's perceived weakening of scientific independence and expert review. Calling such policies "manipulative" is a clear criticism rather than a neutral observation.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
The comment never names OMB, the Uniform Guidance, grants, peer review, or the specific proposal, so it could be read as a general statement about science policy rather than a position on this rule in particular.
What makes it hard
It is very general and does not explicitly mention the rule, so the inference depends on connecting "manipulative government policies" and undermining science to this docket.
The comment
Government policy should be shaped by objective scientific evidence. We cannot allow science to be undermined by manipulative government policies.
Source
OMB-2026-0034-5215 on regulations.gov
We demand action NOW to stop Vought and protect independent science from political interference. Research should never be dictated by a government's agenda, and must remain in the
Oppose Oppose Agrees
What the label rests on
"stop Vought and protect independent science from political interference"; "Research should never be dictated by a government's agenda, and must remain in the hands of scientists."; "End OMB and keep American science alive."
Why this label
The comment plainly objects to OMB's proposal by calling to "stop Vought" and "protect independent science from political interference," which directly tracks opposition to shifting decisions from scientists to political actors. It also attacks OMB itself and frames the rule as a threat to American science.
The strongest case against it (for “unclear_junk”)
The comment does not name the specific OMB rule or any section of it, and the slogan-like demand to "End OMB" could be read as broad political rhetoric rather than a clear position on this particular docket.
What makes it hard
It never explicitly says "I oppose this rule," so the reviewer must infer that "political interference" and keeping research "in the hands of scientists" are aimed at this proposal.
The comment
We demand action NOW to stop Vought and protect independent science from political interference. Research should never be dictated by a government's agenda, and must remain in the hands of scientists. End OMB and keep American science alive.
Source
OMB-2026-0034-52208 on regulations.gov
Politics do not belong in science. This is another terrible attack of progress, setting us back even further. This is just bad, all around.
Oppose Oppose Agrees
What the label rests on
"Politics do not belong in science. This is another terrible attack of progress, setting us back even further. This is just bad, all around."
Why this label
The comment clearly objects to politicizing science, which directly matches opposition to a rule described as shifting decisions away from independent expert review toward political appointees. Phrases like "terrible attack of progress" and "This is just bad, all around" are straightforward condemnation.
The strongest case against it (for “unclear_junk”)
The comment never explicitly names OMB, the rule, grants, or peer review, so in isolation it could be read as a vague political statement without enough context tying it to the proposal.
What makes it hard
It does not mention the rule by name; the inference depends on connecting "Politics do not belong in science" to the proposal's politicization concerns.
The comment
Politics do not belong in science. This is another terrible attack of progress, setting us back even further. This is just bad, all around.
Source
OMB-2026-0034-62213 on regulations.gov
I am submitting this comment concerned citizen that cares about America staying a leader in scientific discovery. [200.205] Decisions on scarce research funds should be on the basi
Oppose Oppose Agrees
What the label rests on
"Decisions on scarce research funds should be on the basis of scientific merit and therefore should be using scientists/subject matter experts as the final say." "As written, this will reduce public accessibility to research." "These changes mean research will be taken away from scientific and technical merit review and toward political appointees. This is not how good science or policy should be done."
Why this label
The comment directly criticizes multiple provisions of the proposed rule and argues that funding decisions should remain with scientific merit review rather than political appointees. It says the rule will reduce public access and explicitly says the changes are not how science or policy should be done.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A cautious reader could say the commenter never uses the words "oppose" or "should not finalize," and instead frames the comment as concerns about specific sections and how they are written.
What makes it hard
The comment is framed as a "concerned citizen" statement rather than an explicit "I oppose this rule" declaration, so the inference comes from the substance of the objections.
The comment
I am submitting this comment concerned citizen that cares about America staying a leader in scientific discovery. [200.205] Decisions on scarce research funds should be on the basis of scientific merit and therefore should be using scientists/subject matter experts as the final say. [200.461] As written, this will reduce public accessibility to research. [200.300; 200.421] Language around "DEI/DEIA" or "issue advocacy" will depend on agency officials. This means this will depend on an individual basis. One individual may have a different definition from another. These changes mean research will be taken away from scientific and technical merit review and toward political appointees. This is not how good science or policy should be done.
Source
OMB-2026-0034-66892 on regulations.gov
Decisions about policy should be decided by the subject matter experts— not politicians.
Oppose Oppose Agrees
What the label rests on
Decisions about policy should be decided by the subject matter experts— not politicians.
Why this label
The comment clearly objects to political control over decision-making and endorses expert judgment instead. Because this rule is characterized as shifting decisions away from independent experts toward political appointees, that statement reads as opposition to the rule.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
The comment does not explicitly mention OMB, the Uniform Guidance, grants, or the proposed rule, so it could be read as a general statement about governance rather than a position on this specific proposal.
What makes it hard
It is very brief and does not name the rule, so the inference depends on linking 'subject matter experts—not politicians' to the core dispute in this docket.
The comment
Decisions about policy should be decided by the subject matter experts— not politicians.
Source
OMB-2026-0034-67523 on regulations.gov
THIS IS A VERY BAD IDEA. I AM IN NO WAY QUALIFIED TO MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT THIS KINDVE SCIENCE ,YET, UNDER THIS NEW RULE I COULD BE SELECTED TO MAKE DECISION. Doctors for Doctoring,
Oppose Oppose Agrees
What the label rests on
"THIS IS A VERY BAD IDEA. I AM IN NO WAY QUALIFIED TO MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT THIS KINDVE SCIENCE ,YET, UNDER THIS NEW RULE I COULD BE SELECTED TO MAKE DECISION. Doctors for Doctoring, Scientists for Science !"
Why this label
The commenter explicitly calls the proposal "A VERY BAD IDEA" and objects that "under this new rule" unqualified people could make decisions, while defending expert decision-making with "Doctors for Doctoring, Scientists for Science!" That is opposition to the rule's shift away from expert peer review.
The strongest case against it (for “unclear_junk”)
The writing is informal and ungrammatical, and the speaker's hypothetical about being selected could be read as exaggerated rather than a precise policy argument. A reviewer might wonder whether it is too vague to map confidently to the rule.
What makes it hard
The comment is short, all-caps, and somewhat garbled, but it still clearly states a negative view of "this new rule" and why.
The comment
THIS IS A VERY BAD IDEA. I AM IN NO WAY QUALIFIED TO MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT THIS KINDVE SCIENCE ,YET, UNDER THIS NEW RULE I COULD BE SELECTED TO MAKE DECISION. Doctors for Doctoring, Scientists for Science !
Source
OMB-2026-0034-67591 on regulations.gov
This rule fundamentally changes the way the scientific community functions and flourishes. Decisions about science should be made by scientists, without the involvement of non expe
Oppose Oppose Agrees
What the label rests on
"This rule fundamentally changes the way the scientific community functions and flourishes. Decisions about science should be made by scientists, without the involvement of non expert politicians. Instability of funding within the scientific workplace disrupts life saving work, and threatens to put the US decades behind other countries in essential areas of research."
Why this label
The comment directly criticizes the rule and argues that scientific decisions should be made by scientists rather than "non expert politicians," which matches opposition to shifting grant decisions away from expert peer review. It also warns that the rule will disrupt lifesaving research and harm U.S. competitiveness.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A cautious reader could say the comment does not explicitly say "I oppose" or ask OMB to withdraw the rule; it states general principles about science funding and harms rather than a direct position on finalizing the rule.
What makes it hard
The comment is brief and does not use explicit advocacy words like "oppose" or "should not be adopted," so the label depends on reading its criticism of "This rule" as an objection.
The comment
This rule fundamentally changes the way the scientific community functions and flourishes. Decisions about science should be made by scientists, without the involvement of non expert politicians. Instability of funding within the scientific workplace disrupts life saving work, and threatens to put the US decades behind other countries in essential areas of research.
Source
OMB-2026-0034-75985 on regulations.gov
Dear Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance, I urge OMB to preserve the long-standing merit-based, expert peer review process that has made the United States the global leader
Oppose Oppose Agrees
What the label rests on
"I urge OMB to preserve the long-standing merit-based, expert peer review process"; "not political or ideological considerations"; "Provisions that allow grants to be terminated based on vague 'national interest' determinations... risk undermining innovation"; "I encourage OMB to revise or remove these provisions"
Why this label
The commenter objects to key provisions of the proposed rule, defends expert peer review and scientific independence, and warns that the provisions would harm research and competitiveness. Asking OMB to "revise or remove these provisions" is direct opposition under the rule provided.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A fair counterreading is that the commenter does not reject the entire rule, and instead says "Any revisions to the Uniform Guidance should strengthen transparency, accountability, and stewardship," which could be read as engaging constructively and requesting changes rather than flatly opposing the proposal overall.
What makes it hard
The comment is not a blanket 'I oppose this rule' statement; it mixes criticism with acceptance that there may be 'revisions' and supports general goals like transparency and accountability.
The comment
Dear Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance, I urge OMB to preserve the long-standing merit-based, expert peer review process that has made the United States the global leader in scientific research. Federal research funding should be awarded and managed based on scientific excellence, technical merit, and public benefit—not political or ideological considerations. Provisions that allow grants to be terminated based on vague "national interest" determinations, require scrutiny of researchers' social or political affiliations, restrict scientific collaboration, or limit the dissemination of research findings risk undermining innovation, discouraging talented researchers from pursuing federally funded work, and weakening America's scientific competitiveness. Any revisions to the Uniform Guidance should strengthen transparency, accountability, and stewardship of taxpayer dollars while preserving the independence and predictability that researchers, institutions, and patients depend upon. I encourage OMB to revise or remove these provisions and maintain a science-driven framework for federal research funding. Sincerely, Mr. Billy Collum
Source
OMB-2026-0034-79101 on regulations.gov
Oversight in grant funding for scientific research should be left out of the political domain and overseen by scientists.
Oppose Oppose Agrees
What the label rests on
"Oversight in grant funding for scientific research should be left out of the political domain and overseen by scientists."
Why this label
The comment defends scientific rather than political control of grant funding, which directly objects to the rule's perceived shift away from independent expert review toward political appointees. Saying oversight should be "left out of the political domain" is a clear rejection of politicized grant decision-making.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A fair alternative reading is that the commenter states a general principle about how grants should be overseen without explicitly naming the OMB rule, saying "oppose," or referring to any specific provision.
What makes it hard
It does not explicitly mention the proposed rule, so the inference depends on whether this general statement is read as responding to the rule's politicization of grant oversight.
The comment
Oversight in grant funding for scientific research should be left out of the political domain and overseen by scientists.
Source
OMB-2026-0034-82570 on regulations.gov
The autonomy of research In the US has gained us respect and admiration around the world, while also creating knowledge that continues to shape the intellectual, spiritual, health,
Oppose Oppose Agrees
What the label rests on
"Political interference in research is literally anti-American"; "The brain drain this proposal will likely cause will be far reaching and devastating"; "This proposal would be disastrous and is an unforced, unnecessary barrier to autonomous, independent research."
Why this label
The commenter explicitly condemns "this proposal" and argues it would cause political interference, brain drain, and barriers to independent research. That is a direct objection to the rule and its effects on research autonomy.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A cautious reader could note the comment never names OMB, Uniform Guidance, or specific sections, and speaks broadly about political interference in research rather than detailing the rule itself.
What makes it hard
The comment is broad and value-driven rather than specific to particular provisions, so the main question is whether "this proposal" clearly refers to the rule at issue.
The comment
The autonomy of research In the US has gained us respect and admiration around the world, while also creating knowledge that continues to shape the intellectual, spiritual, health, and communal worlds around us. Political interference in research is literally anti-American and goes against the long history of intellectual freedom this country is known for. The brain drain this proposal will likely cause will be far reaching and devastating to every sector, particularly those that the govt in control does not like. Independent, non-political research is the bedrock of American higher education action. This proposal would be disastrous and is an unforced, unnecessary barrier to autonomous, independent research.
Source
OMB-2026-0034-83737 on regulations.gov
I am writing as a scientist and osteopathic medical student to oppose the proposed rule in its current form. I object specifically to the provisions that would give political appoi
Oppose Oppose Agrees
What the label rests on
"I am writing as a scientist and osteopathic medical student to oppose the proposed rule in its current form." "I object specifically to the provisions that would give political appointees greater control over grant selection" "I do not support having political priorities determine which research is fundable or which awards continue." "I urge OMB to withdraw or substantially revise the sections of this rule that expand political control over grant selection and termination"
Why this label
The comment explicitly says it is written "to oppose the proposed rule in its current form" and repeatedly objects to key provisions shifting authority from peer review to political appointees. It also asks OMB to "withdraw or substantially revise" those sections, which is direct opposition under the rule definitions.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A fair alternative reading is that the commenter does not reject the entire rule, only "the proposed rule in its current form" and specific sections, so one might argue this is a request for revision rather than blanket opposition. But the instructions say objecting to any provision counts as oppose.
What makes it hard
The phrase "in its current form" and the request to "substantially revise" could make someone wonder whether this is conditional rather than outright opposition.
The comment
I am writing as a scientist and osteopathic medical student to oppose the proposed rule in its current form. I object specifically to the provisions that would give political appointees greater control over grant selection and would expand agency authority to terminate active awards that do not align with changing Administration priorities rather than with scientific merit. Federal research funding has long relied on merit review conducted by qualified subject matter experts through peer review panels, a model used by NIH, NSF, and other agencies for decades. Shifting selection and termination authority toward political appointees replaces expert scientific judgment with political discretion. This threatens the reliability of the research the public depends on, discourages long term research planning, and introduces instability into ongoing studies, including clinical and biomedical research that patients and providers rely on. I do not support having political priorities determine which research is fundable or which awards continue. I support a grant process led by qualified scientists using established peer review standards. I urge OMB to withdraw or substantially revise the sections of this rule that expand political control over grant selection and termination, and to preserve merit based, scientifically led review as the standard for federal financial assistance decisions. Thank you for considering this comment.
Source
OMB-2026-0034-85466 on regulations.gov
Dear Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance, I urge OMB to preserve the long-standing merit-based, expert peer review process that has made the United States the global leader
Oppose Oppose Agrees
What the label rests on
"I urge OMB to preserve the long-standing merit-based, expert peer review process"; "not political or ideological considerations"; "Provisions that allow grants to be terminated based on vague \"national interest\" determinations ... risk undermining innovation"; "I encourage OMB to revise or remove these provisions"
Why this label
The comment explicitly objects to provisions in the proposed rule, defends expert peer review and scientific independence, and asks OMB to "revise or remove" the harmful provisions. That is direct opposition under the rule's criteria.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A fair alternative reading is that the commenter does not reject the entire rule, only asks that OMB modify certain provisions and preserve accountability and transparency, which could sound like engagement without taking a wholesale side.
What makes it hard
The comment says "Any revisions to the Uniform Guidance should strengthen transparency, accountability, and stewardship of taxpayer dollars," which could superficially sound constructive rather than oppositional. But the specific objections and request to remove provisions make the stance clear.
The comment
Dear Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance, I urge OMB to preserve the long-standing merit-based, expert peer review process that has made the United States the global leader in scientific research. Federal research funding should be awarded and managed based on scientific excellence, technical merit, and public benefit—not political or ideological considerations. Provisions that allow grants to be terminated based on vague "national interest" determinations, require scrutiny of researchers' social or political affiliations, restrict scientific collaboration, or limit the dissemination of research findings risk undermining innovation, discouraging talented researchers from pursuing federally funded work, and weakening America's scientific competitiveness. Any revisions to the Uniform Guidance should strengthen transparency, accountability, and stewardship of taxpayer dollars while preserving the independence and predictability that researchers, institutions, and patients depend upon. I encourage OMB to revise or remove these provisions and maintain a science-driven framework for federal research funding. Sincerely, Mr. Lorenzo Walker
Source
OMB-2026-0034-85954 on regulations.gov
The OMB does not and should not have the power to unilaterally change research grant qualifications. Congress has the power to fund all the agencies listed in this "regulatory" cha
Oppose Oppose Agrees
What the label rests on
"The OMB does not and should not have the power to unilaterally change research grant qualifications." "our taxpayer dollars should NOT go to fund anything other than what scientists determine is scientifically valid; not Russell Vought nor any unskilled politician in this Administration." "As a citizen and a retired nurse, I oppose this unilateral policy change" "I disapprove of this misguided policy change."
Why this label
The commenter explicitly opposes the policy change and argues grant decisions should be based on what "scientists determine is scientifically valid," not political actors. That is direct opposition to the rule’s shift away from expert scientific judgment.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A cautious reader could say the comment attacks OMB’s authority and the administration in broad terms without naming the Uniform Guidance sections specifically, so it might be read as a general political complaint rather than a position on the docketed rule itself.
What makes it hard
The comment refers to the proposal as a broad "policy change" and "regulatory" change rather than citing the rule by section, so the reviewer must infer that this is indeed aimed at the proposed OMB rule.
The comment
The OMB does not and should not have the power to unilaterally change research grant qualifications. Congress has the power to fund all the agencies listed in this "regulatory" change and, therefore, any attempt by a single government agency to change policies in place for decades that have been made American scientific research the best in the world is political and not approved by Congress, research scientists, the medical community, or any of the American citizens these changes would affect. Using language like "equal treatment" is hiding the fact that this Administration wants to open the door for junk science, which its HHS Secretary and Dr. Oz have already done. And our taxpayer dollars should NOT go to fund anything other than what scientists determine is scientifically valid; not Russell Vought nor any unskilled politician in this Administration. As a citizen and a retired nurse, I oppose this unilateral policy change and ask that Congress step in and reverse the unlawful activities of this greedy, vengeful and unscientific Administration. Just because some scientific research may challenge the traditional beliefs of a minority group does not make that research invalid. Or "fake." Science is a discipline that requires extensive thought and experimentation. It can also change over time as other data come to light. As a thinking Christian, I am not afraid of scientific research. God doesn't need our help defending the faith. In fact, science can help us know God even be
Source
OMB-2026-0034-87862 on regulations.gov
This is not a good idea. Please don’t destroy independent science by giving the government broad authority to shut down programs.
Oppose Oppose Agrees
What the label rests on
This is not a good idea. Please don’t destroy independent science by giving the government broad authority to shut down programs.
Why this label
The commenter plainly objects to the proposal ("not a good idea") and specifically warns it would "destroy independent science" by letting the government shut down programs, which fits opposition to weakening scientific independence.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A cautious reader could say the comment does not name OMB, the rule, or any section explicitly, and only offers a general objection without details, so it might be treated as too vague to classify beyond engaging the topic.
What makes it hard
It is short and does not explicitly mention the rule by name, so the reviewer must infer that "This" refers to the proposed rule in the docket.
The comment
This is not a good idea. Please don’t destroy independent science by giving the government broad authority to shut down programs.
Source
OMB-2026-0034-88067 on regulations.gov
Dear Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance, I urge OMB to preserve the long-standing merit-based, expert peer review process that has made the United States the global leader
Oppose Oppose Agrees
What the label rests on
"I urge OMB to preserve the long-standing merit-based, expert peer review process"; "not political or ideological considerations"; "Provisions that allow grants to be terminated based on vague \"national interest\" determinations... risk undermining innovation"; "I encourage OMB to revise or remove these provisions"
Why this label
The comment explicitly objects to provisions in the proposed rule and asks OMB to "revise or remove" them. It defends expert peer review and warns that the proposal would politicize funding and harm research and competitiveness, which is opposition under the rule provided.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A fair alternative reading is that the commenter is not rejecting the entire rule, only asking that certain provisions be changed while supporting goals like "transparency, accountability, and stewardship of taxpayer dollars."
What makes it hard
The commenter does not say "I oppose this rule" outright and leaves open that some revisions could be acceptable, so a reader could wonder whether this is partial opposition versus a neutral request for modification.
The comment
Dear Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance, I urge OMB to preserve the long-standing merit-based, expert peer review process that has made the United States the global leader in scientific research. Federal research funding should be awarded and managed based on scientific excellence, technical merit, and public benefit—not political or ideological considerations. Provisions that allow grants to be terminated based on vague "national interest" determinations, require scrutiny of researchers' social or political affiliations, restrict scientific collaboration, or limit the dissemination of research findings risk undermining innovation, discouraging talented researchers from pursuing federally funded work, and weakening America's scientific competitiveness. Any revisions to the Uniform Guidance should strengthen transparency, accountability, and stewardship of taxpayer dollars while preserving the independence and predictability that researchers, institutions, and patients depend upon. I encourage OMB to revise or remove these provisions and maintain a science-driven framework for federal research funding. Sincerely, Mr. karen novello
Source
OMB-2026-0034-94081 on regulations.gov
THE STRENGTH OF SCIENCE IS THAT IT IS APOLITICAL, DECISIONS OF FUNDING RESEARCH MUST BE IN THE HANDS OF SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATIONS.
Oppose Oppose Agrees
What the label rests on
THE STRENGTH OF SCIENCE IS THAT IT IS APOLITICAL, DECISIONS OF FUNDING RESEARCH MUST BE IN THE HANDS OF SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATIONS.
