
Frogmarch
I am not calendar-blind, but I am disabled around dates. I frequently get today’s date wrong, and dates for future stuff tend not to stick in my mind—or I have them wrong. But I am accurate about days of the week. So I know today is Tuesday. I also know Tuesday is Pre-Election (Primary) Day here in California. I just didn’t get that it’s this Tuesday. Today, when I don’t have a car. So I’ll walk a couple of miles to the nearest drop-off. En route, I will pass the slimmed-down frog shrine. Hence the subhead.
Update: Got a ride, a coffee, and great conversation with Bruce Caron, who read the above and texted me to offer a ride. Blogging works after all!
Mark that word
Human AgenTcy, by Keith Teare. I’ve capitalized the T in the latter so you don’t miss it. I did at first. Easy to do.
I especially like the one for Wi-Fi diagnostics
Nikhil Vemu:17 macOS Terminal Commands I Actually Use Every Week
It’s far worse than it appears
Elizabeth Ginexi looked into the Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance, for which the comment period ends on July 13. Her take on May 28:
- Political Appointees Take Control of Grant Awards (§200.205)
- Peer Review Is No Longer Binding (§200.205(d)
- “Gold Standard Science” as an Undefined Political Test (§200.205)
- Active Grants Can Be Terminated at Any Time, for Any Reason (§200.340)
- DEI, Gender Research, and Related Topics Banned as Grant Conditions (§200.300)
- Broad Prohibition on International Scientific Collaboration (§200.220)
- “Domestic-First” Framework for Research Awards (§200.202(e))
- Applicants Can Be Denied Based on Organizational “Affiliations” (§200.206)
- E-Verify Mandated for All Grant Recipients (§200.303)
- OMB Claims Direct Binding Authority Over All Agencies
- Conference Attendance Now Requires Express Agency Pre-Approval (§200.432)
- Professional Memberships Require Prior Approval and Must Be “Necessary” (§200.454)
- Publication Costs and Open Access Fees Presumptively Unallowable (§200.461)
- Public Communications and Outreach Severely Restricted (§200.421)
- New “Issue Advocacy” Prohibition (§200.450)
- Program Goals Must “Align with Administration Policies and Priorities” (§200.202)
- Agency Heads Can Exempt Grant Competitions from Public Notice (§200.204)
- Agencies Can Restrict Eligibility to Specific Nonprofit Categories (§200.202(d))
- OMB Gains Direct Oversight of Which Institutions Receive Grants
She begins her summary,
What OMB is proposing is not a reform of grants management. It is a complete political control apparatus layered over every stage of the federal science funding lifecycle.
And goes on from there, in detail.
Yesterday, June 1, she posted, This new OMB Rule Is Bigger Than Science. Much Bigger. Among much else, she writes,
2 CFR Part 200, the regulation being rewritten here, is not the science grants regulation. It is the universal legal framework governing every federal grant to every recipient across every agency in the federal government. When OMB rewrites it, they are rewriting the rules for all of it.
According to the Congressional Research Service, in FY2024 the federal government sent $1.1 trillion in grants to state and local governments. That money is what funds:
Medicaid — more than $600 billion, with the federal government covering between 50 and 77 cents of every dollar states spend on health care for their most vulnerable residents
Transportation — $95 billion for highways, bridges, transit systems, airports, and ports
Education — $65 billion for Title I schools, special education, Head Start, and workforce training
Food assistance — $51 billion
and much more
Every single one of those programs operates under 2 CFR Part 200. Every one of them is now subject to the same provisions I described last week.
Consider what that means in practice. Political appointees who can override expert judgment and block science grants that don’t advance the President’s priorities would have that same power over transportation awards, and housing funds, not just NIH applications. Any active grant could be canceled mid-project because it no longer serves ‘the national interest.’ A highway already under construction. A tribal health program mid-delivery. A city still rebuilding from a flood. And every new grant program must align with administration priorities before a single application is even solicited. Entire categories of funding can be quietly discontinued without a public announcement or a vote.
She concludes,
**How to write an effective Comment. Make it completely unique! Do not cut and paste.
**1: Say who you are and why you are qualified to comment. You do not need credentials. Being affected is enough, and simply being a concerned citizen is perfectly fine.
2: List the exact provision #s [PICK ONE or TWO FROM LIST ABOVE] that concern you, and explain what they would do. You do not need to quote the rule directly. Just explain what you understand it to mean in plain terms.
3: Explain the concrete harm. What would happen to you, your community, or your state if this provision takes effect?
4: Closing: State clearly what you want OMB to do. This can be as simple as: “I urge OMB to withdraw these specific provisions: §200.340, §200.202, §200.205.” or “I urge OMB not to finalize this rule.”
Submit your comment in opposition here: https://www.regulations.gov/document/OMB-2026-0034-0001 The deadline is July 13, 2026.
Now you know what to do.















