A Grants Rulebook Rewrite Drew Half a Million Comments in 45 Days
Summary
On May 29, 2026, [OMB and 41 other federal agencies proposed rewriting](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/05/29/2026-10817/regulation-for-federal-financial-assistance) the rulebook that governs federal grants, turning a decade of advisory 'guidance' into one binding regulation -- and gave the public 45 days to weigh in, half the [90 days OMB allowed in 2013](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2013/02/01/2013-02113/reform-of-federal-policies-relating-to-grants-and-cooperative-agreements-cost-principles-and) when it first wrote this rulebook. By the deadline, the docket had drawn 496,775 comments -- and OMB's own [Regulatory Impact Analysis](https://downloads.regulations.gov/OMB-2026-0034-0038/content.pdf) says it cannot quantify what the rewrite will cost or what it will save.
Guidance becomes law
Since 2013, 2 CFR Part 200 has functioned as guidance: a template each grantmaking agency separately adopted into its own regulations. The 2026 proposal⧉ changes that structure directly -- proposes to issue Part 200 itself as a government-wide regulation with binding legal effect, replacing the old two-step process ( guidance, then 41 separate agency rulemakings adopting it) with one rule that applies everywhere the day it takes effect. Substantively, 's own Regulatory Impact Analysis⧉ groups the changes into six areas: tighter subrecipient monitoring; new payment-accountability steps, including a requirement that recipients and subrecipients use the federal E-Verify system; clarified authority for agencies to terminate or suspend awards; alignment of nondiscrimination and other award terms with current executive-branch policy; strengthened domestic-preference requirements for purchases made with grant funds; and new restrictions on foreign entities' participation in federally funded research.
OMB's own math: unquantified
A Regulatory Impact Analysis is supposed to weigh a rule's costs against its benefits. 's own analysis of this one⧉ does neither: ' was unable to quantify the expected costs of the rule,' and 'due to data limitations, the benefits of the proposed rule remain unquantified.' The single dollar figure does put on the rule concerns a narrow provision barring grant funds from covering publication and printing costs, including open-access journal fees -- a change estimates will cut about $300 million a year in payments to grant recipients. That is the only monetized line in a document rewriting the rulebook for grants that sent state and local governments alone an estimated $1,107.6 billion in FY2024⧉ -- 16% of all federal outlays -- and that also governs money flowing to universities, nonprofits, and other non-governmental recipients not counted in that total.
View data as table
| 30 days -- shorter option OMB considered | 30 | Rejected as too short to gather adequate input |
|---|---|---|
| 45 days -- window OMB chose for 2026 | 45 | |
| 60 days -- longer option OMB considered | 60 | Rejected as too slow to hit the Oct. 1 target |
| 90 days -- window OMB gave in 2013 | 90 |
Half the runway, five times the traffic
The Federal Register page for the 2026 proposal had logged 392,382 views by the morning of July 16 -- exceptional traffic for a rulemaking about grants administration, a subject that rarely draws public attention outside the organizations that depend on federal funding. The comment volume tracks that interest: 496,775 filed in a 45-day window works out to about 11,039 a day, against a 90-day window in 2013 that gave commenters twice as long to respond to a narrower set of changes. 's stated reason for the shorter window was procedural -- finalizing by October 1, 2026 keeps a single rulebook in force for the whole of fiscal year 2027, rather than agencies operating under old and new rules simultaneously. Whether that scheduling goal survives contact with the size of the public response is not yet known; has not indicated whether the volume of comments will change its finalization timeline.
- is converting a decade of advisory guidance into binding law, on a compressed timeline. The 45-day comment period was 's own choice among three options it says it considered (30, 45, and 60 days) -- and is half the 90 days the public got the last time this rulebook was rewritten, in 2013.
- The rulemaking's own economic analysis can't say what it costs or saves. 's Regulatory Impact Analysis states outright that both the costs and the benefits of the rule are unquantified; the sole monetized estimate in the document -- a roughly $300 million/year cut in publication-cost transfers -- covers one narrow provision, not the rule as a whole.
- The public response was unusually large for a technical rulemaking. Nearly 500,000 comments and almost 400,000 page views arrived for a proposal about grants administration -- a domain that seldom generates public traffic at this scale -- within a window itself set shorter than precedent.