Why this label
The comment defends apolitical science and says funding decisions must be made by scientific organizations, which directly rejects the rule's perceived shift away from independent expert review toward political control. That is opposition under the guidance to treat defenses of peer review or scientific independence as oppose.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A fair counterargument is that the comment does not explicitly mention OMB, the rule, or say 'oppose'; it could be read as a general principle about science funding rather than a direct position on this proposal.
What makes it hard
It never explicitly says 'I oppose this rule,' so the judgment depends on inferring that the statement is aimed at the proposal's political-control aspects.
The comment
THE STRENGTH OF SCIENCE IS THAT IT IS APOLITICAL, DECISIONS OF FUNDING RESEARCH MUST BE IN THE HANDS OF SCIENTIFIC ORGANIZATIONS.
Source
OMB-2026-0034-9443 on regulations.gov
Dear Office of Management and Budget, I would like to express my strong opposition to OMB Guidance Proposed Rule 2026-10817. While updating the Uniform Guidance may aim to streamli
Oppose Oppose Agrees
What the label rests on
"I would like to express my strong opposition to OMB Guidance Proposed Rule 2026-10817." "This proposed rule profoundly threatens that foundation." "I strongly request that OMB withdraw these damaging provisions and maintain the independent, peer-led integrity of federal research grantmaking."
Why this label
This is explicit opposition to the proposed rule. The commenter repeatedly says the rule is a "dangerous shift," says it "profoundly threatens" peer-reviewed science, and asks OMB to "withdraw these damaging provisions."
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A very cautious reader might note the commenter asks OMB to "reconsider" and "withdraw these damaging provisions," which could be framed as seeking revision rather than opposing the entire rule. But the text also expressly states "strong opposition" to the rule itself, so no_position is not the best fit.
What makes it hard
The comment discusses specific provisions in detail rather than only saying "oppose," so a reviewer could wonder whether it opposes only parts of the rule. But the opening and closing make overall opposition clear.
The comment
Dear Office of Management and Budget, I would like to express my strong opposition to OMB Guidance Proposed Rule 2026-10817. While updating the Uniform Guidance may aim to streamline processes, the proposed mechanisms represent a dangerous shift away from independent, merit-based scientific review toward centralized political decision-making. For 80 years, the U.S. research ecosystem has flourished by relying on a foundation of rigorous, peer-reviewed science evaluated by independent panels of experts. This proposed rule profoundly threatens that foundation. I strongly urge OMB to reconsider the following problematic provisions: 1. Inappropriate Shift to Political Oversight (Sections 200.202, 200.205, 200.206) The proposal unnecessarily expands OMB authority over independent agencies like the NIH, NSF, DOE, and NASA, weakening their ability to establish research funding priorities led by scientific opportunity. By forcing agencies to designate political appointees to approve all grant awards before final issuance, the rule injects politics into science. ** Peer Review Rendered "Advisory" [Section 200.205(b)]: Reducing expert, merit-based reviews conducted by scientific study sections to an "advisory" status fundamentally degrades the integrity of the process. ** Mandated Deference to Political Judgment [Section 200.205(b)]: Requiring political appointees to use "independent judgment" rather than deferring to scientific experts replaces objective merit with subjective politica
Source
OMB-2026-0034-147588 on regulations.gov
1) I am writing to comment on the dreadful proposed OMB guidelines to change federal grant funding - the "Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance" 2) I am Professor and have pe
Oppose Oppose Agrees
What the label rests on
"dreadful proposed OMB guidelines"; "Many of the provisions of the proposed rule are harmful to independent and useful research"; "this entire set or proposed regulations should be withdrawn"; "OMB should not finalize this rule, and in fact should just maintain the current rules."
Why this label
This is explicit opposition to the proposed rule. The commenter calls the rule "dreadful," says it is "harmful," argues that political appointees and alignment with administration priorities are "completely antithetical to good science," and directly urges OMB to withdraw the rule and not finalize it.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A very cautious reader might note that the commenter focuses heavily on specific provisions (200.202 and 200.205) and on explaining perceived harms, which could be read as issue-focused analysis rather than a blanket position. But that reading is overcome by the explicit statements that the "entire set" should be withdrawn and that OMB "should not finalize this rule."
The comment
1) I am writing to comment on the dreadful proposed OMB guidelines to change federal grant funding - the "Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance" 2) I am Professor and have performing research with various sources of federal funds for about 50 years, and also worked five years as a research scientist with the USDA Forest Service. 3) Many of the provisions of the proposed rule are harmful to independent and useful research that must be based on open inquiry, critical thinking, and unbiased scientific methods and interpretation of the results. I will mention two here, and maybe write more comments separately if I have time. 4) The two related sections of 200.205 and 200.202 state that grants will be reviewed by political appointees, and that programs must align with administration priorities, respectively. These basically both state that values and biases of any administration will dictate what we investigate. This is completely antithetical to good science and the advancement of knowledge, innovation, and economic development. For example, the current administration does not believe in climate change, and had banned explicit use of those words and research funding. This is of course absurd - 95% or more of all scientists and even 2/3 of the public believes that it is occurring. Research can help us determine the seriousness and pace of such changes, and how we may be able to reduce their increase and adapt to their damages. A large number of quite similar subjects and the
Source
OMB-2026-0034-31469 on regulations.gov
[200.205, 200.340, 200.341, 200.432, 200.454, 200.461] I am writing in my personal capacity to voice my strong opposition to this proposed rule, as it would cause significant harm
Oppose Oppose Agrees
What the label rests on
"I am writing in my personal capacity to voice my strong opposition to this proposed rule"; "I strongly urge OMB to withdraw these damaging provisions"
Why this label
This is an explicit objection to the proposed rule. The commenter repeatedly argues that the rule politicizes peer review, destabilizes grants, restricts research activities, and should be withdrawn.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A very cautious reader could say the comment is organized as section-by-section analysis of the proposal and focuses on explaining impacts rather than just stating a bare yes/no position. But the explicit words of opposition make neutrality untenable.
The comment
[200.205, 200.340, 200.341, 200.432, 200.454, 200.461] I am writing in my personal capacity to voice my strong opposition to this proposed rule, as it would cause significant harm to the scientific community and signal an abdication of US leadership in the sciences. I am especially concerned by the following sections of the rule: Section 200.205: By making peer review advisory and mandating that senior political appointees review discretionary awards to ensure alignment with shifting political priorities, this rule introduces unprecedented political interference into scientific funding. The peer review system, a process widely regarded as the gold standard for evaluating scientific merit and funding decisions, is built on the rigorous evaluation of proposals by independent scientific experts. This ensures that funding decisions are based on mission-driven scientific innovation and potential impact - not political considerations, which is why the U.S. has consistently led the way in driving breakthrough research and accelerating technological innovation. Shifting final authority to political appointees will significantly undermine the grant review and award system and could distort federal research priorities based on ideological or partisan agendas, stifle innovation, and erode public confidence in research. Research should focus on scientific inquiry, promise, and innovation to advance science and improve public health above politics. Sections 200.340 and 200.341: The new gr
Source
OMB-2026-0034-137588 on regulations.gov
[200.205, 200.340, 200.341, 200.432, 200.454, 200.461] I am writing in my personal capacity to voice my strong opposition to this proposed rule, as it would cause significant harm
Oppose Oppose Agrees
What the label rests on
"I am writing in my personal capacity to voice my strong opposition to this proposed rule"; "I strongly urge OMB to withdraw these damaging provisions"; "OMB-2026-0034 is an egregious overreach"; "OMB needs to withdraw these provisions immediately"
Why this label
This is explicit opposition to the proposed rule, using direct language of objection and urging OMB to withdraw it. The commenter also argues the rule would politicize peer review, enable arbitrary grant terminations, and restrict scientific collaboration, all of which are classic opposition under the rubric.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A very cautious reader could note that the comment is framed as concerns about specific sections and their consequences, which might be read as substantive feedback rather than a categorical stance. But that reading is overcome by the repeated explicit statements of opposition and demands for withdrawal.
The comment
[200.205, 200.340, 200.341, 200.432, 200.454, 200.461] I am writing in my personal capacity to voice my strong opposition to this proposed rule, as it would cause significant harm to the scientific community and signal an abdication of US leadership in the sciences. I am especially concerned by the following sections of the rule: Section 200.205: By making peer review advisory and mandating that senior political appointees review discretionary awards to ensure alignment with shifting political priorities, this rule introduces unprecedented political interference into scientific funding. The peer review system, a process widely regarded as the gold standard for evaluating scientific merit and funding decisions, is built on the rigorous evaluation of proposals by independent scientific experts. This ensures that funding decisions are based on mission-driven scientific innovation and potential impact - not political considerations, which is why the U.S. has consistently led the way in driving breakthrough research and accelerating technological innovation. Shifting final authority to political appointees will significantly undermine the grant review and award system and could distort federal research priorities based on ideological or partisan agendas, stifle innovation, and erode public confidence in research. Research should focus on scientific inquiry, promise, and innovation to advance science and improve public health above politics. Sections 200.340 and 200.341: The new gr
Source
OMB-2026-0034-153394 on regulations.gov
I am writing as a deeply concerned constituent and a strong proponent of scientific integrity to express my vehement opposition to the proposed Office of Management and Budget (OMB
Oppose Oppose Agrees
What the label rests on
"express my vehement opposition to the proposed Office of Management and Budget (OMB) rule"; "I urge the Office of Management and Budget to immediately withdraw this deeply damaging proposal"
Why this label
The commenter explicitly says they are in "vehement opposition" to the proposed OMB rule and asks OMB to "immediately withdraw" it. The rest of the comment argues the rule politicizes grantmaking, undermines peer review, and harms science and public health, which fits opposition under the instructions.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A very cautious reader might say much of the comment discusses general principles like scientific integrity and peer review rather than parsing regulatory text provision-by-provision, so it could be read as broader advocacy adjacent to the rule. But the explicit statements of opposition to "the proposed OMB rule" make neutrality untenable.
The comment
I am writing as a deeply concerned constituent and a strong proponent of scientific integrity to express my vehement opposition to the proposed Office of Management and Budget (OMB) rule that seeks to overhaul how federal research grants are awarded, managed, and reviewed. The proposal to replace the time-tested scientific peer-review process with funding decisions made by political appointees, combined with the provision allowing research grants to be canceled mid-study, represents a fundamental threat to the American scientific enterprise. If finalized, this rule will deeply politicize scientific research, undermine public health, and halt critical medical breakthroughs before they can even begin. For decades, the United States has led global innovation precisely because our scientific funding mechanisms have relied on objective, merit-based peer review. When experts in biology, epidemiology, engineering, and physics evaluate grant proposals, they ensure that taxpayer dollars are allocated to research with the highest technical merit, rigorous methodologies, and maximum potential for societal benefit. Replacing these independent experts with political appointees shifts the criteria for funding from empirical potential to ideological alignment. Science relies on unbiased inquiry; injecting partisan politics into the selection process ensures that vital research on public health, climate, and medicine will be suppressed if its potential findings clash with a prevailing politi
Source
OMB-2026-0034-75136 on regulations.gov
Submitted electronically via Regulations.gov Docket No. OMB-2026-0034 FR Doc. No. 2026-10817 July 13, 2026 Russell Vought, Director Office of Management and Budget 725 17th Street
Oppose Oppose Agrees
What the label rests on
"I am writing to oppose the following provisions"; "I request that provision §200.205 not be finalized and urge OMB to withdraw this rule in its entirety."; "I request that provision §200.340 not be finalized and urge OMB to withdraw this rule in its entirety."; "I request that provision §200.461 not be finalized and urge OMB to withdraw this rule in its entirety."
Why this label
This is explicit opposition to multiple named provisions and to the rule as a whole. The commenter also gives classic opposition rationales under this docket: undermining peer review, harming research quality, destabilizing grants, and reducing U.S. scientific competitiveness.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A very cautious reader might note the comment is organized as provision-specific concerns and requests, not a generic political statement, and could misread it as informational feedback on how to revise the rule. But the repeated requests that the provisions "not be finalized" and that OMB "withdraw this rule in its entirety" make it a clear objection, not neutral feedback.
The comment
Submitted electronically via Regulations.gov Docket No. OMB-2026-0034 FR Doc. No. 2026-10817 July 13, 2026 Russell Vought, Director Office of Management and Budget 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503 RE: Comments on Proposed Rule, Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance, 91 Fed. Reg. 32198, published May 29, 2026 (Docket ID No. OMB-2026-0034) Dear Director Vought: I am submitting this comment in my personal capacity. The views expressed are my own and do not represent the official position of my employer. I am a Professor in the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences at the University of California Davis and have received grant funding from both NSF and NASA. This funding has primarily supported the training of postdoctoral scholars and graduate students who are now contributing to the US economy as highly trained professionals in the geotechnical industry, public safety, research, and education. Based on that experience, I am writing to oppose the following provisions: §200.205 I am concerned that this provision would harm the quality of US scientific research by undermining peer-review in the evaluation and funding of grant proposals. Forcing research to conform to specific policy priorities runs the grave risk of restricting “blue-sky” research, which is essential for yielding fundamental scientific breakthroughs. I request that provision §200.205 not be finalized and urge OMB to withdraw this rule in its entirety. §200.340 I am concerned that this provision wo
Source
OMB-2026-0034-91904 on regulations.gov
I am submitting this comment in strong opposition to the proposed revisions to 2 CFR Part 200 (Docket OMB-2026-0034). I write as a concerned citizen who cares about the wellbeing o
Oppose Oppose Agrees
What the label rests on
"I am submitting this comment in strong opposition to the proposed revisions to 2 CFR Part 200"; "I fully trust scientists who have dedicated their lives to their field over a political appointee"; "I urge OMB to withdraw this rule in its entirety."
Why this label
The commenter explicitly says they are in "strong opposition" to the proposed revisions and asks OMB to "withdraw this rule in its entirety." They also object to multiple specific provisions as politicizing grantmaking, undermining peer review, and harming science.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A very cautious reader might note the comment also discusses specific sections in detail and requests they "are not finalized," which could be read as advocacy about revisions rather than a simple up-or-down position. But the explicit statements of "strong opposition" and urging full withdrawal make neutrality untenable.
The comment
I am submitting this comment in strong opposition to the proposed revisions to 2 CFR Part 200 (Docket OMB-2026-0034). I write as a concerned citizen who cares about the wellbeing of the children, women, and men of this great country. This proposed rule is not a grants management reform. It is the most consequential attack on American science and on the integrity of federal grantmaking since WWII. It would place political appointees above scientific peer reviewers in every grant funding decision, allow any active grant to be terminated mid-project for undefined political reasons, prohibit international scientific collaboration, ban journal subscriptions and publication costs that have been allowable for over fifty years, and require that every federal grant program align with the current administration’s political priorities rather than with scientific need or congressional mandate. Grant funding at risk will undeniably have the potential to negatively impact every citizen in this country, especially the most vulnerable among us. Specifically, using OMB’s grants management authority as a vehicle for political control over science, public services, and free speech has not been authorized by Congress or the Constitution. Below are a few specific sections I am deeply concerned about and request are not finalized: §200.205 and §200.205(d) — Political appointee pre-issuance review and the elimination of binding peer review. I fully trust scientists who have dedicated their lives to
Source
OMB-2026-0034-92386 on regulations.gov
Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance Regulation OMB-2026-0034-0001,For nearly twenty years I worked with trans kids through a community theater program in a small rural town
Oppose Oppose Agrees
What the label rests on
I oppose the new OMB proposed rule 2026-0034, and I’m writing to request that you revoke it. ... And it threatens the current nonpartisan system of awarding federal grants, injecting new partisanship by requiring “pre-issuance” reviews by political appointees, in contrast with the current peer reviewers and career experts who make nonpartisan decisions about who and what gets funding. ... This is an outrage. ... Revoke this rule and do not finalize it, please!
Why this label
This is explicit opposition: the commenter says "I oppose" the rule, calls it "an outrage," and asks OMB to "revoke it" and "do not finalize it." The reasons given also match the rule-specific opposition described in the instructions, including harm to funded institutions and replacing peer review with political appointees.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A very cautious reader might wonder whether much of the comment focuses on broader anti-discrimination and tribal-sovereignty concerns rather than the regulatory text itself, making it partly a policy protest. But the comment directly ties those concerns to this proposed rule and expressly asks that it be revoked.
The comment
Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance Regulation OMB-2026-0034-0001,For nearly twenty years I worked with trans kids through a community theater program in a small rural town in northwestern Wisconsin. Even in that very small, highly conservative community, everyone agreed to honor the preferences of young people and their parents in terms of gender identity. We didn't hold meetings or take votes about it; we just agreed as responsible adults that it was the right thing to do for young people. I oppose the new OMB proposed rule 2026-0034, and I’m writing to request that you revoke it. It will cut federal funding from most of the healthcare and higher ed institutions, research and science groups, and nonprofit organizations that currently receive federal funding -- or force them to discriminate against Two-Spirit and trans people, immigrants, people who need abortions, or anyone considered “diverse.” It will penalize any federal funding recipients that work toward the noble goal of “equity,” which is absolutely a U.S. value. It will definitely impact Tribal programs, including healthcare services -- violating the federal government’s obligations to uphold Tribal treaty rights and Tribal sovereignty. Sovereignty includes bodily sovereignty, and Tribes have long had terms for Two-Spirit and LGBTQI+ members.It already conflicts with existing laws such as the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. It will also create a massive amount of confusion -- including the parts tha
Source
OMB-2026-0034-138995 on regulations.gov
Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance Regulation OMB-2026-0034-0001,I oppose the new OMB proposed rule 2026-0034, and I’m writing to request that you revoke it. It will cut f
Oppose Oppose Agrees
What the label rests on
"I oppose the new OMB proposed rule 2026-0034, and I’m writing to request that you revoke it." "This is an outrage." "Revoke this rule and do not finalize it, please!"
Why this label
This is explicit opposition to the proposed rule: the commenter says they "oppose" it, asks OMB to "revoke it," and says "do not finalize it." The rest of the comment gives substantive reasons, including harm to healthcare, research, nonprofits, Tribal programs, and peer review.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A very cautious reader might note the comment also lists many predicted effects and policy concerns, so if one distrusted the sincerity or relevance of the rhetoric, they might try to treat it as descriptive advocacy rather than a docket position. But the direct statements of opposition make that hard to sustain.
The comment
Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance Regulation OMB-2026-0034-0001,I oppose the new OMB proposed rule 2026-0034, and I’m writing to request that you revoke it. It will cut federal funding from most of the healthcare and higher ed institutions, research and science groups, and nonprofit organizations that currently receive federal funding -- or force them to discriminate against Two-Spirit and trans people, immigrants, people who need abortions, or anyone considered “diverse.” It will penalize any federal funding recipients that work toward the noble goal of “equity,” which is absolutely a U.S. value. It will definitely impact Tribal programs, including healthcare services -- violating the federal government’s obligations to uphold Tribal treaty rights and Tribal sovereignty. Sovereignty includes bodily sovereignty, and Tribes have long had terms for Two-Spirit and LGBTQI+ members.It already conflicts with existing laws such as the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. It will also create a massive amount of confusion -- including the parts that seem to discourage nonprofits from engaging in legally-protected nonpartisan civic engagement and voter registration, and the many vague references and additions to current steps that will surely slow down federal grant-making overall.And it threatens the current nonpartisan system of awarding federal grants, injecting new partisanship by requiring “pre-issuance” reviews by political appointees, in contrast with the current p
Source
OMB-2026-0034-149794 on regulations.gov
The Office of Management and Budget ,I am a graduate worker at Yale University working on computational neuroscience and biophysics. The proposed changes, in particular sections 20
Oppose Oppose Agrees
What the label rests on
"would impact the integrity of American research and harm our research progress and quality"; "These regulations would allow an official who probably doesn't understand the science to arbitrarily decide"; "This would slow down scientific process"; "These proposed rules would be extremely harmful and I urge the OMB to withdraw them."
Why this label
The commenter explicitly says the proposed changes would harm research integrity, public health, and innovation, and directly asks OMB to "withdraw them." That is a clear objection to the rule.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A cautious reader might note the comment discusses effects of specific sections and broader principles about research independence, which could be read as policy analysis rather than a formal position if the withdrawal request were overlooked.
