A White House Rule That Reaches Deeply into Our Discipline — and Only a Few Weeks to Respond

By Michael Pearson, Executive Director, MAA

I don’t usually write to ask you to file paperwork with a federal agency. I’m writing now because the Office of Management and Budget has proposed a sweeping rewrite of the rules that govern every federal grant and cooperative agreement — 2 CFR Part 200, the “Uniform Guidance” — and the comment period closes on July 13, 2026.

The proposal would change how research and education in the mathematical sciences are funded, published, and shared. It’s important that our voices are heard, and that we document our responses through the formal channels during the comment period.

This is a moment when a short, specific note from one mathematician can shape a federal rule. If you teach, research, mentor, or simply care about how mathematics is funded and shared in this country, please consider taking time before July 13 to add your voice.

Why this one is different

Most revisions to grant regulations are housekeeping. This one is not. A few of its provisions, in plain terms:

Merit review would become advisory. Under the proposed § 200.205, a senior political appointee would review and approve every discretionary award before it is issued, and peer-review recommendations would be declared “advisory only.” The judgment of expert reviewers would no longer be decisive. For a discipline whose funding system was built specifically to insulate quality from politics, this is a fundamental change.
Publishing, conferences, memberships, and subscriptions could stop being allowable costs. Article processing and open-access fees would be presumptively unallowable (§ 200.461) — even as federal policy still requires results to be made openly available. Conference attendance would require pre-approval written into the award (§ 200.432). Journal subscriptions would become categorically unallowable and society memberships would require prior approval (§ 200.454). These are not perks. They are how a discipline learns what is known, tests new work, develops its people, and disseminates results.
The harm lands hardest on the parts of our work that don’t look like a laboratory. Education and workforce grants, undergraduate research, faculty development, and the pipeline into industry are where much of the MAA’s federally supported work lives. And, they are the least visible in the national conversation about this rule. The NSF’s “broader impacts” criterion, which is where so much of this work is recognized, depends on the very merit-review structure the rule would weaken.

Scholarly societies like the MAA are part of the infrastructure of American science. Through the collective wisdom of our community, we set standards for our discipline, provide professional development, and publish and convene the scholarship that holds the field together. A rule that creates new barriers to publish in, attend, subscribe to, or belong to that infrastructure doesn’t trim overhead. It cuts the connective tissue.

The MAA is submitting its own comments, speaking for the Association and the broader mathematical sciences community. But the public record is built one voice at a time, and a thoughtful, specific comment from a working mathematician or teacher carries weight that no organizational letter can replicate.

How to comment — it takes less time than you think

Federal agencies are legally required to consider substantive, fact-based comments. They are not swayed by the volume of identical form letters. They are moved by specific, credible accounts of real-world impact. Here is how to write one.

Go to the docket. Visit regulations.gov and search OMB-2026-0034, or go directly to the “Comment” page for the proposed rule. The deadline is July 13, 2026, 11:59 PM ET. Submit a few days early, as the system slows under load near a deadline.
Say who you are and why your view matters. Open with one or two sentences: your role (faculty member, department chair, researcher, student mentor), your institution type, and your stake — for example, that you advise undergraduate researchers, rely on federal education grants, and/or serve as a peer reviewer. Please be clear that you are speaking for yourself, unless you have the authority to submit comments on behalf of your institution.
Lead with the section number, in brackets. Begin each point with the provision you’re addressing — e.g., [200.205], [200.461], [200.432], [200.454]. Reviewers sort comments by section, and this gets yours read by the right person.
Be specific and concrete. One real detail from your own experience is the single most valuable thing you can add. How would losing publication funds, conference travel, or expert-driven review actually change your work, your students, your department? Generalities are forgettable; a concrete consequence is not.
Keep it focused and factual. You don’t have to address the whole rule — pick the provisions you know. State your point, then explain the impact. Cite a policy or statute if you know one, but a plain, honest description is enough. Comments are limited to 5,000 words; most strong ones are far shorter.
Protect yourself. Comments are public record. Describe your work in general terms — do not include award numbers, grant titles, PI names, or dollar figures. The weight comes from the harm you describe, not from identifying specific awards.
Optional but effective: Save a copy of your comments to share with your members of Congress and the relevant committees. The same words can do double duty. MAA will provide additional support on this following the rule comment period.

Our Call to Action

I’ve provided resources below that you can use for guidance. Use them as scaffolding, then write in your own words. Your voice matters.

Our advocacy partners at Faegre Drinker have created an overview of the proposed changes. https://www.faegredrinker.com/en/insights/publications/2026/6/omb-proposes-extensive-reformation-of-federal-grant-regulations

Courtney Gibbons (Hamilton College) served as a AAAS policy fellow, and has posted a series of 3 items on the proposed regs and how to respond from a mathematicians perspective:

This recent post from the Scholarly Kitchen focuses on the effect the potential impact on scholarly societies and outlines the role of professional organizations in the larger research and scholarly landscape: https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2026/06/15/guest-post-the-us-governments-new-guidance-for-federal-grants-and-the-case-for-scholarly-societies/

As Executive Director, Michael Pearson provides leadership to advance the mission of the MAA to further the understanding of mathematics and its impact on our world.