July 1, 2026

Researchers who receive or apply for federal funding should be aware of a proposed Office of Management and Budget (OMB) rule that would significantly change how federal grants and cooperative agreements are reviewed, awarded, managed, and, in some cases, modified or terminated.

Published on May 29, 2026, the proposal would substantially revise the government-wide regulations governing federal financial assistance, commonly known as the Uniform Guidance. If finalized, it would mark one of the most significant changes to federal grant management in decades-affecting a framework that has been largely maintained and narrowly refined by both Democratic and Republican administrations.

The proposal would include grants and cooperative agreements awarded by agencies that support speech, language, swallowing, hearing, and balance research and education, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Education (ED), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Administration for Community Living (ACL), and other federal agencies.

Why This Is Happening

The proposed rule is part of the Trump Administration's effort to revise how federal financial assistance is awarded and managed. It would implement several executive orders issued since January 2025 by incorporating them into the government-wide regulations that govern federal grants and cooperative agreements. According to OMB, the proposal is intended to improve transparency, accountability, and oversight of federal funding while reducing administrative burden.

Anyone can provide feedback on the proposed rule in the form of public comments. Public comments on the proposed rule are due July 13, 2026.

Why This Matters

The communication sciences and disorders (CSD) discipline depends on federal research funding principally from NIH, ED, ACL, the National Science Foundation, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the Department of Defense. The research supported by these agencies is essential to advancing the prevention, detection, diagnosis, and treatment of conditions affecting human communication for tens of millions of Americans annually. This includes individuals with developmental language disorders; speech disorders; autism; acquired brain injuries; speech, voice, and swallowing disorders; hearing and balance disorders; and neurodegenerative conditions affecting communication, such as dementia, ALS, Parkinson's disease, and many others.

If finalized, the proposed rule could affect a broad range of federally supported activities, including:

• CSD research;
• Personnel preparation programs;
• Demonstration projects funded by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), ED, NIH, CDC, and ACL;
• Technical assistance centers;
• Interprofessional education initiatives; and
• Other grants supporting the CSD workforce.

Several provisions of the proposed rule may have implications for these activities, including the following:

• New "National Interest" Standards;
• New Restrictions on Certain Grant Activities;
• New Restrictions on Scientific Collaboration and Dissemination;
• Changes During an Active Grant; and
• New Considerations for Research Partnerships.

New "National Interest" Standards

The proposal would require federal financial assistance to align with new "national interest" standards. Although the proposed rule identifies national interest as a factor for grant selection, continuation, and termination, OMB does not define the term.

Researchers have expressed concern that this provision could influence funding priorities and introduce uncertainty beyond the traditional scientific merit review process.

Many research studies require a longitudinal design, following participants over several years to better understand long-term outcomes. In CSD, longitudinal research is essential to studying change over time in cases such as language development, recovery following stroke, educational outcomes after cochlear implantation, and the effectiveness of swallowing treatment for people with neurodegenerative diseases.

Without a clear definition of national interest, researchers may be concerned that interpretation of the standard could change over time, creating uncertainty for long-term projects that span multiple years or presidential administrations, regardless of their scientific merit or potential to improve public health.

New Restrictions on Certain Grant Activities

The proposal introduces new provisions related to activities described as "anti-American." Because these terms are not clearly defined, researchers may have questions about how the provisions could be interpreted and whether they could affect federally funded research, training, or other grant-supported activities.

That uncertainty could lead institutions to take a more cautious approach to research topics, collaborations, or outreach activities, even when they are scientifically sound.

Researchers have raised questions about whether studies examining health disparities, community-based interventions, or international comparisons could receive additional scrutiny depending on how the provision is interpreted.

New Restrictions on Scientific Collaboration and Dissemination

Progress in CSD-and the U.S.' role as a global leader in CSD research-depends on collaboration across institutions, disciplines, and international research partners. It also depends on researchers' ability to disseminate findings that improve clinical care, education, and future scientific discovery.

Several provisions-including those related to foreign collaboration and language access, conference attendance, and publications-could affect how researchers conduct collaborative projects, communicate research findings, and engage with diverse populations.

Scientific meetings and conferences play a critical role in the research process. They provide opportunities for researchers to present preliminary findings, receive peer feedback, establish collaborations, and share methodological advances before formal publication. They also provide forums for researchers and clinical practitioners to engage in discussion, which is critical to the development of feasible clinical protocols and to the adoption and adaptation of research into practice.

Changes During an Active Grant

The proposal would expand agencies' ability to add new terms and conditions to existing awards and broaden the circumstances under which awards could be terminated. For principal investigators and research institutions, changing grant requirements during an active award period could create uncertainty for ongoing projects, budgets, staffing, and long-term research planning.

If finalized, agencies could modify certain grant conditions after an award has been issued. For researchers, this could mean new reporting requirements, additional prior approvals, different payment mechanisms, or other administrative requirements after work has already begun and financial commitments have been made.

Researchers make long-term commitments based on the terms of an awarded grant, including hiring staff, purchasing equipment, enrolling participants, and establishing research partnerships. Changes during an active award could disrupt project timelines, budgets, and research activities, particularly for smaller institutions and early-career investigators.

For the CSD research community, interruptions to multi-year studies can have lasting consequences. For example:

• A five-year NIH-funded longitudinal study of language development in children with autism spectrum disorder cannot simply be stopped at year three without undermining the scientific value of data already collected from enrolled children and their families.
• A clinical trial of a new hearing restoration intervention that is terminated mid-protocol leaves participants without the treatment or monitoring that the protocol provides, raising serious research ethics concerns.

New Considerations for Research Partnerships

The proposal would also require recipients to consider whether a subrecipient has engaged in activities that could "damage the reputation" of the federal government when making subawards. Because the proposal does not define this standard, some researchers and institutions have raised questions about how it could affect collaborations among universities, hospitals, and other research partners.

Additional impacts could include increased administrative and reporting requirements for grant recipients and additional compliance reviews for federally funded projects, which will not reduce administrative burden.

What You Can Do

Researchers, faculty, clinicians, and other grant recipients have an opportunity to help shape the final rule by submitting comments to OMB. ASHA encourages members to share how the proposed changes could affect:

• Merit-based scientific funding decisions;
• Collaboration with domestic and international research partners;
• Dissemination of research findings to clinicians, educators, researchers, policymakers, and the public;
• The stability of grant requirements throughout an award period; and
• Research that advances evidence-based care for people with communication and swallowing disorders.

To make participating easier, ASHA has created an online comment form that allows members to submit personalized comments directly to OMB. Members are encouraged to personalize their comments by describing how the proposed rule could affect their research, institution, or the people they serve.

Use ASHA's online advocacy form to submit your comments.

Questions?

Email Bill Knudsen, ASHA's director of education policy, at [email protected].