The comment
The Office of Management and Budget ,I am a graduate worker at Yale University working on computational neuroscience and biophysics. The proposed changes, in particular sections 200.202, 200.205, 200.220, 200.300, and 200.340, would impact the integrity of American research and harm our research progress and quality. The independence of the research process allows people who are experts in a subject to decide what research is worth pursuing without dealing with the meddling of unqualified government officials who have their own agendas and biases. These regulations would allow an official who probably doesn't understand the science to arbitrarily decide that some proposed research is contrary to "the national interest" (section 200.340), effectively giving them unlimited power to control what research gets done. This would slow down scientific process and create unnecessary red tape and bias that would harm our standing in research and innovation on the world stage. This would harm the public health and the creation of jobs by reducing the number of discoveries that lead to new treatments, methods, companies, etc. These rules would also limit the public dissemination of knowledge that we the taxpayers fund. These proposed rules would be extremely harmful and I urge the OMB to withdraw them.Nicholas Weaver [ ]
Source
OMB-2026-0034-39299 on regulations.gov
Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance Regulation OMB-2026-0034-0001,I oppose the new OMB proposed rule 2026-0034, and I’m writing to request that you revoke it. It will cut f
Oppose Oppose Agrees
What the label rests on
"I oppose the new OMB proposed rule 2026-0034, and I’m writing to request that you revoke it." "And it threatens the current nonpartisan system of awarding federal grants, injecting new partisanship by requiring “pre-issuance” reviews by political appointees, in contrast with the current peer reviewers and career experts who make nonpartisan decisions about who and what gets funding." "Revoke this rule and do not finalize it, please!"
Why this label
This is explicit opposition: the commenter directly says they "oppose" the rule, asks OMB to "revoke it," and argues it would politicize grants and harm healthcare, research, nonprofits, and Tribal programs. Those are classic oppose signals under the rubric.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A very cautious reader might note that the comment also describes alleged effects of the rule in detail, so one could misread parts of it as explanatory rather than oppositional. But the direct statements of opposition and request not to finalize it make no_position much less defensible.
The comment
Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance Regulation OMB-2026-0034-0001,I oppose the new OMB proposed rule 2026-0034, and I’m writing to request that you revoke it. It will cut federal funding from most of the healthcare and higher ed institutions, research and science groups, and nonprofit organizations that currently receive federal funding -- or force them to discriminate against Two-Spirit and trans people, immigrants, people who need abortions, or anyone considered “diverse.” It will penalize any federal funding recipients that work toward the noble goal of “equity,” which is absolutely a U.S. value. It will definitely impact Tribal programs, including healthcare services -- violating the federal government’s obligations to uphold Tribal treaty rights and Tribal sovereignty. Sovereignty includes bodily sovereignty, and Tribes have long had terms for Two-Spirit and LGBTQI+ members.It already conflicts with existing laws such as the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. It will also create a massive amount of confusion -- including the parts that seem to discourage nonprofits from engaging in legally-protected nonpartisan civic engagement and voter registration, and the many vague references and additions to current steps that will surely slow down federal grant-making overall.And it threatens the current nonpartisan system of awarding federal grants, injecting new partisanship by requiring “pre-issuance” reviews by political appointees, in contrast with the current p
Source
OMB-2026-0034-51038 on regulations.gov
Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance Regulation OMB-2026-0034-0001,I oppose the new OMB proposed rule 2026-0034, and I’m writing to request that you revoke it. It will cut f
Oppose Oppose Agrees
What the label rests on
"I oppose the new OMB proposed rule 2026-0034, and I’m writing to request that you revoke it." "And it threatens the current nonpartisan system of awarding federal grants, injecting new partisanship by requiring ‘pre-issuance’ reviews by political appointees, in contrast with the current peer reviewers and career experts who make nonpartisan decisions about who and what gets funding." "Revoke this rule and do not finalize it, please!"
Why this label
This is explicit opposition: the commenter says "I oppose" the rule, asks OMB to "revoke it," and argues it would politicize grantmaking and harm federally funded institutions and programs. Those are direct objections to this proposal, not merely general policy concerns.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A very cautious reader might note that much of the comment describes predicted effects on equity, Tribal programs, and civic engagement, which could be read as policy argument rather than legal analysis. But the text repeatedly and unmistakably asks that the rule be revoked and not finalized.
The comment
Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance Regulation OMB-2026-0034-0001,I oppose the new OMB proposed rule 2026-0034, and I’m writing to request that you revoke it. It will cut federal funding from most of the healthcare and higher ed institutions, research and science groups, and nonprofit organizations that currently receive federal funding -- or force them to discriminate against Two-Spirit and trans people, immigrants, people who need abortions, or anyone considered “diverse.” It will penalize any federal funding recipients that work toward the noble goal of “equity,” which is absolutely a U.S. value. It will definitely impact Tribal programs, including healthcare services -- violating the federal government’s obligations to uphold Tribal treaty rights and Tribal sovereignty. Sovereignty includes bodily sovereignty, and Tribes have long had terms for Two-Spirit and LGBTQI+ members.It already conflicts with existing laws such as the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. It will also create a massive amount of confusion -- including the parts that seem to discourage nonprofits from engaging in legally-protected nonpartisan civic engagement and voter registration, and the many vague references and additions to current steps that will surely slow down federal grant-making overall.And it threatens the current nonpartisan system of awarding federal grants, injecting new partisanship by requiring “pre-issuance” reviews by political appointees, in contrast with the current p
Source
OMB-2026-0034-59765 on regulations.gov
Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance Regulation OMB-2026-0034-0001,I oppose the new OMB proposed rule 2026-0034, and I’m writing to request that you revoke it. It will cut f
Oppose Oppose Agrees
What the label rests on
"I oppose the new OMB proposed rule 2026-0034, and I’m writing to request that you revoke it." "And it threatens the current nonpartisan system of awarding federal grants, injecting new partisanship by requiring ‘pre-issuance’ reviews by political appointees, in contrast with the current peer reviewers and career experts who make nonpartisan decisions about who and what gets funding." "Revoke this rule and do not finalize it, please!"
Why this label
This is explicit opposition: the commenter directly says "I oppose" the rule and asks OMB to "revoke" it and "do not finalize it." The rest of the comment gives substantive reasons, including harm to funded institutions, discrimination concerns, and criticism of shifting decisions from peer reviewers to political appointees.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A very cautious reader might note that the comment also spends substantial space describing alleged effects of the rule, and one could imagine misreading it as explanatory rather than positional. But that reading is overwhelmed by the unmistakable statements of opposition and requests to revoke the rule.
The comment
Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance Regulation OMB-2026-0034-0001,I oppose the new OMB proposed rule 2026-0034, and I’m writing to request that you revoke it. It will cut federal funding from most of the healthcare and higher ed institutions, research and science groups, and nonprofit organizations that currently receive federal funding -- or force them to discriminate against Two-Spirit and trans people, immigrants, people who need abortions, or anyone considered “diverse.” It will penalize any federal funding recipients that work toward the noble goal of “equity,” which is absolutely a U.S. value. It will definitely impact Tribal programs, including healthcare services -- violating the federal government’s obligations to uphold Tribal treaty rights and Tribal sovereignty. Sovereignty includes bodily sovereignty, and Tribes have long had terms for Two-Spirit and LGBTQI+ members.It already conflicts with existing laws such as the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. It will also create a massive amount of confusion -- including the parts that seem to discourage nonprofits from engaging in legally-protected nonpartisan civic engagement and voter registration, and the many vague references and additions to current steps that will surely slow down federal grant-making overall.And it threatens the current nonpartisan system of awarding federal grants, injecting new partisanship by requiring “pre-issuance” reviews by political appointees, in contrast with the current p
Source
OMB-2026-0034-74832 on regulations.gov
These rules will catastrophically destroy US scientific research! While peer review isn't perfect, it's the best option for determining the soundness and worthiness of research; gr
Oppose Oppose Agrees
What the label rests on
These rules will catastrophically destroy US scientific research! ... grants should not be decided by political appointees ... Allowing for grants to be terminated at any time ... The conference attendance aspect of these rules is particularly disturbing ... it should never be obstructed by political motives. If these rules go forward, our country will fall irreparably behind ... Keep politics out of research!
Why this label
The commenter explicitly attacks "these rules," says they would "catastrophically destroy US scientific research," condemns political appointee control over grants, objects to termination and conference-attendance provisions, and warns of severe harm if the rule is finalized. That is clear opposition to the proposed rule.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A strained reading is that the comment mainly argues for general principles like peer review, stable funding, and keeping politics out of research, without naming the OMB rule sections specifically. But the repeated references to "these rules" and their effects make it plainly oppositional rather than neutral.
The comment
These rules will catastrophically destroy US scientific research! While peer review isn't perfect, it's the best option for determining the soundness and worthiness of research; grants should not be decided by political appointees with little to no understanding of how research works. Allowing for grants to be terminated at any time, means that funding, which is already extremely competitive, can not even be relied on once obtained. How are researchers supposed plan and conduct experiments, if they can be shut down at any time for any reason. The conference attendance aspect of these rules is particularly disturbing, as attending these meetings and having membership in professional scientific associations is such an important aspect for collaboration and discovery. The core purpose of any research is to obtain knowledge, it should never be obstructed by political motives. If these rules go forward, our country will fall irreparably behind in research endeavors, and subsequently our place at the forefront of the world in technological advancement. Keep politics out of research!
Source
OMB-2026-0034-0504 on regulations.gov
I oppose this regulation. The United States will lose it leader status in innovation. All our top scientists and educators will move aboard and so will all the industries.
Oppose Oppose Agrees
What the label rests on
I oppose this regulation. The United States will lose it leader status in innovation. All our top scientists and educators will move aboard and so will all the industries.
Why this label
The commenter explicitly says "I oppose this regulation," which is a direct objection to the proposed rule. The rest of the comment reinforces opposition by warning it will harm U.S. innovation and drive scientists, educators, and industry away.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A very cautious reader might note the comment gives little detail about which provision it objects to and contains only broad policy harms, but the explicit statement of opposition still makes it more than neutral.
The comment
I oppose this regulation. The United States will lose it leader status in innovation. All our top scientists and educators will move aboard and so will all the industries.
Source
OMB-2026-0034-122648 on regulations.gov
I oppose Russel Vought's Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance rule. The scientists are the experts, not political appointees.
Oppose Oppose Agrees
What the label rests on
"I oppose Russel Vought's Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance rule. The scientists are the experts, not political appointees."
Why this label
The comment explicitly says "I oppose" the rule and defends expert rather than political decision-making. That is direct opposition to this proposal.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A very cautious reader might wonder whether the commenter is objecting more generally to political appointees rather than engaging specific provisions of the rule. But the sentence explicitly names and opposes the rule itself.
The comment
I oppose Russel Vought's Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance rule. The scientists are the experts, not political appointees.
Source
OMB-2026-0034-137571 on regulations.gov
Scientific grants awards should never be in the hands of piliticians. Science is for everyone and shpuld continue being peer reviewed by scientists. No pilitical agenda should stym
Oppose Oppose Agrees
What the label rests on
"Scientific grants awards should never be in the hands of piliticians. Science is for everyone and shpuld continue being peer reviewed by scientists. No pilitical agenda should stymie scientific research, grant award, or existing research. OMB should rescind this proposed rule and never encroach on scientific study and merit again. This is simply an embarrassment"
Why this label
This is explicit opposition to the rule: the commenter says "OMB should rescind this proposed rule" and objects to shifting grant decisions to politicians instead of peer-reviewed scientific merit. The comment also condemns political interference in research, which the instructions say counts as opposition.
The strongest case against it (for “Support”)
A very strained reading might say the commenter wants scientific grants managed responsibly and mentions trust in managing "American tax dollars," which could be mistaken for support of accountability goals. But the text directly calls for rescinding the rule, so that reading is weak.
The comment
Scientific grants awards should never be in the hands of piliticians. Science is for everyone and shpuld continue being peer reviewed by scientists. No pilitical agenda should stymie scientific research, grant award, or existing research. OMB should rescind this proposed rule and never encroach on scientific study and merit again. This is simply an embarrassment and OMB staff who propose/support this rule should be removed from their posts as tbey cannot be trusted to manage American tax dollars.
Source
OMB-2026-0034-140194 on regulations.gov
Peer review is the heart and soul of scholarship. Allowing an override by political appointees will undermine the integrity of research done in the United States. I oppose this pro
Oppose Oppose Agrees
What the label rests on
"Peer review is the heart and soul of scholarship. Allowing an override by political appointees will undermine the integrity of research done in the United States. I oppose this proposed change in existing practice."
Why this label
The commenter explicitly says "I oppose this proposed change in existing practice" and objects to "override by political appointees," which squarely matches opposition to the rule's shift away from independent peer review. The comment also warns that the rule will "undermine the integrity of research," another clear oppositional rationale under the instructions.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A very strained alternative is that the commenter speaks generally about peer review and "existing practice" without naming OMB or the rule sections, so one could ask whether it is merely a general principle rather than a position on this docket. But the explicit "I oppose this proposed change" makes that weak.
The comment
Peer review is the heart and soul of scholarship. Allowing an override by political appointees will undermine the integrity of research done in the United States. I oppose this proposed change in existing practice.
Source
OMB-2026-0034-141989 on regulations.gov
The passage of the ‘Uniform Guidance’ would be nothing short of catastrophic for American science. This rule is anti-democratic and un-American. Does the US want to fall behind Chi
Oppose Oppose Agrees
What the label rests on
"The passage of the ‘Uniform Guidance’ would be nothing short of catastrophic for American science. This rule is anti-democratic and un-American. Does the US want to fall behind China in research & development? This is a great way to do it. It’s depressing that it’s even being considered. Stop this."
Why this label
The commenter explicitly condemns the rule and urges that it not be adopted: calling it "catastrophic," "anti-democratic and un-American," and saying "Stop this" is direct opposition. They also argue it would harm American science and U.S. competitiveness, which fits opposition under the rule guidance.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A very cautious reader might note the comment does not discuss specific sections and uses broad rhetoric rather than policy detail, so one could argue it is more an expression of outrage than a substantive policy position. But it still clearly objects to the proposal itself.
The comment
The passage of the ‘Uniform Guidance’ would be nothing short of catastrophic for American science. This rule is anti-democratic and un-American. Does the US want to fall behind China in research & development? This is a great way to do it. It’s depressing that it’s even being considered. Stop this.
Source
OMB-2026-0034-149242 on regulations.gov
Hello, I am a professor of psychology and direct a research lab. The new proposed rule would harm the scientific integrity of research funded by the US government. Specifically, re
Oppose Oppose Agrees
What the label rests on
"The new proposed rule would harm the scientific integrity of research funded by the US government." "revisions to §200.205 that create pre-issuance review and designate peer review as advisory-only are exceptionally harmful" "We should maintain peer review of grants in funding decisions" "this proposal would harm the benefits of research from reaching the real-world" "I urge OMB to withdraw these rules entirely."
Why this label
This is explicit opposition: the commenter says the proposed rule is harmful in multiple named sections, defends peer review and scientific integrity, and directly asks OMB to "withdraw these rules entirely." That squarely objects to the rule under the oppose definition.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A very cautious reader might say parts of the comment discuss policy consequences and preferred grant-review practices rather than using the word "oppose," but the direct request to withdraw the rules makes it more than neutral commentary.
The comment
Hello, I am a professor of psychology and direct a research lab. The new proposed rule would harm the scientific integrity of research funded by the US government. Specifically, revisions to §200.205 that create pre-issuance review and designate peer review as advisory-only are exceptionally harmful and reduce transparency. We should maintain peer review of grants in funding decisions to ensure evidence-based evaluation. Failing to use peer review would reduce research quality. It would also restrict innovation, real-world problem solving, and harm generations of researchers--taking a toll on the training needed to prepare of our workforce. Additionally, this proposal would harm the benefits of research from reaching the real-world. Specifically, restricting public communication in §200.421 and §200.450 directly limit advocacy for evidence-based policymaking and the practical application of scientific findings. Likewise requiring agency approval for conference costs in §200.432 will increase regulatory burden, dampening state and local economic activity. I urge OMB to withdraw these rules entirely.
Source
OMB-2026-0034-157472 on regulations.gov
Allowing political appointees who carry an agenda will all but destroy the United States' position as a scientific leader in the world. This absolutely should not be allowed to go
Oppose Oppose Agrees
What the label rests on
"Allowing political appointees who carry an agenda will all but destroy the United States' position as a scientific leader in the world. This absolutely should not be allowed to go through. Please eliminate this proposed regulation, for the sake of actual scientific progress."
Why this label
The comment directly urges OMB not to finalize the rule: "This absolutely should not be allowed to go through" and "Please eliminate this proposed regulation." It also gives a substantive reason grounded in harm to scientific leadership and opposition to political appointees influencing decisions.
The strongest case against it (for “Support”)
A very strained reading might say the commenter supports scientific progress and is only objecting to political appointees in general rather than this specific rule, but the explicit request to "eliminate this proposed regulation" defeats that reading.
The comment
Allowing political appointees who carry an agenda will all but destroy the United States' position as a scientific leader in the world. This absolutely should not be allowed to go through. Please eliminate this proposed regulation, for the sake of actual scientific progress.
Source
OMB-2026-0034-68359 on regulations.gov
I am a greatly concerned citizen of the United States who risks being severely affected by the proposed provisions. More specifically, I am concerned by Provision §200.205, which s
Oppose Oppose Agrees
What the label rests on
"I am concerned by Provision §200.205, which screens competitive federal education awards through a political lens rather than an educational one." "I strongly urge OMB to withdraw provision §200.205 and not finalize this rule."
Why this label
The commenter explicitly objects to a named provision and says OMB should "withdraw" it and "not finalize this rule," which is direct opposition. They also argue the rule would harm grant opportunities and education quality by politicizing awards.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A cautious reader might note the comment focuses on personal concern and one provision rather than the entire rule, so one could ask whether it is just descriptive or issue-raising. But the explicit request to "not finalize this rule" goes beyond neutral concern.
The comment
I am a greatly concerned citizen of the United States who risks being severely affected by the proposed provisions. More specifically, I am concerned by Provision §200.205, which screens competitive federal education awards through a political lens rather than an educational one. This directly impacts me and my community because it limits opportunities for us to receive grants for educational development, high quality teacher training, and have a thorough curriculum that provides the best possible education. My individual district as well as the rest statewide would have far fewer resources and opportunities due to prioritizing political disputes over quality education. I strongly urge OMB to withdraw provision §200.205 and not finalize this rule. Thank you for your consideration.
Source
OMB-2026-0034-77478 on regulations.gov
I strongly urge you to reject this proposal. Research funding should be awarded through an independent, expert peer-review process rather than political decision-making. We achieve
Oppose Oppose Agrees
What the label rests on
"I strongly urge you to reject this proposal. Research funding should be awarded through an independent, expert peer-review process rather than political decision-making."
Why this label
The comment explicitly asks OMB to "reject this proposal" and argues against shifting funding decisions from expert peer review to political decision-making. It also warns that the proposal would undermine scientific independence and evidence-based research.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A strained reading could say the commenter is mostly expressing a general principle about how research should be funded rather than discussing specific regulatory text. But the direct instruction to "reject this proposal" makes that neutral reading weak.
The comment
I strongly urge you to reject this proposal. Research funding should be awarded through an independent, expert peer-review process rather than political decision-making. We achieve scientific advances when funding is based on scientific merit and potential impact, not political priorities. Allowing politicians to determine which research receives funding risks undermining scientific independence, discouraging innovation, and shifting priorities away from evidence-based research toward political interests. Preserving the integrity and independence of the research funding process is CRITICAL to innovation, public trust, and the nation's future. Science must remain neutral. It is the only way to verifiable and repeatable truth in any scientific research, and protects us from junk science that might otherwise affect our health, food, medicines, ecology, environment, and technological innovations.
Source
OMB-2026-0034-82896 on regulations.gov
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and
Support Support Agrees
What the label rests on
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. ... I particularly support efforts to improve identity verification for grant applicants, increase accountability for recipients of federal funds ... I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms
Why this label
The comment explicitly endorses the proposed reforms and asks OMB to finalize them. It ties that support to specific elements of the proposal, such as verification, accountability, and authority to suspend or terminate funding.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A cautious reader might note the comment speaks in broad terms about oversight, fraud prevention, and accountability without naming the controversial peer-review or ideological-conditioning provisions, so it could be read as supporting general goals rather than the actual rule text. However, the repeated references to "proposed reforms" and the request to "finalize these reforms" make it affirmative support for this rule.
What makes it hard
The docket warning matters here because generic support for reducing waste or fraud is not enough by itself. The key is that this comment expressly links those goals to OMB's "proposed reforms" and urges finalization.
The comment
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. American taxpayers deserve confidence that federal funds are being spent responsibly and for their intended purposes. Recent reports of improper payments, fraudulent claims, and inadequate oversight have highlighted weaknesses in the current system that must be addressed. Strengthening verification requirements, improving recipient vetting, and providing agencies with greater authority to suspend or terminate funding when fraud or misuse is identified are reasonable and necessary steps. I particularly support efforts to improve identity verification for grant applicants, increase accountability for recipients of federal funds, and ensure that agencies can regularly review ongoing awards to determine whether taxpayer dollars are being used effectively. Federal agencies should have the tools necessary to prevent fraud before it occurs rather than attempting to recover funds after they have already been lost. The federal government has a responsibility to safeguard taxpayer resources and ensure that assistance programs operate with transparency, integrity, and accountability. These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms and continue pursuing measures that strengthen oversight,
Source
OMB-2026-0034-102272 on regulations.gov
The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) proposed rule, "Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance" (Docket OMB-2026-0034) IS LONG OVERDUE!!!! I support the OMB finalizing thi
Support Support Agrees
What the label rests on
"I support the OMB finalizing this rule"; "I believe this proposed rule will help to put an end to bureaucratic decisions"; "Please establish, confirm and uphold this law."
