The federal government is proposing sweeping changes to the way research grants are awarded and managed. If adopted, these changes would mandate greater political involvement in funding decisions, weaken independent peer review, make it easier for the government to terminate grants after they have been awarded, and discourage international scholarly collaboration.
For decades, the federal grantmaking process has supported historians, museums, archives, libraries, historic sites, and community organizations in every US state and territory. The strength of this system has always been its commitment to expert, nonpartisan peer review and merit-based decisionmaking.
The American Historical Association submitted a public comment opposing these changes on July 8. Now, we need historians across the country to make their voices heard.
Make Your Voice Heard! Take Action by July 13, 2026
Please submit your own public comment to the Office of Management and Budget by July 13, 2026. We suggest you take the following steps:
- Read the AHA’s public comment and/or our key concerns (posted below under Why This Matters).
- Draft a comment (it doesn’t have to be long–even a brief comment can make a difference!)
- Follow the guidelines shared in the AHA’s Responding to Federal Regulations.
- Submit your comment through regulations.gov.
Why This Matters
The proposed rule would fundamentally change how federal research grants are administered. Our key concerns include the following:
- It would weaken independent peer review.
Political appointees could play a greater role in evaluating proposals before funding decisions are made (§200.205), which would undermine the independence and integrity of the peer-review process that is the foundation of the nation’s internationally respected research enterprise. Independent, expert-driven peer review has long protected federal research from corruption, fraud, and favoritism and ensures taxpayer dollars are awarded based on a proposal’s methodological rigor and scholarly merit. - It would make awarded grants less secure.
The proposed process for terminating discretionary awards (§200.340) would expand agencies’ ability to terminate discretionary grants after they have been awarded. Historians and museums, archives, and other institutions could lose funding for projects already underway. Rescinding funds for these projects would disrupt cutting-edge research, leave researchers uncertain about the continued availability of awarded funds, and negatively impact the economic health of affected communities —as we witnessed last year when the mass termination of awarded NEH grants resulted in financial shocks to institutions across the country. - It would discourage international collaboration.
The proposed rule undercuts collaborations between American and international scholars and students by applying “a domestic-first framework” and requiring all projects to be “in the national interest of the United States” (§200.202). This rule would decimate the international network of scholars in all disciplines from which the United States has long benefited. Scholarly collaborations and advancement must cross national borders.
The proposed revisions to §200.205, §200.340, and §200.202 would, individually and together, shift federal grant administration away from the merit-based, expert-driven framework that has sustained American research leadership for more than seven decades. For historical scholarship specifically, the consequences would be severe and concrete: peer review displaced by political appointee approval, multiyear projects subject to termination without cause, and international collaborations constrained by an undefined compliance standard.
The AHA’s comment urges OMB to:
- not finalize §200.205 as proposed
- retain the existing compliance-based standard in §200.340
- remove the “domestic-first framework” requirement from §200.202
Stand up for history. Your voice matters!