Stand Up for Science challenges NSF grant policy changes

Stand Up for Science filed a public comment on NSF’s proposed grant policy changes, arguing the agency is moving too quickly to align with unfinished OMB rules. The group says the proposal could add burdens on universities, restrict collaboration and weaken civil rights protections as public comments remain open through Aug. 24, 2026.

Why it matters: - Stand Up for Science says the National Science Foundation’s proposal could reshape how federal grant rules affect universities, researchers and science funding. - The group argues the changes could increase administrative burdens, limit international collaboration and affect civil rights-related requirements tied to grants. - The comment arrives as the broader OMB rulemaking remains unfinished and continues to draw pushback from the scientific community.

What happened: - Stand Up for Science submitted a public comment to the Federal Register on behalf of its foundation in response to NSF’s proposal to update grant policies. - The NSF proposal would align its grantmaking rules with OMB’s proposed “Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance.” - Stand Up for Science announced an Action Center to help people submit their own comments on the NSF proposal. - The public comment period for the NSF proposal runs through Aug. 24, 2026.

The details: - The comment asks NSF to withdraw the proposal until OMB issues final agency action. - Stand Up for Science says the proposal removes requirements tied to statutory civil rights obligations. - The group says the proposal creates conflicts through restrictions on international collaboration. - The comment says the NSF plan would use more intensive information collection requirements to extend regulatory control over institutes of higher education. - Cole Donovan, the group’s director of policy, said the NSF move to “pre-align” its grantmaking rules before the OMB proposal is finalized is unusual. - Donovan pointed to ongoing litigation over related executive orders and thousands of public comments OMB has not yet addressed. - Donovan also said using information collection tied to federal grants to regulate speech and academic freedom would go beyond NSF’s authority. - Donovan said the new requirements would shift information collection from funding accountability to institutional and individual control. - The comment says the NSF revisions, combined with the President’s executive orders and the proposed OMB requirements, would create more institutional obligations and higher costs for grant recipients. - The full text of the comment is available on the SUFS Foundation website.

Between the lines: - The fight is not just about grant administration. It is also about how much leverage the federal government should have over universities through funding شروط and reporting rules. - Stand Up for Science is trying to turn the comment period into a broader organizing effort, building on its earlier mobilization against the OMB proposal. - The group is framing NSF’s move as part of a larger political push to exert more control over science institutions. - Dr. Colette Delawalla, the group’s founder and CEO, said the pre-emptive alignment with OMB would add “fuel to the fire” under scientific institutions and amounts to overreach.

What’s next: - Stand Up for Science is hosting live workshops to help people draft comments for the Federal Register. - The Action Center includes tools and a portal for submitting comments on the NSF proposal. - Donovan and Delawalla are available for comment.

The bottom line: - Stand Up for Science is pressing NSF to pause its grant policy rewrite until OMB finishes its rulemaking, setting up another public fight over federal power, university autonomy and science policy.