Why this label
The commenter explicitly endorses the proposal and asks OMB to finalize it. They tie that support to this rule specifically, arguing it will improve how federal awards are distributed and stop funding they oppose.
The strongest case against it (for “Oppose”)
A very strained reading might say the commenter is objecting to past grantmaking practices rather than engaging the details of this rule, but the text directly says "I support the OMB finalizing this rule," which defeats an opposition label.
What makes it hard
The comment focuses heavily on broader political grievances (DEI, Covid studies, USAID, NGOs) rather than specific regulatory provisions, so a reader could wonder whether it is really about the rule itself. But the explicit endorsement resolves that ambiguity.
The comment
The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) proposed rule, "Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance" (Docket OMB-2026-0034) IS LONG OVERDUE!!!! I support the OMB finalizing this rule to ensure federal agencies distribute tax dollars in alignment with federal law and the constitutional rights of all Americans because the lack of transparency and accountability over the distribution of federal awards allowed bureaucrats to promote the discriminatory, anti-American "woke" agenda of diversity, equity, and inclusion, known as DEI, against the constitutional, equal protection rights of ALL Americans. Bureaucrats also distributed taxpayer funds worldwide for misleading studies during Covid, for labs doing dangerous gain-of-function experiments, and for projects focused on censoring Americans. Taxpayer dollars housed illegals and promoted gender ideology in America and around the world through NGOs that received billions in USAID funding. I believe this proposed rule will help to put an end to bureaucratic decisions that fund programs that are not in my best interests or the interest of a free and prosperous America!!!! Please establish, confirm and uphold this law.
Source
OMB-2026-0034-102286 on regulations.gov
I support the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) proposed rule, "Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance" (Docket OMB-2026-0034). OMB should finalize this rule to ensure f
Support Support Agrees
What the label rests on
"I support the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) proposed rule, 'Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance' (Docket OMB-2026-0034). OMB should finalize this rule"; "I believe this proposed rule will help to put an end to bureaucratic decisions"
Why this label
This is explicit support for the rule itself, twice stating support for OMB's proposed rule and urging OMB to finalize it. The commenter ties that support to the rule's expected effects on federal award decisions.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A cautious reader could note that much of the comment focuses on broader complaints about DEI, COVID studies, USAID, and taxpayer spending, which might exist independently of this rule; if the support language were ignored as boilerplate, the rest could read as general grievance rather than engagement with specific provisions.
What makes it hard
The comment is repetitive and heavy on broad political complaints, with little discussion of the rule's actual text or provisions.
The comment
I support the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) proposed rule, "Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance" (Docket OMB-2026-0034). OMB should finalize this rule to ensure federal agencies distribute tax dollars in alignment with federal law and the constitutional rights of all Americans. The recent lack of transparency and accountability over the distribution of federal awards allowed bureaucrats to promote the discriminatory, anti-American "woke" agenda of diversity, equity, and inclusion, known as DEI, against the constitutional, equal protection rights of all Americans. Bureaucrats also distributed taxpayer funds worldwide for misleading studies during Covid, for labs doing dangerous gain-of-function experiments, and for projects focused on censoring Americans. Taxpayer dollars housed illegals and promoted gender ideology in America and around the world through NGOs that received billions in USAID funding. I support the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) proposed rule, "Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance" (Docket OMB-2026-0034). OMB should finalize this rule to ensure federal agencies distribute tax dollars in alignment with federal law and the constitutional rights of all Americans. The recent lack of transparency and accountability over the distribution of federal awards allowed bureaucrats to promote the discriminatory, anti-American "woke" agenda of diversity, equity, and inclusion, known as DEI, against the constitutional, equal protection rights
Source
OMB-2026-0034-102557 on regulations.gov
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and
Support Support Agrees
What the label rests on
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. ... These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms
Why this label
The commenter explicitly endorses the proposed reforms and urges OMB to finalize them. They tie that support to specific features of the proposal, such as stronger verification, recipient vetting, and greater authority to suspend or terminate funding.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A cautious reader could argue the comment mainly supports broad goals like reducing waste, fraud, and abuse, and does not mention the controversial peer-review or ideological-condition provisions specifically. If read narrowly, it could be seen as endorsing oversight in general rather than this exact rule.
What makes it hard
The text focuses on anti-fraud and accountability themes that could, in some comments, be generic rather than rule-specific. But here the commenter repeatedly refers to OMB's 'proposed reforms' and asks OMB to 'finalize' them.
The comment
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. American taxpayers deserve confidence that federal funds are being spent responsibly and for their intended purposes. Recent reports of improper payments, fraudulent claims, and inadequate oversight have highlighted weaknesses in the current system that must be addressed. Strengthening verification requirements, improving recipient vetting, and providing agencies with greater authority to suspend or terminate funding when fraud or misuse is identified are reasonable and necessary steps. I particularly support efforts to improve identity verification for grant applicants, increase accountability for recipients of federal funds, and ensure that agencies can regularly review ongoing awards to determine whether taxpayer dollars are being used effectively. Federal agencies should have the tools necessary to prevent fraud before it occurs rather than attempting to recover funds after they have already been lost. The federal government has a responsibility to safeguard taxpayer resources and ensure that assistance programs operate with transparency, integrity, and accountability. These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms and continue pursuing measures that strengthen oversight,
Source
OMB-2026-0034-103456 on regulations.gov
I support this! Thank you!
Support Support Agrees
What the label rests on
I support this! Thank you!
Why this label
The commenter explicitly says they support it and expresses gratitude, which is a direct endorsement of the rule. There is no qualifying language or criticism.
The strongest case against it (for “unclear_junk”)
The comment is extremely short and gives no detail, so a reviewer could wonder whether 'this' clearly refers to the proposed rule rather than something else in the interface or docket.
What makes it hard
The only mild difficulty is that the comment is very brief and unspecific, but in context 'this' most naturally refers to the rule.
The comment
I support this! Thank you!
Source
OMB-2026-0034-103480 on regulations.gov
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and
Support Support Agrees
What the label rests on
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. ... These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms
Why this label
The comment expressly endorses OMB's proposed reforms and urges OMB to finalize them. It ties that support to specific kinds of changes in the proposal, such as stronger verification, recipient vetting, and authority to suspend or terminate funding.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A cautious reader could note that the comment speaks in broad terms about oversight, fraud prevention, and accountability without naming specific CFR sections, so some of its language could have been written absent this rulemaking. But the explicit statements of support for the proposed reforms and request to finalize them make it more than neutral.
What makes it hard
The text uses some generic good-government language that, by itself, would not necessarily support this specific rule.
The comment
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. American taxpayers deserve confidence that federal funds are being spent responsibly and for their intended purposes. Recent reports of improper payments, fraudulent claims, and inadequate oversight have highlighted weaknesses in the current system that must be addressed. Strengthening verification requirements, improving recipient vetting, and providing agencies with greater authority to suspend or terminate funding when fraud or misuse is identified are reasonable and necessary steps. I particularly support efforts to improve identity verification for grant applicants, increase accountability for recipients of federal funds, and ensure that agencies can regularly review ongoing awards to determine whether taxpayer dollars are being used effectively. Federal agencies should have the tools necessary to prevent fraud before it occurs rather than attempting to recover funds after they have already been lost. The federal government has a responsibility to safeguard taxpayer resources and ensure that assistance programs operate with transparency, integrity, and accountability. These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms and continue pursuing measures that strengthen oversight,
Source
OMB-2026-0034-103952 on regulations.gov
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and
Support Support Agrees
What the label rests on
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. ... These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms
Why this label
The comment explicitly endorses OMB's proposed reforms and urges OMB to finalize them. It also backs specific elements framed as part of the proposal, such as stronger verification, recipient vetting, and authority to suspend or terminate funding.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A fair counterargument is that the comment mostly praises general goals like reducing fraud, improving oversight, and protecting taxpayers, without mentioning the controversial peer-review or ideological-condition provisions; some of this language could appear in a generic anti-waste comment. But the express statements of support and request to finalize the reforms go beyond neutral policy goals.
What makes it hard
The main difficulty is separating generic support for anti-fraud oversight from support for this specific rule. Here, however, the commenter directly says "I support" the proposed reforms and "encourage OMB to finalize" them.
The comment
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. American taxpayers deserve confidence that federal funds are being spent responsibly and for their intended purposes. Recent reports of improper payments, fraudulent claims, and inadequate oversight have highlighted weaknesses in the current system that must be addressed. Strengthening verification requirements, improving recipient vetting, and providing agencies with greater authority to suspend or terminate funding when fraud or misuse is identified are reasonable and necessary steps. I particularly support efforts to improve identity verification for grant applicants, increase accountability for recipients of federal funds, and ensure that agencies can regularly review ongoing awards to determine whether taxpayer dollars are being used effectively. Federal agencies should have the tools necessary to prevent fraud before it occurs rather than attempting to recover funds after they have already been lost. The federal government has a responsibility to safeguard taxpayer resources and ensure that assistance programs operate with transparency, integrity, and accountability. These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms and continue pursuing measures that strengthen oversight,
Source
OMB-2026-0034-110833 on regulations.gov
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and
Support Support Agrees
What the label rests on
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. ... I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms
Why this label
The commenter expressly endorses the proposed reforms and asks OMB to finalize them. They also support specific elements tied to the proposal, such as stronger verification, recipient vetting, and agency authority to suspend or terminate funding.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A cautious reader could argue the comment mainly praises broad goals like reducing fraud, waste, and abuse, which can sometimes be generic and not clearly tied to the contested provisions. Much of the text speaks in general oversight terms rather than naming the peer-review or ideological-condition changes.
What makes it hard
The rule says generic support for oversight or anti-fraud goals is not enough by itself, so the key issue is whether this text actually endorses the proposed rule rather than just its stated objectives.
The comment
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. American taxpayers deserve confidence that federal funds are being spent responsibly and for their intended purposes. Recent reports of improper payments, fraudulent claims, and inadequate oversight have highlighted weaknesses in the current system that must be addressed. Strengthening verification requirements, improving recipient vetting, and providing agencies with greater authority to suspend or terminate funding when fraud or misuse is identified are reasonable and necessary steps. I particularly support efforts to improve identity verification for grant applicants, increase accountability for recipients of federal funds, and ensure that agencies can regularly review ongoing awards to determine whether taxpayer dollars are being used effectively. Federal agencies should have the tools necessary to prevent fraud before it occurs rather than attempting to recover funds after they have already been lost. The federal government has a responsibility to safeguard taxpayer resources and ensure that assistance programs operate with transparency, integrity, and accountability. These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms and continue pursuing measures that strengthen oversight,
Source
OMB-2026-0034-125285 on regulations.gov
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and
Support Support Agrees
What the label rests on
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. ... These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms
Why this label
The comment expressly endorses OMB's proposed reforms and asks OMB to finalize them. It ties that support to features framed as part of the proposal, such as stronger verification, recipient vetting, and authority to suspend or terminate funding.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A cautious reader could note that the comment mostly praises general goals like reducing fraud, accountability, and oversight, without citing the controversial peer-review or ideological-condition provisions by name; in theory, it could be read as support for abstract goals rather than the specific rule text.
What makes it hard
The rule says general support for less waste/fraud is not enough by itself, so the key issue is whether the commenter actually backs this proposal rather than only its stated goals.
The comment
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. American taxpayers deserve confidence that federal funds are being spent responsibly and for their intended purposes. Recent reports of improper payments, fraudulent claims, and inadequate oversight have highlighted weaknesses in the current system that must be addressed. Strengthening verification requirements, improving recipient vetting, and providing agencies with greater authority to suspend or terminate funding when fraud or misuse is identified are reasonable and necessary steps. I particularly support efforts to improve identity verification for grant applicants, increase accountability for recipients of federal funds, and ensure that agencies can regularly review ongoing awards to determine whether taxpayer dollars are being used effectively. Federal agencies should have the tools necessary to prevent fraud before it occurs rather than attempting to recover funds after they have already been lost. The federal government has a responsibility to safeguard taxpayer resources and ensure that assistance programs operate with transparency, integrity, and accountability. These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms and continue pursuing measures that strengthen oversight,
Source
OMB-2026-0034-142117 on regulations.gov
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and
Support Support Agrees
What the label rests on
"I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms"; "These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process"; "I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms"
Why this label
The comment explicitly endorses OMB's proposed reforms and urges OMB to finalize them. It also praises specific features like stronger verification, recipient vetting, and authority to suspend or terminate funding, tying its support directly to the proposal.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A cautious reader could note that the comment speaks in general terms about oversight, waste, fraud, and accountability without naming the controversial peer-review-related provisions, so some of its language could have been written absent this specific rule. But the express statements of support and request to finalize the reforms make it more than neutral.
What makes it hard
The comment focuses on anti-fraud and oversight goals rather than the rule's more controversial aspects, so one could wonder whether it is supporting the specific rule or only its stated objectives.
The comment
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. American taxpayers deserve confidence that federal funds are being spent responsibly and for their intended purposes. Recent reports of improper payments, fraudulent claims, and inadequate oversight have highlighted weaknesses in the current system that must be addressed. Strengthening verification requirements, improving recipient vetting, and providing agencies with greater authority to suspend or terminate funding when fraud or misuse is identified are reasonable and necessary steps. I particularly support efforts to improve identity verification for grant applicants, increase accountability for recipients of federal funds, and ensure that agencies can regularly review ongoing awards to determine whether taxpayer dollars are being used effectively. Federal agencies should have the tools necessary to prevent fraud before it occurs rather than attempting to recover funds after they have already been lost. The federal government has a responsibility to safeguard taxpayer resources and ensure that assistance programs operate with transparency, integrity, and accountability. These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms and continue pursuing measures that strengthen oversight,
Source
OMB-2026-0034-142262 on regulations.gov
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and
Support Support Agrees
What the label rests on
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. ... These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms
Why this label
This is an explicit endorsement of the proposed rule: the commenter says "I support" the proposed reforms and urges OMB to "finalize these reforms." They also praise specific features such as stronger verification, recipient vetting, and authority to suspend or terminate funding.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A cautious reader could note that the comment speaks in broad terms about oversight, fraud, and accountability without naming the controversial peer-review and ideology-related provisions, so it could be read as supporting general goals rather than the full rule text.
What makes it hard
The comment uses generic good-government language that might fit many policies, so the main question is whether it is endorsing this specific proposal or just its stated goals. The opening and closing sentences make it specific enough.
The comment
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. American taxpayers deserve confidence that federal funds are being spent responsibly and for their intended purposes. Recent reports of improper payments, fraudulent claims, and inadequate oversight have highlighted weaknesses in the current system that must be addressed. Strengthening verification requirements, improving recipient vetting, and providing agencies with greater authority to suspend or terminate funding when fraud or misuse is identified are reasonable and necessary steps. I particularly support efforts to improve identity verification for grant applicants, increase accountability for recipients of federal funds, and ensure that agencies can regularly review ongoing awards to determine whether taxpayer dollars are being used effectively. Federal agencies should have the tools necessary to prevent fraud before it occurs rather than attempting to recover funds after they have already been lost. The federal government has a responsibility to safeguard taxpayer resources and ensure that assistance programs operate with transparency, integrity, and accountability. These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms and continue pursuing measures that strengthen oversight,
Source
OMB-2026-0034-143713 on regulations.gov
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and
Support Support Agrees
What the label rests on
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. ... These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms
Why this label
The commenter explicitly endorses the proposed reforms and urges OMB to finalize them. They also praise specific features tied to the proposal, such as stronger verification, recipient vetting, and authority to suspend or terminate funding.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A cautious reader could argue the comment supports general goals like reducing fraud and improving oversight, without naming specific CFR sections or engaging the controversial peer-review and ideological-conditioning aspects of the rule. On that view, it might read as generic support for accountability rather than a considered position on this specific rule.
What makes it hard
The comment uses broad oversight/accountability language common to generic anti-fraud advocacy, so the main question is whether that language is sufficiently tied to this rule. Here it is, because the commenter repeatedly says "proposed reforms" and asks OMB to "finalize these reforms."
The comment
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. American taxpayers deserve confidence that federal funds are being spent responsibly and for their intended purposes. Recent reports of improper payments, fraudulent claims, and inadequate oversight have highlighted weaknesses in the current system that must be addressed. Strengthening verification requirements, improving recipient vetting, and providing agencies with greater authority to suspend or terminate funding when fraud or misuse is identified are reasonable and necessary steps. I particularly support efforts to improve identity verification for grant applicants, increase accountability for recipients of federal funds, and ensure that agencies can regularly review ongoing awards to determine whether taxpayer dollars are being used effectively. Federal agencies should have the tools necessary to prevent fraud before it occurs rather than attempting to recover funds after they have already been lost. The federal government has a responsibility to safeguard taxpayer resources and ensure that assistance programs operate with transparency, integrity, and accountability. These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms and continue pursuing measures that strengthen oversight,
Source
OMB-2026-0034-146188 on regulations.gov
I am very happy with these new changes because academia has become about of control on what is allowed no matter how ridiculous or ideologically extreme and it needs to be regulate
Support Support Agrees
What the label rests on
I am very happy with these new changes because academia has become about of control on what is allowed no matter how ridiculous or ideologically extreme and it needs to be regulated! As a tax payer, I do not like hoa academia is using my tax dollars and they need to get a fire under their butts to quit abusing our money!
Why this label
The commenter explicitly praises "these new changes" and says they are "very happy" with them, tying that support to a desire for tighter regulation of academia's use of tax dollars. That is direct endorsement of the proposal rather than a generic complaint.
The strongest case against it (for “Oppose”)
A cautious reader might note the comment never names OMB, Uniform Guidance, peer review, or any specific provision, so if context were mismatched it could be read as a general complaint about academia rather than support for this rule in particular.
What makes it hard
The writing is unpolished and gives no policy details, so the main challenge is confirming that "these new changes" refers to the rule at issue rather than some other changes.
The comment
I am very happy with these new changes because academia has become about of control on what is allowed no matter how ridiculous or ideologically extreme and it needs to be regulated! As a tax payer, I do not like hoa academia is using my tax dollars and they need to get a fire under their butts to quit abusing our money!
Source
OMB-2026-0034-149812 on regulations.gov
I am writing in support of defending my tax dollars from being spent on waste and fraud. I support the proposed rule, OMB seeks to implement to restore integrity to our federal gra
Support Support Agrees
What the label rests on
"I support the proposed rule, OMB seeks to implement to restore integrity to our federal grant system to stop scammers from targeting my tax dollars."
Why this label
The commenter explicitly says "I support the proposed rule" and gives reasons tied to the rule's grant-review and funding-cutoff provisions. That is direct endorsement of this rule, not just a general concern about waste or fraud.
The strongest case against it (for “Oppose”)
A skeptical reader might note the comment focuses on stopping "waste and fraud" and "scammers," which could be generic anti-fraud rhetoric rather than informed support for the specific OMB changes; if the commenter misunderstood the rule, the support might be less meaningful. But the text still expressly endorses the proposed rule.
What makes it hard
The only possible difficulty is separating generic anti-fraud sentiment from true rule-specific support, but the phrase "I support the proposed rule" resolves that.
The comment
I am writing in support of defending my tax dollars from being spent on waste and fraud. I support the proposed rule, OMB seeks to implement to restore integrity to our federal grant system to stop scammers from targeting my tax dollars. By giving federal agencies the authority to review and cut off funding before fraud takes place, we may finally be able to prevent mass scammers from misusing BILLIONS from federal programs.
Source
OMB-2026-0034-157536 on regulations.gov
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and
Support Support Agrees
What the label rests on
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. ... These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms
Why this label
The commenter explicitly says "I support" OMB's proposed reforms and urges OMB to "finalize these reforms," which is direct endorsement of the rule. The comment also praises specific elements like stronger verification, recipient vetting, and authority to suspend or terminate funding.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A cautious reader could note that the comment mostly endorses general goals like reducing fraud, improving oversight, and protecting taxpayer funds, without citing the contested peer-review or cost-principle provisions by name. If read narrowly, it could be seen as support for broad anti-fraud aims rather than the full rule itself.
What makes it hard
The text focuses on generalized oversight and anti-fraud themes, so the main risk is confusing support for those goals with support for this specific rule. But the explicit statements "I support" and "I encourage OMB to finalize" make it substantive support rather than mere adjacent commentary.
