FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 14, 2026
Media Contacts:
Lawyers for Good Government — jordan@unbendablemedia.com
Environmental Protection Network — epn-press@environmentalprotectionnetwork.org
Nearly 500,000 Comments Submitted in Response to Trump Administration’s Proposal to Insert Politics into Federal Funding
EPN & L4GG joined hundreds of thousands in commenting on the Trump Administration’s proposal to insert partisan and ideological priorities into the Federal grants guidance that would, if finalized, deeply politicize the distribution of federal funds in America.
The volume of comments – in addition to statements of concern from leading lawmakers – underscore widespread concern about this power grab by President Trump over more than $1 Trillion in Federal Grants, impacting health, education, environment, housing, scientific research, and much more. Read our comments here.
WASHINGTON — Lawyers for Good Government (L4GG) and the Environmental Protection Network (EPN) filed extensive comments yesterday based on our work with more than 800 recipients including states, Tribal governments, local governments, institutions of higher education, schools, nonprofits, businesses, farmers, and religious institutions whose federal grants have been frozen, canceled, or terminated under the Trump Administration. We are deeply troubled by OMB’s proposal to politicize decisionmaking on federally funded assistance programs that benefit the American people in order to further the President’s extreme ideological agenda. Our formal comments to OMB’s proposed rewrite of the government-wide grants guidance detail the major legal weaknesses of the rules and their potential significant harm.
The public submitted 496,769 comments by the deadline through Regulations.gov. Third-party analysis of the comments published for public review by July 9th found that 94% of those comments opposed the rule. Bipartisan and widespread concern from local communities across the country has also reached Congress. Senator Collins, Chair of the Appropriations Committee, sent a letter to Russell Vought, Director of OMB, asking the agency to withdraw parts of the grant rule and extend the comment period. Congressman Carter and Congresswoman Nikki Budzinski sent a letter signed by 127 members expressing widespread concerns over the proposal.
“This rule will stall clean drinking water projects, delay toxic waste cleanups, and ultimately put public health at risk by trapping our state, local, and Tribal partners in permanent financial gridlock,” said Michelle Roos, Executive Director of the Environmental Protection Network. “Local communities shouldn’t have their health and safety held hostage by partisan interference. By treating federal assistance as a tool for political leverage rather than public service, the administration is directly threatening the essential protections that families rely on every day.”
“The fight against this dangerous proposal is far from over. The overwhelming outpouring of comments that have been mobilized from advocates and our allies sends a clear message: Americans do not want political appointees deciding who receives federal funding based on loyalty to a president’s agenda,” said Jillian Blanchard, Vice President of Climate Change and Environmental Justice at Lawyers for Good Government. “OMB is now on notice about the enormous legal and real-world consequences of this rule. If the administration moves forward, we will continue using every available avenue to defend a nonpartisan federal grants system governed by law, expertise, and community need—not political fealty.”
CONCERNS DETAILED IN OUR JOINT COMMENTS
Legal and Procedural Overreach
The joint submission demonstrates that OMB lacks the statutory authority to promulgate binding regulations that govern 41 other federal agencies, effectively bypassing established regulatory processes. Our comment highlights how the proposal attempts to use financial assistance guidance to bypass formal rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, and the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Constitutional and Civil Rights Concerns
The organizations express alarm at what we describe as “viewpoint discrimination” that violates the First Amendment. The proposed rule would force applicants and recipients to conform to the current administration’s ideological priorities. The submitted comment emphasizes that the proposal creates “unconstitutionally vague” mandates regarding “disparate impact”, “gender ideology”, and DEIAinitiatives – falsely painting those efforts as de facto discrimination without further explanation. Courts have struck down similar efforts on multiple occasions – for example, the court in City of Seattle v. Trump struck down anti-DEI and gender ideology related terms and conditions inserted by several agencies as arbitrary and capricious; in City of St. Paul v. Wright, the court found that the termination of DOE grants that were clearly motivated by political leanings were improper. OMB is merely using another avenue to promulgate the same inappropriate outcomes.
Furthermore, the “English-only” mandate effectively discriminates based on national origin, violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act by excluding limited-English-proficient communities from federally funded programs.
Immediate Consequences for Communities
The Trump Administration’s efforts to impose its “anti-DEIA” policies have already resulted in the cancellation of critical public health projects, including lead water line replacements in Michigan, asthma-monitoring air stations in Texas, and climate resilience hubs in the Southeast. Finalizing these regulations will amplify such harms by orders of magnitude across 42 federal agencies, threatening the very people and communities Congress intends to support.
“This regulation, if implemented, will cause the loss of innocent American lives,” the submission warns. “It will jeopardize the effective delivery of essential services… that millions of Americans rely upon every day.”
Replacing Scientific Integrity with Politics
The proposed regulations would jeopardize the quality of American science and technology research. By mandating “pre-issuance” political review of grants, the rule threatens to replace objective, multidisciplinary peer review with subjective, ideologically driven “alignment” checks.
By introducing subjective, ill-defined criteria—such as compliance with the “national interest” or adherence to specific “President’s policy priorities”the rule empowers political appointees to override the recommendations of expert, multidisciplinary peer-review panels. This politicization undermines the integrity of critical research and services by prioritizing political alignment over scientific merit, public health outcomes, and the specific statutory missions of federal agencies.
If finalized, the rule would:
- Discourage International Collaboration: Restricting collaborative research undermines U.S. leadership in global science.
- Stifle Research Dissemination: New restrictions on conference participation, professional society memberships, and publication costs will isolate federally-funded researchers and prevent the sharing of critical findings.
- Create Funding Instability: Granting agencies the power to unilaterally suspend or terminate entire classes of awards based on “national interest” introduces market uncertainty, causing researchers to pivot away from complex, long-term projects like cancer research and climate resilience as well as increasing costs for procuring services and equipment due to uncertainty over the stability of funding.
WHAT COMES NEXT
OMB has stated that it plans to make this rule effective by October 1, roughly seven weeks from the end of the comment period. During that time, OMB must give individual consideration to nearly 500,000 comments. This record also goes to the courts if the rule is challenged. Under the APA, comments alone don’t stop a rule, but a rule that ignores unique substantive comments is vulnerable to a legal challenge once finalized.
###
About Lawyers for Good Government: Lawyers for Good Government (L4GG) is a nonprofit organization that harnesses the power of 125,000 lawyers, law students, and advocates in the fight for justice. We identify where lawyers can make the greatest impact and mobilize them to defend democracy and the rule of law, protect civil and human rights, and advance environmental justice through coordinated legal action and advocacy efforts that create meaningful change for all Americans. LawyersforGoodGovernment.org
About the Environmental Protection Network: The Environmental Protection Network is a nonpartisan organization comprising more than 800 former EPA scientists, toxicologists, chemists, biologists, engineers, and policy analysts — many of whom spent decades as career experts inside the agency. They assessed cancer and developmental risks, studied links between pollution and fertility and chronic disease, investigated contaminated communities, and brought enforcement actions to hold corporate polluters accountable. EPN was founded in 2017 to serve as an independent voice promoting science-based policies that protect families’ health.