The $1,107.6 billion figure describes federal grants to state and local governments only, per 's own FY2025 budget tables as reported by ; 2 CFR Part 200 also governs assistance to universities, nonprofits, and tribal governments not counted in that total, so it understates the full scope of spending this rulebook covers. The 496,775 comment count and 392,382 page-view count are point-in-time reads from the Federal Register's own live tracking as of July 16, 2026, three days after the comment deadline; both were still rising as regulations.gov processed submissions, and had not indicated a final-rule timeline as of this writing. The 42-agency count ( plus 41 others) is drawn from the rule's own masthead; the Federal Register's API tags 44 entities for this document because it separately lists some parent and constituent agencies -- the 42 figure here matches the rule's own signatory list.
Sources(4) ▾
- Office of Management and Budget, joined by 41 other federal agencies (Federal Register), Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance (FR Doc. 2026-10817, 91 FR 32198) (2026-05-29) — The proposed rule itself: 's rewrite of 2 CFR Part 200 (the 'Uniform Guidance') into a binding 'Uniform Grants Regulation,' co-proposed with 41 other federal agencies. Evidences the rule's scope, its 45-day comment period and the 30/60-day alternatives considered, its October 1, 2026 target effective date, and — via the Federal Register's own live document-statistics and Regulations.gov integration embedded in the page — the running public-comment count and page-view count as of the access date. Fetched via a direct HTTPS request (the page returns a bot-challenge to some automated fetchers; a plain HTTP client with no special headers retrieved it cleanly) and cross-checked against the Federal Register's public JSON API for the same document number, which independently returned the same comment count. federalregister.gov · original document
- Office of Management and Budget, via Regulations.gov docket OMB-2026-0034, Regulatory Impact Analysis of Proposed Revisions to 2 CFR (Regulations.gov doc. OMB-2026-0034-0038) (2026-05-29) — 's own cost-benefit analysis supporting the proposed rule, filed as a supporting document to the NPRM on the official docket. Evidences that 's own analysis could not quantify the rule's costs or benefits, and the one transfer effect it did estimate (a ~$300 million/year cut in publication-cost transfers). Downloaded directly from Regulations.gov's own file-hosting endpoint (a browser-identifying HTTP client was needed; a bare request was blocked by the host's edge network, a routine anti-scraping measure, not a sign the document is unofficial). A Wayback Machine save request for this PDF was attempted at read time but was rate-limited by archive.org before a snapshot completed; the direct regulations.gov download link above is itself the government's permanent hosting location for this docket document and was used as the one-click original in its place. downloads.regulations.gov · original document
- Congressional Research Service (via EveryCRSReport.com mirror), Federal Grants to State and Local Governments: Trends and Issues (CRS Report R40638, updated June 26, 2025) (2025-06-26) — Nonpartisan Congressional Research Service report tabulating federal grants to state and local governments from 's own budget tables. Evidences the FY2024 total ($1,107.6 billion, 16.0% of federal outlays, 3.9% of ) used here as the scale of the money this guidance governs for one category of recipients (state and local governments); the rule also covers grants to universities, nonprofits, and other non-governmental recipients not counted in this total. everycrsreport.com · original document
- Office of Management and Budget (Federal Register), Reform of Federal Policies Relating to Grants and Cooperative Agreements; Cost Principles and Administrative Requirements (Including Single Audit Act) (FR Doc. 2013-02113, 78 FR 7282) (2013-02-01) — 's 2013 proposed rule that became the original Uniform Guidance — the predecessor this 2026 proposal now rewrites. Evidences the comment-period length gave the public the last time it rewrote this rulebook (90 days, Feb. 1 to May 2, 2013), the comparison point for this piece's 45-day figure. federalregister.gov · original document
Comments
Always open. Logged-in readers can annotate paragraphs in place.
On May 29, 2026, the Office of Management and Budget, joined by 41 other federal agencies, published a proposed rule⧉ rewriting 2 CFR Part 200 -- the 'Uniform Guidance' that has governed federal grants since 2013 -- and reclassifying it from advisory guidance into a single binding 'Uniform Grants Regulation.' gave the public 45 days to comment, saying in its own preamble that it weighed both a shorter 30-day window and a longer 60-day one before settling on 45. That is half the 90 days allowed the last time it rewrote this rulebook, in 2013⧉. By the July 13 deadline, the docket held 496,775 comments -- roughly 11,000 for every day it was open. 's own Regulatory Impact Analysis⧉ states plainly that it could not quantify the rule's costs, and that its benefits 'remain unquantified.'