The comment
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. American taxpayers deserve confidence that federal funds are being spent responsibly and for their intended purposes. Recent reports of improper payments, fraudulent claims, and inadequate oversight have highlighted weaknesses in the current system that must be addressed. Strengthening verification requirements, improving recipient vetting, and providing agencies with greater authority to suspend or terminate funding when fraud or misuse is identified are reasonable and necessary steps. I particularly support efforts to improve identity verification for grant applicants, increase accountability for recipients of federal funds, and ensure that agencies can regularly review ongoing awards to determine whether taxpayer dollars are being used effectively. Federal agencies should have the tools necessary to prevent fraud before it occurs rather than attempting to recover funds after they have already been lost. The federal government has a responsibility to safeguard taxpayer resources and ensure that assistance programs operate with transparency, integrity, and accountability. These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms and continue pursuing measures that strengthen oversight,
Source
OMB-2026-0034-157634 on regulations.gov
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and
Support Support Agrees
What the label rests on
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. ... These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms
Why this label
The comment expressly endorses OMB's proposed reforms and asks OMB to finalize them. It ties that support to specific proposed actions like stronger verification, recipient vetting, and greater authority to suspend or terminate funding.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A cautious reader could note that the comment speaks in broad terms about oversight, fraud, and accountability without naming the Uniform Guidance sections, so it could be read as supporting general goals rather than the specific rule text. But the repeated references to "proposed reforms" and urging OMB to "finalize" them makes it support for this rule.
What makes it hard
The main difficulty is separating support for generic anti-fraud goals from support for this specific rule. Here, the explicit endorsement of OMB's proposed reforms resolves that.
The comment
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. American taxpayers deserve confidence that federal funds are being spent responsibly and for their intended purposes. Recent reports of improper payments, fraudulent claims, and inadequate oversight have highlighted weaknesses in the current system that must be addressed. Strengthening verification requirements, improving recipient vetting, and providing agencies with greater authority to suspend or terminate funding when fraud or misuse is identified are reasonable and necessary steps. I particularly support efforts to improve identity verification for grant applicants, increase accountability for recipients of federal funds, and ensure that agencies can regularly review ongoing awards to determine whether taxpayer dollars are being used effectively. Federal agencies should have the tools necessary to prevent fraud before it occurs rather than attempting to recover funds after they have already been lost. The federal government has a responsibility to safeguard taxpayer resources and ensure that assistance programs operate with transparency, integrity, and accountability. These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms and continue pursuing measures that strengthen oversight,
Source
OMB-2026-0034-157877 on regulations.gov
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and
Support Support Agrees
What the label rests on
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. ... I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms
Why this label
The commenter explicitly says "I support" OMB's proposed reforms and urges OMB to "finalize these reforms," which is direct endorsement of the rule. They also praise specific proposed directions like stronger verification, recipient vetting, and authority to suspend or terminate funding.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A cautious reader could note that the comment speaks in broad terms about oversight, waste, fraud, and abuse without citing 2 CFR sections or the controversial peer-review provisions, so it could be read as generic support for accountability rather than informed support for this specific rule.
What makes it hard
The comment uses generalized anti-fraud language that could appear in many contexts, and does not mention the rule's contested effects on peer review or scientific independence.
The comment
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. American taxpayers deserve confidence that federal funds are being spent responsibly and for their intended purposes. Recent reports of improper payments, fraudulent claims, and inadequate oversight have highlighted weaknesses in the current system that must be addressed. Strengthening verification requirements, improving recipient vetting, and providing agencies with greater authority to suspend or terminate funding when fraud or misuse is identified are reasonable and necessary steps. I particularly support efforts to improve identity verification for grant applicants, increase accountability for recipients of federal funds, and ensure that agencies can regularly review ongoing awards to determine whether taxpayer dollars are being used effectively. Federal agencies should have the tools necessary to prevent fraud before it occurs rather than attempting to recover funds after they have already been lost. The federal government has a responsibility to safeguard taxpayer resources and ensure that assistance programs operate with transparency, integrity, and accountability. These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms and continue pursuing measures that strengthen oversight,
Source
OMB-2026-0034-158025 on regulations.gov
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and
Support Support Agrees
What the label rests on
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. ... These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms
Why this label
The comment explicitly endorses the proposed reforms and directly asks OMB to finalize them. It ties that support to features of the proposal such as stronger verification, recipient vetting, and greater authority to suspend or terminate funding.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A cautious reader could note that the comment mostly praises general goals like reducing fraud, improving accountability, and safeguarding taxpayer funds, which can sometimes be generic and not true support for this specific rule. But here the commenter repeatedly refers to "proposed reforms" and urges OMB to "finalize these reforms," making it more than a general anti-fraud statement.
What makes it hard
The main risk is confusing support for broad oversight goals with support for the specific rule; this comment avoids that problem by expressly backing OMB's proposed reforms and urging finalization.
The comment
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. American taxpayers deserve confidence that federal funds are being spent responsibly and for their intended purposes. Recent reports of improper payments, fraudulent claims, and inadequate oversight have highlighted weaknesses in the current system that must be addressed. Strengthening verification requirements, improving recipient vetting, and providing agencies with greater authority to suspend or terminate funding when fraud or misuse is identified are reasonable and necessary steps. I particularly support efforts to improve identity verification for grant applicants, increase accountability for recipients of federal funds, and ensure that agencies can regularly review ongoing awards to determine whether taxpayer dollars are being used effectively. Federal agencies should have the tools necessary to prevent fraud before it occurs rather than attempting to recover funds after they have already been lost. The federal government has a responsibility to safeguard taxpayer resources and ensure that assistance programs operate with transparency, integrity, and accountability. These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms and continue pursuing measures that strengthen oversight,
Source
OMB-2026-0034-158487 on regulations.gov
The US is way too deep in debt to allow ANY money to be stolen through fraud. Those stealing from the government need to be stopped quickly and prosecuted. Also, funds should be re
Support Support Agrees
What the label rests on
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. ... These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms
Why this label
The comment explicitly endorses OMB's proposed reforms and asks OMB to "finalize these reforms," which is direct support for the rule. It also praises specific kinds of changes such as stronger vetting, more authority to suspend or terminate funding, and ongoing award review.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A cautious reader could note that the comment talks in broad terms about fraud prevention and oversight without naming the Uniform Guidance or specific CFR sections, so some of its language could have been written in support of anti-fraud goals generally rather than this exact rule. But the explicit reference to "OMB's proposed reforms" and urging OMB to "finalize" them makes it support rather than neutral.
What makes it hard
The text is generic and focused on anti-fraud goals, which by themselves would not necessarily show support for this particular rule.
The comment
The US is way too deep in debt to allow ANY money to be stolen through fraud. Those stealing from the government need to be stopped quickly and prosecuted. Also, funds should be recovered if at all possible by confiscating assets from the people committing fraud. I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. American taxpayers deserve confidence that federal funds are being spent responsibly and for their intended purposes. Recent reports of improper payments, fraudulent claims, and inadequate oversight have highlighted weaknesses in the current system that must be addressed. Strengthening verification requirements, improving recipient vetting, and providing agencies with greater authority to suspend or terminate funding when fraud or misuse is identified are reasonable and necessary steps. I particularly support efforts to improve identity verification for grant applicants, increase accountability for recipients of federal funds, and ensure that agencies can regularly review ongoing awards to determine whether taxpayer dollars are being used effectively. Federal agencies should have the tools necessary to prevent fraud before it occurs rather than attempting to recover funds after they have already been lost. The federal government has a responsibility to safeguard taxpayer resources and ensure that assistance programs operate with tran
Source
OMB-2026-0034-158603 on regulations.gov
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and
Support Support Agrees
What the label rests on
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. ... These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms
Why this label
The commenter explicitly says "I support" OMB's proposed reforms and urges OMB to "finalize these reforms," which is direct endorsement of the rule. They also praise specific kinds of changes such as stronger verification, recipient vetting, and greater authority to suspend or terminate funding.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A cautious reader could note that the comment talks in broad terms about oversight, fraud, and accountability without naming the controversial peer-review or ideological provisions, so some of the language could read like generic support for anti-fraud goals rather than informed support for the specific rule text.
What makes it hard
The main difficulty is distinguishing genuine support for this rule from generic support for better oversight; however, the explicit statements "I support" and "I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms" make this one fairly clear.
The comment
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. American taxpayers deserve confidence that federal funds are being spent responsibly and for their intended purposes. Recent reports of improper payments, fraudulent claims, and inadequate oversight have highlighted weaknesses in the current system that must be addressed. Strengthening verification requirements, improving recipient vetting, and providing agencies with greater authority to suspend or terminate funding when fraud or misuse is identified are reasonable and necessary steps. I particularly support efforts to improve identity verification for grant applicants, increase accountability for recipients of federal funds, and ensure that agencies can regularly review ongoing awards to determine whether taxpayer dollars are being used effectively. Federal agencies should have the tools necessary to prevent fraud before it occurs rather than attempting to recover funds after they have already been lost. The federal government has a responsibility to safeguard taxpayer resources and ensure that assistance programs operate with transparency, integrity, and accountability. These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms and continue pursuing measures that strengthen oversight,
Source
OMB-2026-0034-158934 on regulations.gov
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and
Support Support Agrees
What the label rests on
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. ... These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms
Why this label
The commenter explicitly says "I support" the proposed reforms and urges OMB to "finalize these reforms," which is direct endorsement of the rule. They also praise specific features such as verification, vetting, and authority to suspend or terminate funding.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A cautious reader could argue the comment mostly endorses general goals like reducing waste, fraud, and abuse, and some praised ideas might be generic oversight measures rather than clearly tied to the specific controversial provisions of this rule.
What makes it hard
The main pitfall is that support for anti-fraud goals alone is not enough under the instructions; however, here the commenter repeatedly ties those goals to "OMB's proposed reforms" and asks OMB to "finalize" them.
The comment
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. American taxpayers deserve confidence that federal funds are being spent responsibly and for their intended purposes. Recent reports of improper payments, fraudulent claims, and inadequate oversight have highlighted weaknesses in the current system that must be addressed. Strengthening verification requirements, improving recipient vetting, and providing agencies with greater authority to suspend or terminate funding when fraud or misuse is identified are reasonable and necessary steps. I particularly support efforts to improve identity verification for grant applicants, increase accountability for recipients of federal funds, and ensure that agencies can regularly review ongoing awards to determine whether taxpayer dollars are being used effectively. Federal agencies should have the tools necessary to prevent fraud before it occurs rather than attempting to recover funds after they have already been lost. The federal government has a responsibility to safeguard taxpayer resources and ensure that assistance programs operate with transparency, integrity, and accountability. These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms and continue pursuing measures that strengthen oversight,
Source
OMB-2026-0034-159473 on regulations.gov
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and
Support Support Agrees
What the label rests on
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. ... These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms
Why this label
The commenter explicitly endorses the proposed OMB reforms and urges OMB to finalize them. They also praise specific kinds of changes as "reasonable and necessary steps," tying their support to the rule itself rather than just to a general anti-fraud goal.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A cautious reader could note that the comment mostly speaks in broad terms about oversight, fraud prevention, and accountability, without naming the controversial peer-review or ideological provisions; in theory, it could be a generic statement supporting stronger oversight rather than a fully informed endorsement of this exact rule.
What makes it hard
The comment is somewhat generic and focuses on anti-fraud themes, which by themselves would not necessarily equal support for this rule. What makes it come out as support is the explicit opening and closing endorsement of the "proposed reforms" and request to "finalize" them.
The comment
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. American taxpayers deserve confidence that federal funds are being spent responsibly and for their intended purposes. Recent reports of improper payments, fraudulent claims, and inadequate oversight have highlighted weaknesses in the current system that must be addressed. Strengthening verification requirements, improving recipient vetting, and providing agencies with greater authority to suspend or terminate funding when fraud or misuse is identified are reasonable and necessary steps. I particularly support efforts to improve identity verification for grant applicants, increase accountability for recipients of federal funds, and ensure that agencies can regularly review ongoing awards to determine whether taxpayer dollars are being used effectively. Federal agencies should have the tools necessary to prevent fraud before it occurs rather than attempting to recover funds after they have already been lost. The federal government has a responsibility to safeguard taxpayer resources and ensure that assistance programs operate with transparency, integrity, and accountability. These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms and continue pursuing measures that strengthen oversight,
Source
OMB-2026-0034-159634 on regulations.gov
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and
Support Support Agrees
What the label rests on
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. ... These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms
Why this label
The comment explicitly endorses OMB's proposed reforms and urges OMB to finalize them. It ties that support to specific features of the proposal, such as stronger verification, recipient vetting, and authority to suspend or terminate funding.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A cautious reader could note that the comment mostly praises general goals like reducing fraud, improving oversight, and protecting taxpayer funds, which could in theory be support for broad principles rather than this specific rule. But the text directly says "I support" the proposed reforms and "encourage OMB to finalize these reforms," which makes it more than neutral.
What makes it hard
The main difficulty is that some statements are generic anti-fraud rhetoric that, standing alone, would not necessarily indicate support for this rule.
The comment
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. American taxpayers deserve confidence that federal funds are being spent responsibly and for their intended purposes. Recent reports of improper payments, fraudulent claims, and inadequate oversight have highlighted weaknesses in the current system that must be addressed. Strengthening verification requirements, improving recipient vetting, and providing agencies with greater authority to suspend or terminate funding when fraud or misuse is identified are reasonable and necessary steps. I particularly support efforts to improve identity verification for grant applicants, increase accountability for recipients of federal funds, and ensure that agencies can regularly review ongoing awards to determine whether taxpayer dollars are being used effectively. Federal agencies should have the tools necessary to prevent fraud before it occurs rather than attempting to recover funds after they have already been lost. The federal government has a responsibility to safeguard taxpayer resources and ensure that assistance programs operate with transparency, integrity, and accountability. These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms and continue pursuing measures that strengthen oversight,
Source
OMB-2026-0034-159917 on regulations.gov
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and
Support Support Agrees
What the label rests on
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. ... These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process ... I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms
Why this label
The comment expressly endorses OMB's proposed reforms and asks OMB to finalize them. It ties that support to concrete features of the proposal such as stronger verification, recipient vetting, and authority to suspend or terminate funding.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A cautious reader could note that the comment speaks in broad terms about oversight, fraud prevention, and accountability without citing the Uniform Guidance sections by number, so it could be read as supporting general goals rather than the specific rule text. But the repeated references to "OMB's proposed reforms" and urging OMB to "finalize these reforms" make it support rather than neutrality.
What makes it hard
The main trap is that support for anti-fraud goals alone is not enough under the instructions; here, however, the writer explicitly connects those goals to "OMB's proposed reforms" and says to finalize them.
The comment
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. American taxpayers deserve confidence that federal funds are being spent responsibly and for their intended purposes. Recent reports of improper payments, fraudulent claims, and inadequate oversight have highlighted weaknesses in the current system that must be addressed. Strengthening verification requirements, improving recipient vetting, and providing agencies with greater authority to suspend or terminate funding when fraud or misuse is identified are reasonable and necessary steps. I particularly support efforts to improve identity verification for grant applicants, increase accountability for recipients of federal funds, and ensure that agencies can regularly review ongoing awards to determine whether taxpayer dollars are being used effectively. Federal agencies should have the tools necessary to prevent fraud before it occurs rather than attempting to recover funds after they have already been lost. The federal government has a responsibility to safeguard taxpayer resources and ensure that assistance programs operate with transparency, integrity, and accountability. These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms and continue pursuing measures that strengthen oversight,
Source
OMB-2026-0034-159971 on regulations.gov
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and
Support Support Agrees
What the label rests on
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. ... These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms
Why this label
The comment explicitly says "I support" OMB's proposed reforms and urges OMB to "finalize these reforms," which is direct endorsement of the rule. It also praises specific types of changes like stronger verification, recipient vetting, and authority to suspend or terminate funding.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A fair alternative is that the commenter mainly supports general goals like reducing waste, fraud, and abuse, and does not cite the controversial peer-review or political-appointee provisions by name. If read narrowly, it could be seen as endorsing oversight in the abstract rather than the full rule.
What makes it hard
The comment uses broad anti-fraud language and does not mention the most disputed parts of the rule, so a reviewer could wonder whether it truly supports this specific rule or just its stated objectives.
The comment
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. American taxpayers deserve confidence that federal funds are being spent responsibly and for their intended purposes. Recent reports of improper payments, fraudulent claims, and inadequate oversight have highlighted weaknesses in the current system that must be addressed. Strengthening verification requirements, improving recipient vetting, and providing agencies with greater authority to suspend or terminate funding when fraud or misuse is identified are reasonable and necessary steps. I particularly support efforts to improve identity verification for grant applicants, increase accountability for recipients of federal funds, and ensure that agencies can regularly review ongoing awards to determine whether taxpayer dollars are being used effectively. Federal agencies should have the tools necessary to prevent fraud before it occurs rather than attempting to recover funds after they have already been lost. The federal government has a responsibility to safeguard taxpayer resources and ensure that assistance programs operate with transparency, integrity, and accountability. These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms and continue pursuing measures that strengthen oversight,
Source
OMB-2026-0034-17766 on regulations.gov
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and
Support Support Agrees
What the label rests on
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. ... These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms
Why this label
This is explicit endorsement of the proposal itself, not just its general goals: the commenter says "I support" OMB's "proposed reforms" and urges OMB to "finalize these reforms." They also praise specific features like verification, vetting, and authority to suspend or terminate funding.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A cautious reader could note that the comment talks mostly in broad terms about oversight, fraud prevention, and accountability, without naming the controversial peer-review and political-control provisions; in some dockets, that kind of generic good-government language may not show informed support for the actual rule text.
What makes it hard
The main pitfall is distinguishing generic support for oversight from actual support for this rule. Here, the commenter directly ties that support to "OMB's proposed reforms" and asks OMB to "finalize" them, which pushes it into support.
The comment
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. American taxpayers deserve confidence that federal funds are being spent responsibly and for their intended purposes. Recent reports of improper payments, fraudulent claims, and inadequate oversight have highlighted weaknesses in the current system that must be addressed. Strengthening verification requirements, improving recipient vetting, and providing agencies with greater authority to suspend or terminate funding when fraud or misuse is identified are reasonable and necessary steps. I particularly support efforts to improve identity verification for grant applicants, increase accountability for recipients of federal funds, and ensure that agencies can regularly review ongoing awards to determine whether taxpayer dollars are being used effectively. Federal agencies should have the tools necessary to prevent fraud before it occurs rather than attempting to recover funds after they have already been lost. The federal government has a responsibility to safeguard taxpayer resources and ensure that assistance programs operate with transparency, integrity, and accountability. These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms and continue pursuing measures that strengthen oversight,
Source
OMB-2026-0034-17867 on regulations.gov
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and
Support Support Agrees
What the label rests on
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. ... These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms
Why this label
The comment explicitly says "I support" OMB's proposed reforms and urges OMB to "finalize these reforms," which is direct endorsement of the rule. It also backs specific elements such as stronger verification, recipient vetting, and authority to suspend or terminate funding.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A cautious reader could note that the comment talks in broad terms about oversight, fraud, and accountability without citing particular CFR sections, so in theory it could be read as general support for those goals rather than the exact rule text. But the repeated references to "OMB's proposed reforms" and urging OMB to finalize them make that neutral reading weak.
What makes it hard
The only possible wrinkle is that some statements are generic anti-fraud sentiments, which alone would not equal support for this rule; however, here they are explicitly tied to "OMB's proposed reforms."
The comment
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. American taxpayers deserve confidence that federal funds are being spent responsibly and for their intended purposes. Recent reports of improper payments, fraudulent claims, and inadequate oversight have highlighted weaknesses in the current system that must be addressed. Strengthening verification requirements, improving recipient vetting, and providing agencies with greater authority to suspend or terminate funding when fraud or misuse is identified are reasonable and necessary steps. I particularly support efforts to improve identity verification for grant applicants, increase accountability for recipients of federal funds, and ensure that agencies can regularly review ongoing awards to determine whether taxpayer dollars are being used effectively. Federal agencies should have the tools necessary to prevent fraud before it occurs rather than attempting to recover funds after they have already been lost. The federal government has a responsibility to safeguard taxpayer resources and ensure that assistance programs operate with transparency, integrity, and accountability. These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms and continue pursuing measures that strengthen oversight,
Source
OMB-2026-0034-17880 on regulations.gov
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and
Support Support Agrees
What the label rests on
"I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms"; "These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process"; "I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms"
Why this label
The commenter explicitly endorses the proposed reforms and urges OMB to finalize them. They tie that support to specific elements like stronger verification, recipient vetting, and greater authority to suspend or terminate funding.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A cautious reader might note that the comment mainly praises broad goals like reducing waste, fraud, and abuse, without naming the controversial peer-review or ideology-related provisions of this rule, so it could be read as general support for oversight rather than informed support for the specific rule text.
What makes it hard
The tricky part is that some language is generic anti-fraud rhetoric that could appear in comments unrelated to this rule. But the commenter repeatedly says "proposed reforms" and asks OMB to "finalize" them, which goes beyond a generic policy preference.
