The Job Isn’t Finished Yet: Standing Up for Grant Work in 2026

Public comments for the proposed changes to Uniform Guidance (2 CFR, Part 200) were due July 13, 2026. Sure, that date has come and gone, but the fight is far from over.

In a typical year, the next step would be for staff at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to review comments and use that feedback in considering whether proposed changes should be instituted or not. But let’s face it, 2026 is not a normal year. Our current administration is not following protocol, so let’s not assume it will start doing so now.

Your call to action today: reach out to your Representatives and Senators in Washington to let them know your thoughts and feelings about the proposed changes, particularly how they will negatively impact the work at your organizations. Also note that you want the nearly 500,000 comments received reviewed and taken seriously.

Not sure who your elected officials are? Find them HERE.

Before you reach out, have an outline of what you want to share about the proposed changes. You don’t need to comment on every single one; pick the ones that will most impact your organization and clients. Here’s a few that I consider the most egregious, by section in the Uniform Guidance document. I’ve lumped them into three overarching categories.

1. ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN ON GRANTEES

200.305 – Required payment requests from recipients and subrecipients to include justifications describing the purpose of the payment and the specific award-related work it supports

This step requires additional work (and time and money) for grantees, when the justification is already included in the grant application and the budget was approved by the funder. The mechanisms needed to ensure proper expenses align with the grant budget are already in place, as grantees already provide invoices, receipts, checks, and more to show they purchased items on the approved budget.

200.303(f) – All recipients and sub-recipients required to participate in the Department of Homeland Security’s E-Verify program for any work associated with federal grants

If you are going to require EVERY agency to participate in the Department of Homeland Security’s E-Verify program than the federal agency funding the grant program needs to include an automatic line item to cover the costs (personnel, technology, other expenses) so not to be a burden on agencies.

200.322 – Buy America requirements will extend to ALL federal awards, regardless of domestic production capacity

I’m a fan of purchasing items made in the United States, but not every supply, equipment, or machine required for every federal grant program is made in America. Research projects often require unique items that can only be found in another country. Let’s not stymie needed work simply because the United States cannot supply the resources needed for the project.

200.320 – Discourages cost-reimbursement contracts between recipients and vendors

The reasoning says that cost-reimbursement contracts allow vendors to raise the price of items. That is not true in my experience. Cost-reimbursement helps local governments, nonprofits, and other agencies spread the price of activities/work over the course of the program. Vendors are required to submit monthly receipts showing the work completed that month and the associated costs. This gives grant recipients the chance to review activities month by month to ensure the project is on track and on budget.

2. MAKING FEDERAL FUNDING MORE UNCERTAIN AND UNSTABLE 

200.332 – Pass-through entities must ensure that subrecipients do not take actions that could significantly damage the reputation of the pass-through entity, awarding Federal agency, or the Federal Government

The language in this section is way too vague. What does it mean “could significantly damage the reputation of the pass-through entity”. Regulation that leaves interpretation up to the whims of the person reading the guidance is no good.

200.340 – Federal agencies or pass-through entities may terminate a Federal award if the award no longer effectuates program goals, Federal agency priorities, or the national interest (or public interest) as they exist at the time of termination

Why would anyone go into contract with another entity if that project could be terminated at any time, all while the grant recipient is following the original rules set forth in the award agreement signed by all parties. This is going to cause heartache for everyone involved (from federal agencies to elected officials, to grant recipients and the communities they serve), if a grant is terminated every time there is a new administration or political party in charge. The term “the award no longer effectuates program goals, Federal agency priorities, or the national interest (or public interes)t” is much too vague. Basically, anyone could come in at any time and halt a grant in progress. The backlash will be brutal. Think about the number of infrastructures half-way built, community clinics serving people with drug dependency issues no longer operational, educational programs leaving kids in a lurch halfway through the school year, and more. If the program is approved and a grant contract is signed, it should be complete (unless there is true fraud at play), not terminated on the whim of a new priority.

200.342 – An agency may elect to engage with recipients before or after a discretionary termination, but would not be required to

If a termination takes place, recipients must be allowed to engage with the agency to find out why. Otherwise, no one will ever understand what went wrong. And if we don’t learn what the issues are, we will continue to make the same mistakes. The federal government is accountable to its citizens, and that includes grant recipients.

3. RISK OF POLITICIZING FEDERAL GRANT MAKING

200.202(d) – Federal agencies may restrict eligibility among different types of nonprofit organizations

Nonprofits do the work that the federal government is not able to do. Federal agencies should not get to decide which nonprofits they want to fund and those that they do not. This is a policy that will end up changing depending on the whim of whomever is in charge (are y’all noticing a common thread here?) – and that’s not how the world should work.

200.205 – Senior appointees must conduct reviews to ensure proposals advance the President’s policy priorities

Again, this vague language of “advance the President’s policy priorities” is not a good idea to include in federal regulation. These change at the whims of leaderships and by whichever individual or political party is in charge. Federal agencies, grant recipients, and sub-recipients will have whiplash trying to keep up with this regulation from month to month. Also, senior appointees only politicize the federal grant making process more than it already is. It is best to have subject matter experts review grant applications to determine which proposals best meet the goal of the grant program.

200.206 – Federal agencies may consider an applicant’s history of questionable practices based on publicly available and verifiable information when considering the risk posed by applicants

While it is wise to check on the status of organizations before awarding grant applications, such as reviewing previous audits, looking at past grant history, and seeing if they have the staff in place to implement the project, saying federal agencies may “consider an applicant’s history of questionable practices based on publicly available and verifiable information when considering the risks posed by applicants” is way too vague. Does this mean if an employee tweeted something disparaging about an elected official 10 years ago, that organization could be denied a grant award? Such language is open to interpretation. The backlash and resulting lawsuits will be staggering.

200.206 – Agencies may consider an applicant’s affiliations with organizations engaged in activities that undermine public safety or national security or advocate for the overthrow of the U.S. Government

Stating “an applicant’s affiliations with organizations engaged in activities that undermine public safety or national security or advocate for the overthrow of the U.S. Government” is again way too vague. It’s open to all sorts of interpretation. If an agency disagrees with a current policy, does that violate this new section?

200.218 – Government-wide policy that agencies and pass-through entities do not promote or support theories of disparate-impact liability (DEI)

Most nonprofits (and other agency types) work to provide quality services for ALL people. And when certain sub-sections of the population have been historically and systematically discriminated against, it is necessary to ensure policies, procedures, and programs implement diversity, equity, and inclusion. Denying this outright for EVERY agency in need of federal funding goes against the purpose of many organizations.

IN SUMMARY

There are even more discouraging items listed in the proposed changes to Uniform Guidance that could be detrimental to the organization(s) you serve. If you made a comment by the deadline, thank you. Either way, the next step is to notify your elected officials about the proposed changes and the impact it will have on communities across the nation. The fight is far from over.