ANS to OMB: Grant rule would hinder nuclear research exchange

The proposed rule, “Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance” (docket ID OMB-2026-0034), was published in the Federal Register on May 29. If approved, it would revise multiple sections of Title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations governing the dissemination of research and the award processes for federal grants, cooperative agreements, and conference attendance.

ANS’s position: The comments state that the proposed rule “could have significant implications for the effectiveness of federal research investments, U.S. competitiveness, independent scientific inquiry, and the long-term sustainability of technical associations like ANS.”

On publishing, ANS said proposed revisions to 2 CFR 200.461 would make page charges, article processing charges, and open-access fees “generally unallowable unless specifically authorized,” which could reduce manuscript submissions, make it more difficult to publish research, and complicate compliance with federal public-access requirements.

On conferences, ANS said increased agency oversight under 2 CFR 200.432 could reduce participation by federally funded researchers and students, noting that many ANS presenters are supported by awards from the Department of Energy, the National Nuclear Security Administration, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and National Science Foundation awards.

The comments also address merit review under 2 CFR 200.205, warning that changes inviting undue political influence could “stifle, weaken, and warp” the scope of U.S. nuclear scientific leadership. Other measures under 2 CFR 200.205 include expanded oversight of foreign collaboration, broader agency authority to suspend or terminate awards based on changing priorities, and workforce development provisions.

The letter states, in conclusion, that ANS “opposes the promulgation of proposed rules mentioned in their current form,” and notes that continued federal support for nuclear research and development and workforce development remains critical to the Trump administration’s own May 2025 executive orders on expanding nuclear energy.

A crowded docket: ANS was one of many technical societies to weigh in before the comment window closed. The American Association for the Advancement of Science filed comments the same day addressing OMB overreach, political control over grant-making and terminations, and expanded restrictions on international cooperation, saying that it was disappointed that the OMB had denied requests to extend the comment period. The American Physical Society opposed the draft rule outright.