The comment
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. American taxpayers deserve confidence that federal funds are being spent responsibly and for their intended purposes. Recent reports of improper payments, fraudulent claims, and inadequate oversight have highlighted weaknesses in the current system that must be addressed. Strengthening verification requirements, improving recipient vetting, and providing agencies with greater authority to suspend or terminate funding when fraud or misuse is identified are reasonable and necessary steps. I particularly support efforts to improve identity verification for grant applicants, increase accountability for recipients of federal funds, and ensure that agencies can regularly review ongoing awards to determine whether taxpayer dollars are being used effectively. Federal agencies should have the tools necessary to prevent fraud before it occurs rather than attempting to recover funds after they have already been lost. The federal government has a responsibility to safeguard taxpayer resources and ensure that assistance programs operate with transparency, integrity, and accountability. These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms and continue pursuing measures that strengthen oversight,
Source
OMB-2026-0034-17932 on regulations.gov
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and
Support Support Agrees
What the label rests on
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. ... These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms
Why this label
The comment explicitly endorses the proposed reforms multiple times and urges OMB to "finalize these reforms," which is direct support for the rule. It also praises specific types of changes like stronger verification, recipient vetting, and greater authority to suspend or terminate funding.
The strongest case against it (for “unclear_junk”)
A fair argument for unclear_junk is that the latter half veers into off-topic political grievances about Virginia elections, illegal aliens, local graft, and DEI, much of which is unrelated to this docket. A reviewer could see the submission as partly ranting and not cleanly tied to the rule.
What makes it hard
The comment mixes clear support for the proposal with substantial off-topic and inflammatory material, so a reader could wonder whether the whole submission should be discounted. But the opening and middle contain unmistakable, substantive support for the rule.
The comment
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. American taxpayers deserve confidence that federal funds are being spent responsibly and for their intended purposes. Recent reports of improper payments, fraudulent claims, and inadequate oversight have highlighted weaknesses in the current system that must be addressed. Strengthening verification requirements, improving recipient vetting, and providing agencies with greater authority to suspend or terminate funding when fraud or misuse is identified are reasonable and necessary steps. I particularly support efforts to improve identity verification for grant applicants, increase accountability for recipients of federal funds, and ensure that agencies can regularly review ongoing awards to determine whether taxpayer dollars are being used effectively. Federal agencies should have the tools necessary to prevent fraud before it occurs rather than attempting to recover funds after they have already been lost. The federal government has a responsibility to safeguard taxpayer resources and ensure that assistance programs operate with transparency, integrity, and accountability. These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms and continue pursuing measures that strengthen oversight,
Source
OMB-2026-0034-18137 on regulations.gov
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and
Support Support Agrees
What the label rests on
"I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms"; "These proposed reforms will help restore public trust"; "I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms"
Why this label
The comment explicitly endorses OMB's proposed reforms and urges OMB to finalize them. It ties that support to specific features of the proposal such as stronger verification, recipient vetting, and authority to suspend or terminate funding.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A cautious reader could note that the comment mostly praises general goals like reducing waste, fraud, and abuse, and does not mention the controversial peer-review or ideological provisions specifically. If read narrowly, it could be seen as supporting oversight in the abstract rather than clearly backing this rule.
What makes it hard
The text focuses on broad anti-fraud and accountability goals, which by themselves are not enough to show support for this rule; what makes it support is the explicit endorsement of "OMB's proposed reforms" and request to "finalize these reforms."
The comment
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. American taxpayers deserve confidence that federal funds are being spent responsibly and for their intended purposes. Recent reports of improper payments, fraudulent claims, and inadequate oversight have highlighted weaknesses in the current system that must be addressed. Strengthening verification requirements, improving recipient vetting, and providing agencies with greater authority to suspend or terminate funding when fraud or misuse is identified are reasonable and necessary steps. I particularly support efforts to improve identity verification for grant applicants, increase accountability for recipients of federal funds, and ensure that agencies can regularly review ongoing awards to determine whether taxpayer dollars are being used effectively. Federal agencies should have the tools necessary to prevent fraud before it occurs rather than attempting to recover funds after they have already been lost. The federal government has a responsibility to safeguard taxpayer resources and ensure that assistance programs operate with transparency, integrity, and accountability. These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms and continue pursuing measures that strengthen oversight,
Source
OMB-2026-0034-18179 on regulations.gov
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and
Support Support Agrees
What the label rests on
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. ... These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms
Why this label
This comment explicitly endorses the proposed reforms and asks OMB to finalize them. It ties its support to the proposal itself, not just to general goals like reducing fraud.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A cautious reader might note that the comment focuses on broad themes like oversight, fraud prevention, and accountability, without naming the controversial peer-review or ideological-condition provisions, so it could be read as supporting goals rather than the specific rule text. But the repeated references to "proposed reforms" and the request to "finalize these reforms" make it a direct endorsement of the rule.
What makes it hard
The comment does not discuss the most disputed provisions, so one could wonder whether it understands the full proposal or is only endorsing a general anti-fraud framing.
The comment
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. American taxpayers deserve confidence that federal funds are being spent responsibly and for their intended purposes. Recent reports of improper payments, fraudulent claims, and inadequate oversight have highlighted weaknesses in the current system that must be addressed. Strengthening verification requirements, improving recipient vetting, and providing agencies with greater authority to suspend or terminate funding when fraud or misuse is identified are reasonable and necessary steps. I particularly support efforts to improve identity verification for grant applicants, increase accountability for recipients of federal funds, and ensure that agencies can regularly review ongoing awards to determine whether taxpayer dollars are being used effectively. Federal agencies should have the tools necessary to prevent fraud before it occurs rather than attempting to recover funds after they have already been lost. The federal government has a responsibility to safeguard taxpayer resources and ensure that assistance programs operate with transparency, integrity, and accountability. These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms and continue pursuing measures that strengthen oversight,
Source
OMB-2026-0034-18392 on regulations.gov
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and
Support Support Agrees
What the label rests on
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. ... These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms
Why this label
The comment explicitly endorses OMB's proposed reforms and urges OMB to "finalize these reforms," which is direct support for the rule. It also praises specific types of changes like stronger verification, recipient vetting, and authority to suspend or terminate funding.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A cautious reader could note that the comment mostly endorses broad goals like reducing fraud, improving oversight, and protecting taxpayers, without naming the Uniform Guidance, peer review changes, or specific cited sections; similar language could in some contexts be generic rather than rule-specific. But here the opening and closing explicitly tie that support to OMB's "proposed reforms."
What makes it hard
The main difficulty is separating generic support for anti-fraud oversight from support for this particular rule, but the text directly says "I support" the proposed reforms and "encourage OMB to finalize" them.
The comment
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. American taxpayers deserve confidence that federal funds are being spent responsibly and for their intended purposes. Recent reports of improper payments, fraudulent claims, and inadequate oversight have highlighted weaknesses in the current system that must be addressed. Strengthening verification requirements, improving recipient vetting, and providing agencies with greater authority to suspend or terminate funding when fraud or misuse is identified are reasonable and necessary steps. I particularly support efforts to improve identity verification for grant applicants, increase accountability for recipients of federal funds, and ensure that agencies can regularly review ongoing awards to determine whether taxpayer dollars are being used effectively. Federal agencies should have the tools necessary to prevent fraud before it occurs rather than attempting to recover funds after they have already been lost. The federal government has a responsibility to safeguard taxpayer resources and ensure that assistance programs operate with transparency, integrity, and accountability. These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms and continue pursuing measures that strengthen oversight,
Source
OMB-2026-0034-18515 on regulations.gov
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and
Support Support Agrees
What the label rests on
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. ... These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms
Why this label
This is explicit endorsement of the proposed OMB rule: the commenter says "I support" the proposed reforms and "encourage OMB to finalize these reforms." The comment also backs specific elements framed as part of the proposal, such as stronger verification, recipient vetting, and authority to suspend or terminate funding.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A cautious reader could note that the comment speaks in broad terms about oversight, fraud, and accountability without citing the docket, section numbers, or the controversial peer-review and cost provisions, so it could be read as generic support for anti-fraud goals rather than informed support for this specific rule.
What makes it hard
The main difficulty is the guidance that generic support for oversight or less fraud is not enough by itself; however, here the commenter repeatedly ties that support to "OMB's proposed reforms" and urges OMB to "finalize" them.
The comment
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. American taxpayers deserve confidence that federal funds are being spent responsibly and for their intended purposes. Recent reports of improper payments, fraudulent claims, and inadequate oversight have highlighted weaknesses in the current system that must be addressed. Strengthening verification requirements, improving recipient vetting, and providing agencies with greater authority to suspend or terminate funding when fraud or misuse is identified are reasonable and necessary steps. I particularly support efforts to improve identity verification for grant applicants, increase accountability for recipients of federal funds, and ensure that agencies can regularly review ongoing awards to determine whether taxpayer dollars are being used effectively. Federal agencies should have the tools necessary to prevent fraud before it occurs rather than attempting to recover funds after they have already been lost. The federal government has a responsibility to safeguard taxpayer resources and ensure that assistance programs operate with transparency, integrity, and accountability. These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms and continue pursuing measures that strengthen oversight,
Source
OMB-2026-0034-18670 on regulations.gov
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and
Support Support Agrees
What the label rests on
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. ... These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms
Why this label
The commenter explicitly endorses the proposed reforms and urges OMB to finalize them. They tie their support to features of the proposal such as stronger verification, recipient vetting, and authority to suspend or terminate funding.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A cautious reader could note that the comment speaks in broad terms about oversight, waste, fraud, and abuse without naming the Uniform Guidance sections or the controversial peer-review provisions, so it could be read as generic support for accountability rather than informed support for this specific rule.
What makes it hard
The text uses broad anti-fraud language that could appear in a general policy comment, but it repeatedly refers to "proposed reforms" and asks OMB to "finalize these reforms," which pushes it into support.
The comment
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. American taxpayers deserve confidence that federal funds are being spent responsibly and for their intended purposes. Recent reports of improper payments, fraudulent claims, and inadequate oversight have highlighted weaknesses in the current system that must be addressed. Strengthening verification requirements, improving recipient vetting, and providing agencies with greater authority to suspend or terminate funding when fraud or misuse is identified are reasonable and necessary steps. I particularly support efforts to improve identity verification for grant applicants, increase accountability for recipients of federal funds, and ensure that agencies can regularly review ongoing awards to determine whether taxpayer dollars are being used effectively. Federal agencies should have the tools necessary to prevent fraud before it occurs rather than attempting to recover funds after they have already been lost. The federal government has a responsibility to safeguard taxpayer resources and ensure that assistance programs operate with transparency, integrity, and accountability. These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms and continue pursuing measures that strengthen oversight,
Source
OMB-2026-0034-19040 on regulations.gov
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and
Support Support Agrees
What the label rests on
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. ... These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms
Why this label
The commenter explicitly supports OMB's proposed reforms and urges OMB to finalize them. They also endorse specific elements framed as part of the proposal, like stronger verification, recipient vetting, and authority to suspend or terminate funding.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A cautious reader could argue the comment mainly praises general goals like reducing fraud, improving oversight, and protecting taxpayers, which can be adjacent to the rule without engaging its contested provisions in detail.
What makes it hard
The text does not mention the rule's controversial peer-review or ideological-condition aspects, so one must distinguish explicit support for the proposal from generic support for anti-fraud oversight.
The comment
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. American taxpayers deserve confidence that federal funds are being spent responsibly and for their intended purposes. Recent reports of improper payments, fraudulent claims, and inadequate oversight have highlighted weaknesses in the current system that must be addressed. Strengthening verification requirements, improving recipient vetting, and providing agencies with greater authority to suspend or terminate funding when fraud or misuse is identified are reasonable and necessary steps. I particularly support efforts to improve identity verification for grant applicants, increase accountability for recipients of federal funds, and ensure that agencies can regularly review ongoing awards to determine whether taxpayer dollars are being used effectively. Federal agencies should have the tools necessary to prevent fraud before it occurs rather than attempting to recover funds after they have already been lost. The federal government has a responsibility to safeguard taxpayer resources and ensure that assistance programs operate with transparency, integrity, and accountability. These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms and continue pursuing measures that strengthen oversight,
Source
OMB-2026-0034-19718 on regulations.gov
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and
Support Support Agrees
What the label rests on
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. ... These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms
Why this label
The comment explicitly endorses OMB's proposed reforms and urges OMB to "finalize these reforms," which is direct support for the rule. It also praises specific types of changes as "reasonable and necessary steps."
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A fair counterargument is that the commenter mainly supports general goals like reducing fraud, improving verification, and increasing accountability, without naming the controversial peer-review or ideological-condition provisions; some of this language could read like generic support for oversight rather than informed support for the full rule.
What makes it hard
The comment focuses on broad anti-fraud and accountability themes rather than the rule's most disputed provisions, so a careful reader could wonder whether it is endorsing the actual rule or only its stated goals.
The comment
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. American taxpayers deserve confidence that federal funds are being spent responsibly and for their intended purposes. Recent reports of improper payments, fraudulent claims, and inadequate oversight have highlighted weaknesses in the current system that must be addressed. Strengthening verification requirements, improving recipient vetting, and providing agencies with greater authority to suspend or terminate funding when fraud or misuse is identified are reasonable and necessary steps. I particularly support efforts to improve identity verification for grant applicants, increase accountability for recipients of federal funds, and ensure that agencies can regularly review ongoing awards to determine whether taxpayer dollars are being used effectively. Federal agencies should have the tools necessary to prevent fraud before it occurs rather than attempting to recover funds after they have already been lost. The federal government has a responsibility to safeguard taxpayer resources and ensure that assistance programs operate with transparency, integrity, and accountability. These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms and continue pursuing measures that strengthen oversight,
Source
OMB-2026-0034-19775 on regulations.gov
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and
Support Support Agrees
What the label rests on
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. ... I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms
Why this label
The commenter explicitly endorses the proposed reforms and asks OMB to finalize them. They also praise specific features like stronger verification, recipient vetting, and authority to suspend or terminate funding.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A cautious reader could argue the comment mainly supports general goals like reducing fraud, waste, and abuse, which by themselves do not always show support for this specific rule. Much of the text is framed at a high level around oversight and accountability rather than citing the docket's contested provisions.
What makes it hard
The main pitfall is that generic support for oversight or anti-fraud efforts is not enough on its own; however, here the commenter directly ties that support to 'OMB's proposed reforms' and urges finalization.
The comment
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. American taxpayers deserve confidence that federal funds are being spent responsibly and for their intended purposes. Recent reports of improper payments, fraudulent claims, and inadequate oversight have highlighted weaknesses in the current system that must be addressed. Strengthening verification requirements, improving recipient vetting, and providing agencies with greater authority to suspend or terminate funding when fraud or misuse is identified are reasonable and necessary steps. I particularly support efforts to improve identity verification for grant applicants, increase accountability for recipients of federal funds, and ensure that agencies can regularly review ongoing awards to determine whether taxpayer dollars are being used effectively. Federal agencies should have the tools necessary to prevent fraud before it occurs rather than attempting to recover funds after they have already been lost. The federal government has a responsibility to safeguard taxpayer resources and ensure that assistance programs operate with transparency, integrity, and accountability. These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms and continue pursuing measures that strengthen oversight,
Source
OMB-2026-0034-20189 on regulations.gov
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and
Support Support Agrees
What the label rests on
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. ... These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms
Why this label
The commenter explicitly says "I support" OMB's proposed reforms and urges OMB to "finalize these reforms," which is direct endorsement of the rule. They also praise specific types of changes such as stronger verification, recipient vetting, and authority to suspend or terminate funding.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A cautious reader could note that the comment speaks in broad terms about oversight, waste, fraud, and abuse without naming the controversial peer-review or ideological provisions, so some of its language could read like support for general goals rather than the full rule. If treated narrowly, it might be seen as endorsing abstract accountability principles rather than taking a position on the specific proposal.
What makes it hard
The comment uses generic good-government language that could have been written in many contexts, but it also explicitly ties that language to "OMB's proposed reforms" and asks OMB to finalize them.
The comment
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. American taxpayers deserve confidence that federal funds are being spent responsibly and for their intended purposes. Recent reports of improper payments, fraudulent claims, and inadequate oversight have highlighted weaknesses in the current system that must be addressed. Strengthening verification requirements, improving recipient vetting, and providing agencies with greater authority to suspend or terminate funding when fraud or misuse is identified are reasonable and necessary steps. I particularly support efforts to improve identity verification for grant applicants, increase accountability for recipients of federal funds, and ensure that agencies can regularly review ongoing awards to determine whether taxpayer dollars are being used effectively. Federal agencies should have the tools necessary to prevent fraud before it occurs rather than attempting to recover funds after they have already been lost. The federal government has a responsibility to safeguard taxpayer resources and ensure that assistance programs operate with transparency, integrity, and accountability. These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms and continue pursuing measures that strengthen oversight,
Source
OMB-2026-0034-20655 on regulations.gov
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and
Support Support Agrees
What the label rests on
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. ... These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms
Why this label
The comment explicitly says "I support" the proposed reforms and urges OMB to "finalize these reforms," which is direct endorsement of the rule. It also backs specific elements such as stronger verification, recipient vetting, and authority to suspend or terminate funding.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A cautious reader could note that the comment speaks in broad terms about oversight, fraud, and accountability, without naming the controversial peer-review or ideological provisions, so some support language could be read as generic support for reform goals rather than informed support for this specific rule.
What makes it hard
The comment is somewhat generic and could resemble a stock statement favoring anti-fraud measures, but it repeatedly ties that support to "OMB's proposed reforms" and asks OMB to finalize them.
The comment
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. American taxpayers deserve confidence that federal funds are being spent responsibly and for their intended purposes. Recent reports of improper payments, fraudulent claims, and inadequate oversight have highlighted weaknesses in the current system that must be addressed. Strengthening verification requirements, improving recipient vetting, and providing agencies with greater authority to suspend or terminate funding when fraud or misuse is identified are reasonable and necessary steps. I particularly support efforts to improve identity verification for grant applicants, increase accountability for recipients of federal funds, and ensure that agencies can regularly review ongoing awards to determine whether taxpayer dollars are being used effectively. Federal agencies should have the tools necessary to prevent fraud before it occurs rather than attempting to recover funds after they have already been lost. The federal government has a responsibility to safeguard taxpayer resources and ensure that assistance programs operate with transparency, integrity, and accountability. These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms and continue pursuing measures that strengthen oversight,
Source
OMB-2026-0034-21302 on regulations.gov
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and
Support Support Agrees
What the label rests on
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. ... These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process ... I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms
Why this label
The comment explicitly endorses OMB's proposed reforms and urges OMB to finalize them. It also praises specific features framed as part of the proposal, such as stronger verification, recipient vetting, and authority to suspend or terminate funding.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A cautious reader could note that the comment mostly supports broad goals like reducing fraud, improving oversight, and safeguarding taxpayer funds, which can sometimes be generic and not tied to the actual rule text. If those statements were untethered from the proposal, this could read as adjacent policy preference rather than true endorsement.
What makes it hard
The main pitfall is that anti-fraud and accountability language can be generic; however, here it is directly linked to "OMB's proposed reforms" and a request to "finalize these reforms."
The comment
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. American taxpayers deserve confidence that federal funds are being spent responsibly and for their intended purposes. Recent reports of improper payments, fraudulent claims, and inadequate oversight have highlighted weaknesses in the current system that must be addressed. Strengthening verification requirements, improving recipient vetting, and providing agencies with greater authority to suspend or terminate funding when fraud or misuse is identified are reasonable and necessary steps. I particularly support efforts to improve identity verification for grant applicants, increase accountability for recipients of federal funds, and ensure that agencies can regularly review ongoing awards to determine whether taxpayer dollars are being used effectively. Federal agencies should have the tools necessary to prevent fraud before it occurs rather than attempting to recover funds after they have already been lost. The federal government has a responsibility to safeguard taxpayer resources and ensure that assistance programs operate with transparency, integrity, and accountability. These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms and continue pursuing measures that strengthen oversight,
Source
OMB-2026-0034-22265 on regulations.gov
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and
Support Support Agrees
What the label rests on
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. ... These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms
Why this label
The commenter explicitly endorses the proposed reforms and asks OMB to finalize them. They also praise specific features tied to the proposal, such as stronger verification, recipient vetting, and authority to suspend or terminate funding.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A fair counterargument is that the comment focuses on broad goals like preventing fraud, increasing accountability, and protecting taxpayers, which can sometimes be generic and not specific to this rule. If read skeptically, it could be seen as supporting oversight in principle rather than engaging the controversial provisions directly.
What makes it hard
The text does not mention the peer-review or political-control issues that dominate this docket, so a reviewer could wonder whether it is a generic pro-oversight statement. But it repeatedly ties that support to "OMB's proposed reforms" and urges finalization.
The comment
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. American taxpayers deserve confidence that federal funds are being spent responsibly and for their intended purposes. Recent reports of improper payments, fraudulent claims, and inadequate oversight have highlighted weaknesses in the current system that must be addressed. Strengthening verification requirements, improving recipient vetting, and providing agencies with greater authority to suspend or terminate funding when fraud or misuse is identified are reasonable and necessary steps. I particularly support efforts to improve identity verification for grant applicants, increase accountability for recipients of federal funds, and ensure that agencies can regularly review ongoing awards to determine whether taxpayer dollars are being used effectively. Federal agencies should have the tools necessary to prevent fraud before it occurs rather than attempting to recover funds after they have already been lost. The federal government has a responsibility to safeguard taxpayer resources and ensure that assistance programs operate with transparency, integrity, and accountability. These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms and continue pursuing measures that strengthen oversight,
Source
OMB-2026-0034-23390 on regulations.gov
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and
Support Support Agrees
What the label rests on
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. ... These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms
Why this label
The commenter explicitly says "I support" OMB's proposed reforms and urges OMB to "finalize these reforms," which is direct endorsement of the rule. They also praise specific features like verification, vetting, and authority to suspend or terminate funding.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A cautious reader could argue the comment mostly endorses broad goals like reducing fraud, improving oversight, and protecting taxpayers, without naming the controversial peer-review or ideological provisions specifically; some such comments can read like generic accountability statements. But here the explicit support for "OMB's proposed reforms" and call to "finalize" them goes beyond neutral goal agreement.
What makes it hard
The main pitfall is that support for anti-fraud goals alone is not enough; the decisive language is the explicit endorsement of the proposed reforms themselves.
The comment
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. American taxpayers deserve confidence that federal funds are being spent responsibly and for their intended purposes. Recent reports of improper payments, fraudulent claims, and inadequate oversight have highlighted weaknesses in the current system that must be addressed. Strengthening verification requirements, improving recipient vetting, and providing agencies with greater authority to suspend or terminate funding when fraud or misuse is identified are reasonable and necessary steps. I particularly support efforts to improve identity verification for grant applicants, increase accountability for recipients of federal funds, and ensure that agencies can regularly review ongoing awards to determine whether taxpayer dollars are being used effectively. Federal agencies should have the tools necessary to prevent fraud before it occurs rather than attempting to recover funds after they have already been lost. The federal government has a responsibility to safeguard taxpayer resources and ensure that assistance programs operate with transparency, integrity, and accountability. These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms and continue pursuing measures that strengthen oversight,
Source
OMB-2026-0034-23802 on regulations.gov
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and
Support Support Agrees
What the label rests on
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. ... These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms
Why this label
The commenter explicitly says "I support" OMB's proposed reforms and urges OMB to "finalize these reforms," which is direct endorsement of the rule. They also praise specific types of changes such as stronger verification, recipient vetting, and authority to suspend or terminate funding.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A fair alternative reading is that the comment mainly supports general goals like reducing "waste, fraud, and abuse" and stronger oversight, without naming the controversial peer-review and ideological provisions; if read narrowly, it could be seen as backing broad aims rather than the specific rule text.
What makes it hard
The text focuses on anti-fraud and oversight themes that could, in other comments, be too generic to count as support. But here the commenter ties those themes directly to "OMB's proposed reforms" and asks OMB to "finalize" them.
The comment
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. American taxpayers deserve confidence that federal funds are being spent responsibly and for their intended purposes. Recent reports of improper payments, fraudulent claims, and inadequate oversight have highlighted weaknesses in the current system that must be addressed. Strengthening verification requirements, improving recipient vetting, and providing agencies with greater authority to suspend or terminate funding when fraud or misuse is identified are reasonable and necessary steps. I particularly support efforts to improve identity verification for grant applicants, increase accountability for recipients of federal funds, and ensure that agencies can regularly review ongoing awards to determine whether taxpayer dollars are being used effectively. Federal agencies should have the tools necessary to prevent fraud before it occurs rather than attempting to recover funds after they have already been lost. The federal government has a responsibility to safeguard taxpayer resources and ensure that assistance programs operate with transparency, integrity, and accountability. These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms and continue pursuing measures that strengthen oversight,
Source
OMB-2026-0034-24261 on regulations.gov
Waste, fraud and abuse of any taxpayer dollars is absolutely unacceptable! I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant
Support Support Agrees
What the label rests on
"I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs"; "These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process"; "I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms"
Why this label
The commenter explicitly endorses OMB's proposed reforms and urges OMB to finalize them. That is direct support for this rule, not merely a general statement against waste or fraud.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A cautious reader might note the comment focuses on broad goals like "waste, fraud, and abuse" and "oversight" without naming specific CFR sections, so in theory it could be read as generic support for better administration rather than informed support for the exact rule text.
What makes it hard
The main potential confusion is that some comments praise oversight in general without actually backing the rule, but here the commenter repeatedly ties that praise to "OMB's proposed reforms" and asks OMB to "finalize" them.
The comment
Waste, fraud and abuse of any taxpayer dollars is absolutely unacceptable! I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. American taxpayers deserve confidence that federal funds are being spent responsibly and for their intended purposes. Recent reports of improper payments, fraudulent claims, and inadequate oversight have highlighted weaknesses in the current system that must be addressed. Strengthening verification requirements, improving recipient vetting, and providing agencies with greater authority to suspend or terminate funding when fraud or misuse is identified are reasonable and necessary steps. I particularly support efforts to improve identity verification for grant applicants, increase accountability for recipients of federal funds, and ensure that agencies can regularly review ongoing awards to determine whether taxpayer dollars are being used effectively. Federal agencies should have the tools necessary to prevent fraud before it occurs rather than attempting to recover funds after they have already been lost. The federal government has a responsibility to safeguard taxpayer resources and ensure that assistance programs operate with transparency, integrity, and accountability. These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finali
Source
OMB-2026-0034-24998 on regulations.gov
These EXCELLENT proposed processes will surely help prevent and cease blatant wasteful, and often anti-American pro-Marxist expenditures, corrupt grant schemes, proliferation of th
Support Support Agrees
What the label rests on
These EXCELLENT proposed processes will surely help prevent and cease blatant wasteful, and often anti-American pro-Marxist expenditures, corrupt grant schemes, proliferation of the export of American scientific prowess, and will preserve the valuable entrusted funds for crucial projects furthering the future of a free and prosperous America.
Why this label
The commenter explicitly praises the proposal as "EXCELLENT proposed processes" and says they "will surely help" achieve desired outcomes, which is a direct endorsement of the proposed rule. This goes beyond general concern about waste and ties approval to the proposal itself.
The strongest case against it (for “Oppose”)
A strained reading could say the comment is broadly ideological and anti-waste rather than specifically informed support for this rule, or that phrases like "export of American scientific prowess" reflect concern about harms to science policy generally. But the text still plainly praises the proposed processes rather than criticizing them.
What makes it hard
The rhetoric is broad and ideological, so a reader could wonder whether it is just venting about grant spending rather than specifically backing the rule. The phrase "proposed processes" resolves that toward support.
The comment
These EXCELLENT proposed processes will surely help prevent and cease blatant wasteful, and often anti-American pro-Marxist expenditures, corrupt grant schemes, proliferation of the export of American scientific prowess, and will preserve the valuable entrusted funds for crucial projects furthering the future of a free and prosperous America.
Source
OMB-2026-0034-2639 on regulations.gov
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and
Support Support Agrees
What the label rests on
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms
Why this label
The comment explicitly says "I support" OMB's proposed reforms and urges OMB to "finalize these reforms," which is direct endorsement of the rule. It also backs specific features like stronger verification, recipient vetting, and authority to suspend or terminate funding.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A cautious reader could argue the comment mainly supports general goals like reducing fraud, waste, and abuse, and does not mention the controversial peer-review or ideological-condition provisions specifically. If read narrowly, it could be seen as endorsing oversight principles adjacent to the rule rather than the full proposal.
What makes it hard
The main difficulty is that much of the text praises broad anti-fraud goals that could appear in many contexts, but the opening and closing tie that praise directly to "OMB's proposed reforms" and ask OMB to finalize them.
The comment
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. American taxpayers deserve confidence that federal funds are being spent responsibly and for their intended purposes. Recent reports of improper payments, fraudulent claims, and inadequate oversight have highlighted weaknesses in the current system that must be addressed. Strengthening verification requirements, improving recipient vetting, and providing agencies with greater authority to suspend or terminate funding when fraud or misuse is identified are reasonable and necessary steps. I particularly support efforts to improve identity verification for grant applicants, increase accountability for recipients of federal funds, and ensure that agencies can regularly review ongoing awards to determine whether taxpayer dollars are being used effectively. Federal agencies should have the tools necessary to prevent fraud before it occurs rather than attempting to recover funds after they have already been lost. The federal government has a responsibility to safeguard taxpayer resources and ensure that assistance programs operate with transparency, integrity, and accountability. These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms and continue pursuing measures that strengthen oversight,
Source
OMB-2026-0034-27695 on regulations.gov
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and
Support Support Agrees
What the label rests on
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. ... These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms
Why this label
The commenter explicitly says "I support" the proposed reforms and urges OMB to "finalize these reforms," which is direct endorsement of the rule. They also praise specific elements like verification, vetting, and authority to suspend or terminate funding.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A cautious reader could note that the comment talks in general terms about oversight, fraud prevention, and accountability without naming the controversial peer-review or ideological provisions, so it could be read as supporting broad goals rather than the exact rule text. But the explicit support for "OMB's proposed reforms" and request to "finalize" them makes it more than neutral.
What makes it hard
The main difficulty is distinguishing support for general anti-fraud goals from support for this specific rule; here, the commenter directly ties those goals to "OMB's proposed reforms."
The comment
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. American taxpayers deserve confidence that federal funds are being spent responsibly and for their intended purposes. Recent reports of improper payments, fraudulent claims, and inadequate oversight have highlighted weaknesses in the current system that must be addressed. Strengthening verification requirements, improving recipient vetting, and providing agencies with greater authority to suspend or terminate funding when fraud or misuse is identified are reasonable and necessary steps. I particularly support efforts to improve identity verification for grant applicants, increase accountability for recipients of federal funds, and ensure that agencies can regularly review ongoing awards to determine whether taxpayer dollars are being used effectively. Federal agencies should have the tools necessary to prevent fraud before it occurs rather than attempting to recover funds after they have already been lost. The federal government has a responsibility to safeguard taxpayer resources and ensure that assistance programs operate with transparency, integrity, and accountability. These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms and continue pursuing measures that strengthen oversight,
Source
OMB-2026-0034-33431 on regulations.gov
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and
Support Support Agrees
What the label rests on
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. ... These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms
Why this label
The comment explicitly says "I support" OMB's proposed reforms and urges OMB to "finalize these reforms," which is direct endorsement of the rule. It also backs specific elements framed as part of the proposal, such as stronger verification, recipient vetting, and authority to suspend or terminate funding.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A cautious reader could note that the comment mostly praises general goals like oversight, accountability, and preventing fraud, without naming the controversial peer-review or ideological provisions; in some dockets, that can read as support for broad objectives rather than the specific rule text.
What makes it hard
The comment is somewhat generic and could have been written in support of many anti-fraud reforms, so a reviewer might wonder whether it truly engages this specific rule versus its stated goals.
The comment
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. American taxpayers deserve confidence that federal funds are being spent responsibly and for their intended purposes. Recent reports of improper payments, fraudulent claims, and inadequate oversight have highlighted weaknesses in the current system that must be addressed. Strengthening verification requirements, improving recipient vetting, and providing agencies with greater authority to suspend or terminate funding when fraud or misuse is identified are reasonable and necessary steps. I particularly support efforts to improve identity verification for grant applicants, increase accountability for recipients of federal funds, and ensure that agencies can regularly review ongoing awards to determine whether taxpayer dollars are being used effectively. Federal agencies should have the tools necessary to prevent fraud before it occurs rather than attempting to recover funds after they have already been lost. The federal government has a responsibility to safeguard taxpayer resources and ensure that assistance programs operate with transparency, integrity, and accountability. These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms and continue pursuing measures that strengthen oversight,
Source
OMB-2026-0034-33575 on regulations.gov
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and
Support Support Agrees
What the label rests on
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. ... These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms
Why this label
The commenter explicitly says "I support" the proposed reforms and urges OMB to "finalize these reforms," which is direct endorsement of the rule. They also praise specific kinds of changes such as stronger verification, recipient vetting, and authority to suspend or terminate funding.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A cautious reader could note that the comment mostly endorses broad goals like reducing fraud, waste, and abuse, and does not cite the Uniform Guidance sections or controversial peer-review provisions specifically; if this were only generic praise for oversight, it might not clearly back this rule. But the opening and closing tie that praise directly to "OMB's proposed reforms" and urge finalization.
What makes it hard
The text is generic and could resemble a stock statement favoring oversight in the abstract, so the main issue is whether it is tied closely enough to this actual proposal.
The comment
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. American taxpayers deserve confidence that federal funds are being spent responsibly and for their intended purposes. Recent reports of improper payments, fraudulent claims, and inadequate oversight have highlighted weaknesses in the current system that must be addressed. Strengthening verification requirements, improving recipient vetting, and providing agencies with greater authority to suspend or terminate funding when fraud or misuse is identified are reasonable and necessary steps. I particularly support efforts to improve identity verification for grant applicants, increase accountability for recipients of federal funds, and ensure that agencies can regularly review ongoing awards to determine whether taxpayer dollars are being used effectively. Federal agencies should have the tools necessary to prevent fraud before it occurs rather than attempting to recover funds after they have already been lost. The federal government has a responsibility to safeguard taxpayer resources and ensure that assistance programs operate with transparency, integrity, and accountability. These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms and continue pursuing measures that strengthen oversight,
Source
OMB-2026-0034-33586 on regulations.gov
I support all of your coments below BUT one of the major hurtful items no one speaks about is the ongoing fraud of passing K to 12 grade school children from grade to grade even if
Support Support Agrees
What the label rests on
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. ... These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms
Why this label
The comment explicitly endorses OMB's proposed reforms and urges OMB to finalize them. That is direct support for this rule, not merely a general concern about fraud or oversight.
The strongest case against it (for “unclear_junk”)
A fair alternative is that much of the comment is rambling and off-topic, especially the discussion of K-12 promotion, SAT/ACT, and reading levels, which could suggest pasted or confused content rather than a coherent position on the docket. But the later paragraph clearly and substantively supports the proposed reforms.
What makes it hard
The opening is largely off-topic and could distract from the clear pro-rule language later in the comment.
The comment
I support all of your coments below BUT one of the major hurtful items no one speaks about is the ongoing fraud of passing K to 12 grade school children from grade to grade even if they have not learned the basic material and have not been eductionally prepared for the following grade. That is fraud and the school system or the teacher that particiaptes or encourages this scam should be legally punished. The scammers are condeming the children to a lifetime of inability to reach their earning potential. Many universitie stopped requireningincoming students from passing the ACT or SAT as an entrance requirement and many children were admiteed and most dropped out soon after wasting millions of tuition dollars and time . Reports state over 50% of American adults read at the sixth grade level or below. I am sorry but I beleive that ignoring this scam by not taking any action to make the scam a crime is to participate in the scam by knowing what is going on and doing nothing to stop it. Thank you for your advice on how to proceed or to stop it. I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. American taxpayers deserve confidence that federal funds are being spent responsibly and for their intended purposes. Recent reports of improper payments, fraudulent claims, and inadequate oversight have highlighted weaknesses in the current system that mu
Source
OMB-2026-0034-33851 on regulations.gov
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and
Support Support Agrees
What the label rests on
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. ... These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms
Why this label
The commenter explicitly says "I support" OMB's proposed reforms and urges OMB to "finalize these reforms," which is direct endorsement of the rule. They also praise specific kinds of changes such as stronger verification, recipient vetting, and authority to suspend or terminate funding.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A cautious reader could note that the comment mostly supports general goals like reducing fraud, improving oversight, and protecting taxpayers, without citing the specific contested provisions of this OMB rule. If read narrowly, it could be seen as endorsing abstract objectives rather than the actual proposal's details.
What makes it hard
The main difficulty is separating generic support for anti-fraud oversight from support for this specific rule, but here the commenter directly ties that support to "OMB's proposed reforms" and asks OMB to finalize them.
The comment
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. American taxpayers deserve confidence that federal funds are being spent responsibly and for their intended purposes. Recent reports of improper payments, fraudulent claims, and inadequate oversight have highlighted weaknesses in the current system that must be addressed. Strengthening verification requirements, improving recipient vetting, and providing agencies with greater authority to suspend or terminate funding when fraud or misuse is identified are reasonable and necessary steps. I particularly support efforts to improve identity verification for grant applicants, increase accountability for recipients of federal funds, and ensure that agencies can regularly review ongoing awards to determine whether taxpayer dollars are being used effectively. Federal agencies should have the tools necessary to prevent fraud before it occurs rather than attempting to recover funds after they have already been lost. The federal government has a responsibility to safeguard taxpayer resources and ensure that assistance programs operate with transparency, integrity, and accountability. These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms and continue pursuing measures that strengthen oversight,
Source
OMB-2026-0034-34021 on regulations.gov
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and
Support Support Agrees
What the label rests on
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. ... These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms
Why this label
The commenter explicitly endorses the proposed reforms and asks OMB to finalize them. They tie their support to features presented as part of the proposal, such as stronger verification, recipient vetting, and authority to suspend or terminate funding.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A cautious reader could argue the comment mainly supports general goals like reducing fraud, improving oversight, and protecting taxpayers, without naming the contested peer-review or ideological provisions; some of this language could appear in a generic anti-fraud comment regardless of the specific rule.
What makes it hard
The comment does not engage the controversial elements critics focus on and mostly uses broad good-government language, so one could wonder whether it supports the specific rule or just its stated anti-fraud goals.
The comment
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. American taxpayers deserve confidence that federal funds are being spent responsibly and for their intended purposes. Recent reports of improper payments, fraudulent claims, and inadequate oversight have highlighted weaknesses in the current system that must be addressed. Strengthening verification requirements, improving recipient vetting, and providing agencies with greater authority to suspend or terminate funding when fraud or misuse is identified are reasonable and necessary steps. I particularly support efforts to improve identity verification for grant applicants, increase accountability for recipients of federal funds, and ensure that agencies can regularly review ongoing awards to determine whether taxpayer dollars are being used effectively. Federal agencies should have the tools necessary to prevent fraud before it occurs rather than attempting to recover funds after they have already been lost. The federal government has a responsibility to safeguard taxpayer resources and ensure that assistance programs operate with transparency, integrity, and accountability. These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms and continue pursuing measures that strengthen oversight,
Source
OMB-2026-0034-34516 on regulations.gov
I think this is a great rule and should 100% be implemented. We should not let a trend of mentally insane people ruin our society.
Support Support Agrees
What the label rests on
"I think this is a great rule and should 100% be implemented."
Why this label
The comment explicitly endorses the proposal and urges that it be implemented. That is direct support for this rule, regardless of the crude rationale offered afterward.
The strongest case against it (for “unclear_junk”)
The second sentence is vague and derogatory, without clearly tying its reasoning to the OMB rule's actual contents, so one could argue the comment is low-quality or not substantively engaged. But the first sentence clearly supports the rule.
What makes it hard
The rationale is incoherent/offensive and not clearly connected to the rule's specifics, but the opening sentence is an unmistakable statement of support.
The comment
I think this is a great rule and should 100% be implemented. We should not let a trend of mentally insane people ruin our society.
Source
OMB-2026-0034-35585 on regulations.gov
I strongly support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fr
Support Support Agrees
What the label rests on
I strongly support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. ... I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms
Why this label
The commenter explicitly endorses the proposed reforms and asks OMB to finalize them. They also praise specific features such as stronger verification, recipient vetting, and greater authority to suspend or terminate funding.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A cautious reader could note that the comment talks in general terms about oversight, fraud, and accountability without citing the rule number or engaging the controversial peer-review provisions directly, so it could be read as broad support for anti-fraud goals rather than the specific rule details.
What makes it hard
The main pitfall is the guidance that generic support for reducing waste or fraud is not necessarily support for this rule. But here the commenter directly ties those goals to "OMB's proposed reforms" and urges OMB to "finalize these reforms."
The comment
I strongly support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. The massive amounts of fraud being reported in programs across the spectrum indicate this measure is desparately and urgently needed. American taxpayers deserve confidence that federal funds are being spent responsibly and for their intended purposes. Recent reports of improper payments, fraudulent claims, and inadequate oversight highlight weaknesses in the current system that must be addressed. Strengthening verification requirements, improving recipient vetting, and providing agencies with greater authority to suspend or terminate funding when fraud or misuse is identified are reasonable and necessary steps. I particularly support efforts to improve identity verification for grant applicants, increase traceability and accountability for recipients of federal funds, and ensure that agencies can regularly review ongoing awards to determine whether taxpayer dollars are being used effectively. Federal agencies should have the tools necessary to prevent fraud before it occurs rather than attempting to recover funds after they have already been lost. The federal government has a responsibility to safeguard taxpayer resources and ensure that assistance programs operate with transparency, integrity, and accountability. These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-mak
Source
OMB-2026-0034-36944 on regulations.gov
This proposed rule and its implementation is essential. For too long the nation's personnel in federal executive branch agencies and American universities have deviated from the in
Support Support Agrees
What the label rests on
"This proposed rule and its implementation is essential." "This rule will help restore the original intent of the nation's laws" "Adoption and implementation of this proposed rule now is vital."
Why this label
The commenter explicitly endorses the rule itself, calling it "essential" and saying its "adoption and implementation ... is vital." They also praise the rule for ending allegedly unlawful "woke" and DEI policies, which is direct support for the proposal.
The strongest case against it (for “Oppose”)
A strained reading might say the commenter is mainly venting about universities, federal agencies, and DEI rather than engaging specific provisions of the rule, so the substance could be seen as general political grievance instead of informed support. But the repeated explicit praise for "this proposed rule" makes support much stronger.
What makes it hard
The comment is heavy on broader ideological complaints and light on the rule's details, so a reader could wonder whether it supports the actual OMB proposal or just its perceived anti-DEI goals.
The comment
This proposed rule and its implementation is essential. For too long the nation's personnel in federal executive branch agencies and American universities have deviated from the intent of Congress and U.S. laws and pushed unlawful "woke" and DEI policies to advance leftist policies. This must end and the original intent of Congressionally passed and President signed laws should be implemented without the personnel in federal agencies and universities amending the original intent of these laws to further the goals of these unelected university professors and administrators and the bureaucrats in the federal Washington D.C. agencies" leftist, "woke" and DEI goals. This rule will help restore the original intent of the nation's laws as passed by the elected Congress and signed by the President. Adoption and implementation of this proposed rule now is vital.
Source
OMB-2026-0034-41349 on regulations.gov
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and
Support Support Agrees
What the label rests on
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. ... These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms
Why this label
The comment expressly endorses OMB's proposed reforms and asks OMB to "finalize these reforms," which is direct support for the rule. It also backs specific features framed as part of the proposal, such as stronger verification, recipient vetting, and authority to suspend or terminate funding.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A cautious reader could argue the comment mainly praises broad goals like oversight, accountability, and reducing fraud, which by themselves do not always equal support for this specific rule. If this were generic advocacy untethered to the actual proposal, it could be read as adjacent rather than a clear endorsement.
What makes it hard
The main pitfall is that some of the language is generic anti-fraud rhetoric, which alone would not be enough. But the explicit statements of support for "OMB's proposed reforms" and urging OMB to "finalize" them make this straightforward.
The comment
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. American taxpayers deserve confidence that federal funds are being spent responsibly and for their intended purposes. Recent reports of improper payments, fraudulent claims, and inadequate oversight have highlighted weaknesses in the current system that must be addressed. Strengthening verification requirements, improving recipient vetting, and providing agencies with greater authority to suspend or terminate funding when fraud or misuse is identified are reasonable and necessary steps. I particularly support efforts to improve identity verification for grant applicants, increase accountability for recipients of federal funds, and ensure that agencies can regularly review ongoing awards to determine whether taxpayer dollars are being used effectively. Federal agencies should have the tools necessary to prevent fraud before it occurs rather than attempting to recover funds after they have already been lost. The federal government has a responsibility to safeguard taxpayer resources and ensure that assistance programs operate with transparency, integrity, and accountability. These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms and continue pursuing measures that strengthen oversight,
Source
OMB-2026-0034-43538 on regulations.gov
I support the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) proposed rule, "Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance" (Docket OMB-2026-0034). OMB should finalize this rule to ensure f
Support Support Agrees
What the label rests on
"I support the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) proposed rule, 'Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance' (Docket OMB-2026-0034). OMB should finalize this rule"
Why this label
The comment explicitly endorses the proposed rule and urges OMB to finalize it. The rest of the comment gives reasons why the writer believes the rule is needed, tying support to this specific proposal.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A cautious reader might note that much of the comment is general grievance about DEI, Covid studies, USAID, and bureaucratic spending, which could exist apart from this rule and do not discuss specific provisions. If the explicit support language were discounted, it could read as adjacent political commentary rather than substantive engagement.
What makes it hard
Most of the text is broad ideological criticism rather than discussion of the rule's details, so a reviewer could wonder whether it meaningfully engages the proposal. But the opening and second sentence are explicit support.
The comment
I support the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) proposed rule, "Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance" (Docket OMB-2026-0034). OMB should finalize this rule to ensure federal agencies distribute tax dollars in alignment with federal law and the constitutional rights of all Americans. The recent lack of transparency and accountability over the distribution of federal awards allowed bureaucrats to promote the discriminatory, anti-American "woke" agenda of diversity, equity, and inclusion, known as DEI, against the constitutional, equal protection rights of all Americans. Bureaucrats also distributed taxpayer funds worldwide for misleading studies during Covid, for labs doing dangerous gain-of-function experiments, and for projects focused on censoring Americans. Taxpayer dollars housed illegals and promoted gender ideology in America and around the world through NGOs that received billions in USAID funding. I believe this proposed rule will help to put an end to bureaucratic decisions that fund programs that are not in my best interests or the interest of a free and prosperous America.
Source
OMB-2026-0034-52305 on regulations.gov
I fully SUPPORT this excellent proposed rule and encourage the passing of this. As a taxpayer it's very upsetting to see all the fraud that thankfully is currently being exposed. T
Support Support Agrees
What the label rests on
"I fully SUPPORT this excellent proposed rule and encourage the passing of this." "This proposed rule is an excellent step in deterring future fraud and using funds correctly and fairly."
Why this label
The comment explicitly endorses the rule by name and urges its adoption: it says "I fully SUPPORT this excellent proposed rule" and "encourage the passing of this." The fraud rationale is tied directly to backing this specific proposal, not just a general concern about waste.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A cautious reader might note that much of the comment discusses fraud in general and could be read as broad support for accountability rather than engagement with the rule's details. If one discounted the explicit endorsement as formulaic, the rest is general policy sentiment.
What makes it hard
The only possible complication is that the comment gives little detail about which provisions it supports, but it still expressly supports the proposed rule as a whole.
The comment
I fully SUPPORT this excellent proposed rule and encourage the passing of this. As a taxpayer it's very upsetting to see all the fraud that thankfully is currently being exposed. This proposed rule is an excellent step in deterring future fraud and using funds correctly and fairly.
Source
OMB-2026-0034-59188 on regulations.gov
I support the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) proposed rule, "Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance" (Docket OMB-2026-0034). OMB should finalize this rule to ensure f
Support Support Agrees
What the label rests on
I support the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) proposed rule, "Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance" (Docket OMB-2026-0034). OMB should finalize this rule
Why this label
The commenter explicitly endorses the proposed rule and asks OMB to finalize it. They also give reasons why they think the rule is needed, tying their support to how federal awards are distributed.
The strongest case against it (for “Oppose”)
A very strained reading might say the comment mainly attacks past grantmaking abuses, DEI, Covid studies, USAID, and other funding decisions rather than engaging specific provisions of the rule itself. But the text directly says they support this proposed rule and want it finalized.
What makes it hard
Most of the comment focuses on broader grievances about federal spending rather than detailed rule provisions, so a reader could overfocus on those policy complaints instead of the explicit endorsement.
The comment
I support the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) proposed rule, "Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance" (Docket OMB-2026-0034). OMB should finalize this rule to ensure federal agencies distribute tax dollars in alignment with federal law and the constitutional rights of all Americans. The recent lack of transparency and accountability over the distribution of federal awards allowed bureaucrats to promote the discriminatory, anti-American "woke" agenda of diversity, equity, and inclusion, known as DEI, against the constitutional, equal protection rights of all Americans. Bureaucrats also distributed taxpayer funds worldwide for misleading studies during Covid, for labs doing dangerous gain-of-function experiments, and for projects focused on censoring Americans. Taxpayer dollars housed illegals and promoted gender ideology in America and around the world through NGOs that received billions in USAID funding. I believe this proposed rule will help to put an end to bureaucratic decisions that fund programs that are not in my best interests or the interest of a free and prosperous America.
Source
OMB-2026-0034-72269 on regulations.gov
I support the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) proposed rule, "Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance" (Docket OMB-2026-0034). OMB should finalize this rule to ensure f
Support Support Agrees
What the label rests on
I support the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) proposed rule, "Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance" (Docket OMB-2026-0034). OMB should finalize this rule
Why this label
The comment explicitly endorses the proposed rule and asks OMB to finalize it. The rest of the comment gives reasons for backing the rule, framing it as a way to improve accountability and stop funding the programs the commenter dislikes.
The strongest case against it (for “Oppose”)
A strained reading could say the commenter mainly complains about broader grant misuse, DEI, Covid research, and USAID funding rather than discussing the rule's specific provisions, so the support might be more rhetorical than informed. But the text directly says they support this proposed rule and want it finalized.
What makes it hard
Most comments in this docket oppose the rule, and much of this comment is general political grievance rather than provision-specific analysis. But the explicit endorsement resolves the classification.
The comment
I support the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) proposed rule, "Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance" (Docket OMB-2026-0034). OMB should finalize this rule to ensure federal agencies distribute tax dollars in alignment with federal law and the constitutional rights of all Americans. The recent lack of transparency and accountability over the distribution of federal awards allowed bureaucrats to promote the discriminatory, anti-American "woke" agenda of diversity, equity, and inclusion, known as DEI, against the constitutional, equal protection rights of all Americans. Bureaucrats also distributed taxpayer funds worldwide for misleading studies during Covid, for labs doing dangerous gain-of-function experiments, and for projects focused on censoring Americans. Taxpayer dollars housed illegals and promoted gender ideology in America and around the world through NGOs that received billions in USAID funding. I believe this proposed rule will help to put an end to bureaucratic decisions that fund programs that are not in my best interests or the interest of a free and prosperous America.
Source
OMB-2026-0034-84726 on regulations.gov
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and
Support Support Agrees
What the label rests on
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. ... These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms
Why this label
This is explicit endorsement of the proposed rule: the commenter says "I support" the proposed reforms and urges OMB to "finalize these reforms." The comment also backs specific features framed as parts of the proposal, such as stronger verification, recipient vetting, and authority to suspend or terminate funding.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A cautious reader could note that the comment mostly praises general goals like oversight, accountability, and preventing fraud, without naming 2 CFR sections or engaging the controversial peer-review and cost provisions; if this language were detached from the proposal, it could read as generic support for better grant management rather than informed support for this specific rule.
What makes it hard
The hardest part is distinguishing generic approval of anti-fraud goals from actual support for this rule. Here, the explicit statements "I support" the proposed reforms and "encourage OMB to finalize" them make it support despite the generic framing.
The comment
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. American taxpayers deserve confidence that federal funds are being spent responsibly and for their intended purposes. Recent reports of improper payments, fraudulent claims, and inadequate oversight have highlighted weaknesses in the current system that must be addressed. Strengthening verification requirements, improving recipient vetting, and providing agencies with greater authority to suspend or terminate funding when fraud or misuse is identified are reasonable and necessary steps. I particularly support efforts to improve identity verification for grant applicants, increase accountability for recipients of federal funds, and ensure that agencies can regularly review ongoing awards to determine whether taxpayer dollars are being used effectively. Federal agencies should have the tools necessary to prevent fraud before it occurs rather than attempting to recover funds after they have already been lost. The federal government has a responsibility to safeguard taxpayer resources and ensure that assistance programs operate with transparency, integrity, and accountability. These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms and continue pursuing measures that strengthen oversight,
Source
OMB-2026-0034-89527 on regulations.gov
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and
Support Support Agrees
What the label rests on
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. ... These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms
Why this label
The commenter explicitly endorses OMB's proposed reforms and urges OMB to finalize them. They also praise specific kinds of changes in the proposal, like stronger verification, recipient vetting, and greater authority to suspend or terminate funding.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A cautious reader could argue the comment mainly supports broad goals like reducing fraud, waste, and abuse, without naming the Uniform Guidance rule sections or engaging the controversial peer-review and ideological-condition aspects directly.
What makes it hard
The text is somewhat generic and focuses on oversight/accountability themes that could, in other comments, be untethered from actual support for this specific rule. But here it explicitly says 'I support' the 'proposed reforms' and 'encourage OMB to finalize these reforms.'
The comment
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. American taxpayers deserve confidence that federal funds are being spent responsibly and for their intended purposes. Recent reports of improper payments, fraudulent claims, and inadequate oversight have highlighted weaknesses in the current system that must be addressed. Strengthening verification requirements, improving recipient vetting, and providing agencies with greater authority to suspend or terminate funding when fraud or misuse is identified are reasonable and necessary steps. I particularly support efforts to improve identity verification for grant applicants, increase accountability for recipients of federal funds, and ensure that agencies can regularly review ongoing awards to determine whether taxpayer dollars are being used effectively. Federal agencies should have the tools necessary to prevent fraud before it occurs rather than attempting to recover funds after they have already been lost. The federal government has a responsibility to safeguard taxpayer resources and ensure that assistance programs operate with transparency, integrity, and accountability. These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms and continue pursuing measures that strengthen oversight,
Source
OMB-2026-0034-9518 on regulations.gov
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and
Support Support Agrees
What the label rests on
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. ... These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms
Why this label
This explicitly endorses OMB's proposed reforms and asks OMB to finalize them. The commenter also supports specific elements framed as part of the proposal, like stronger verification, recipient vetting, and authority to suspend or terminate funding.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A cautious reader could say the comment mostly praises general goals like preventing fraud, improving oversight, and protecting taxpayers, which can sometimes be too generic to count as support for this specific rule. But here the commenter directly ties those goals to "OMB's proposed reforms" and urges finalization.
What makes it hard
The text does not cite section numbers or mention the controversial peer-review provisions, so one could wonder whether it is reacting to the rule itself or only to broad anti-fraud themes associated with it.
The comment
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. American taxpayers deserve confidence that federal funds are being spent responsibly and for their intended purposes. Recent reports of improper payments, fraudulent claims, and inadequate oversight have highlighted weaknesses in the current system that must be addressed. Strengthening verification requirements, improving recipient vetting, and providing agencies with greater authority to suspend or terminate funding when fraud or misuse is identified are reasonable and necessary steps. I particularly support efforts to improve identity verification for grant applicants, increase accountability for recipients of federal funds, and ensure that agencies can regularly review ongoing awards to determine whether taxpayer dollars are being used effectively. Federal agencies should have the tools necessary to prevent fraud before it occurs rather than attempting to recover funds after they have already been lost. The federal government has a responsibility to safeguard taxpayer resources and ensure that assistance programs operate with transparency, integrity, and accountability. These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms and continue pursuing measures that strengthen oversight,
Source
OMB-2026-0034-9526 on regulations.gov
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and
Support Support Agrees
What the label rests on
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. ... These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms
Why this label
The commenter expressly says "I support" OMB's proposed reforms and urges OMB to "finalize these reforms," which is direct endorsement of the rule. They also praise specific types of changes such as stronger verification, recipient vetting, and authority to suspend or terminate funding.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A cautious reader could note that the comment mainly endorses broad goals like reducing fraud, increasing accountability, and protecting taxpayer dollars, without naming specific CFR sections; in some cases that kind of general oversight language is not enough to show support for this particular rule.
What makes it hard
The tricky part is that much of the comment uses generic good-government language that could appear in a comment about many different policies, so the key is whether the explicit statements of support tie those goals to this proposed rule.
The comment
I support the Office of Management and Budget's proposed reforms to strengthen oversight of federal grant and assistance programs and improve protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. American taxpayers deserve confidence that federal funds are being spent responsibly and for their intended purposes. Recent reports of improper payments, fraudulent claims, and inadequate oversight have highlighted weaknesses in the current system that must be addressed. Strengthening verification requirements, improving recipient vetting, and providing agencies with greater authority to suspend or terminate funding when fraud or misuse is identified are reasonable and necessary steps. I particularly support efforts to improve identity verification for grant applicants, increase accountability for recipients of federal funds, and ensure that agencies can regularly review ongoing awards to determine whether taxpayer dollars are being used effectively. Federal agencies should have the tools necessary to prevent fraud before it occurs rather than attempting to recover funds after they have already been lost. The federal government has a responsibility to safeguard taxpayer resources and ensure that assistance programs operate with transparency, integrity, and accountability. These proposed reforms will help restore public trust in the grant-making process and improve stewardship of public funds. I encourage OMB to finalize these reforms and continue pursuing measures that strengthen oversight,
Source
OMB-2026-0034-9610 on regulations.gov
I am writing to strongly support this OMB regulation. I specifically support regulations that: Allow federal agencies to terminate active grants at any time if they are deemed inco
Support Support Agrees
What the label rests on
I am writing to strongly support this OMB regulation. I specifically support regulations that: Allow federal agencies to terminate active grants at any time if they are deemed inconsistent with program goals or agency priorities. [200.340] ... Ban federal funds from being used to fund, promote, encourage, subsidize, or facilitate any activities related to DEI. [200.300]
Why this label
The commenter explicitly says they "strongly support this OMB regulation" and then lists multiple provisions of the proposed rule they endorse by section. This is direct support for the rule itself, not just a general statement about oversight or waste.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A very cautious reader might wonder whether the comment is merely cataloging provisions rather than expressing a view, but that is hard to sustain because the text repeatedly says "I specifically support regulations that" before naming them.
The comment
I am writing to strongly support this OMB regulation. I specifically support regulations that: Allow federal agencies to terminate active grants at any time if they are deemed inconsistent with program goals or agency priorities. [200.340] Prohibit the use of federal funds for research collaborations with foreign entities affiliated with countries under sanction by the United States, unless exceptions are authorized by federal law or the head of a federal agency. [200.220] Disallow federal grants from being used for most publication costs and open access fees. [200.461] Require that grant recipients obtain prior approval from federal agencies to use their funding to attend conferences or obtain professional memberships related to the scientific work covered by their grant. [200.432] Allow federal agencies to receive exemptions from the requirement to publicly advertise grant competitions when publicly announcing an opportunity would pose a risk to national security or is in the national interest of the United States. [200.421] Ban federal funds from being used to fund, promote, encourage, subsidize, or facilitate any activities related to DEI. [200.300]
Source
OMB-2026-0034-156411 on regulations.gov
Thank you. I support this proposed rule because it promotes greater transparency, accountability, and responsible stewardship of federal funds while reaffirming equal treatment und
Support Support Agrees
What the label rests on
I support this proposed rule because it promotes greater transparency, accountability, and responsible stewardship of federal funds while reaffirming equal treatment under the law. The proposal appropriately recognizes that faith-based organizations should be eligible to participate in federal programs on the same basis as other nonprofit organizations
Why this label
The commenter explicitly says "I support this proposed rule" and gives reasons tied to the proposal's effects. They also endorse a specific provision about faith-based organizations' eligibility in federal programs.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A cautious reader could note that much of the comment consists of general praise for transparency, accountability, and equal treatment, which can sometimes be adjacent values rather than clear endorsement. But here that is overcome by the direct statement of support for "this proposed rule."
The comment
Thank you. I support this proposed rule because it promotes greater transparency, accountability, and responsible stewardship of federal funds while reaffirming equal treatment under the law. The proposal appropriately recognizes that faith-based organizations should be eligible to participate in federal programs on the same basis as other nonprofit organizations, provided they meet applicable program requirements. Clear, consistent standards across federal agencies will help recipients better understand their obligations while strengthening public confidence that taxpayer dollars are being used for their intended public purposes.
Source
OMB-2026-0034-41827 on regulations.gov
Dear OMB, I strongly support OMB's proposed rule to restore accountability to the federal grantmaking process. Taxpayer dollars should be spent according to the law and the priorit
Support Support Agrees
What the label rests on
"I strongly support OMB's proposed rule"; "Please finalize this rule"; "This rule is a commonsense step toward greater transparency, stronger accountability, and more responsible stewardship of public funds."
Why this label
The comment explicitly endorses the proposed rule and asks OMB to finalize it. Its praise is tied to this rule specifically, not just to general goals like accountability.
The strongest case against it (for “No position / unclear”)
A cautious reader might note the comment uses broad policy language about accountability and taxpayer dollars, which can sometimes be generic rather than rule-specific. But here that is outweighed by the direct statements of support and the request to finalize the rule.
The comment
Dear OMB, I strongly support OMB's proposed rule to restore accountability to the federal grantmaking process. Taxpayer dollars should be spent according to the law and the priorities of the leaders Americans electnot the preferences of unelected bureaucrats operating without meaningful oversight. This rule is a commonsense step toward greater transparency, stronger accountability, and more responsible stewardship of public funds. It helps ensure that federal agencies answer to the American people and remain faithful to the intent of Congress. Please finalize this rule and restore greater confidence in how our government spends taxpayer dollars. Sincerely, Mrs. Kathryn Eehn
Source
OMB-2026-0034-83530 on regulations.gov

How we did it

Generated August 19, 2026 at 09:05 PM · back to the analysis