Let's Destroy American Science - NASA Watch

Support NASAWatch – Our Next Chapter

News

Education

Personnel News

Policy

Commercialization

Exploration

Space & Planetary Science

Congress

ISS News

Artemis

SLS and Orion

Advertising

Log In

Subscribe

Policy

Let’s Destroy American Science

By<br>Keith Cowing

NASA Watch

June 9, 2026

Filed under<br>NASA, OMB, TrumpSpace, white house

Let’s Destroy American Science — NASAWatch.com

Keith’s note: The Federal Government recently issued "Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance" which, if implemented, would gut the way that American science has been evaluated and conducted for the better part of a century. At a time when the avowed stance of the Administration to pursue "Gold Standard Science" and assert global leadership in science and technology this regulation would infect it with politics, fatally hamper its ability to thrive, and turn it into lead instead of gold. Below is commentary by planetary scientist Mark Sykes (who is also a lawyer). Full text below:

COMMENTARY: OPPOSITION TO OMB PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS TO REGULATIONS FOR FEDERAL GRANTS

The following is my personal opinion and does not represent the view of the Planetary Science Institute and does not make any representations on behalf of the Planetary Science Institute.

I have been an active planetary scientist for 45 years, funded by federal awards primarily from NASA. I have served on numerous NASA advisory groups and panels, including advising on the grant selection process of a number of NASA programs. I have been a community advocate for federal funding of planetary-related grant programs and have testified before Congress on the subject.

I have been a community leader, chairing the Division for Planetary Sciences of the American Astronomical Association. For more than 20 years, I was CEO of the Planetary Science Institute, during which I built it into one of the largest private employers of planetary scientists in the world.

I retired from that position a little more than a year ago. As a “soft-money” institution, PSI depends upon being successful in the competitive acquisition of grant and contract awards. In that position I became quite familiar with the Uniform Guidance (2CFR200) and its antecedent regulations. I am consequently alarmed by the OMB proposal “Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance” and feel that it should be withdrawn or otherwise rejected in its entirety.

This proposal reflects anti-American and anti-science (equivalent to anti-God) values, it reduces the return on investment in federally funded science to the American taxpayer, it encourages corruption, it decreases transparency to the public, it cripples important international collaborations, and it is fundamentally uninformed and poorly crafted.

The consequences to organizations like PSI and American science in general will be devastating. Even if a new Administration comes in two years from now and reverses everything, the damage will continue to be felt for years to come, and perhaps be irreversible.

Comments on some specific proposed provisions (not exhaustive) reinforce this perspective (provisions listed in the above Federal Register link):

§200.202(a)(iii) For the American people to get the maximum return on their tax dollar investment in science programs, federal grant programs cannot be designed around politics reflected in administration policies and priorities as articulated to date. This is regardless of party.

§200.202(c) This is redundant with existing agency policies and practice.

§200.202(d) Existing cost-principles in the Uniform Guidance prohibit any organization of any type from using funds from a financial assistance award for unallowable activities like political advocacy (this includes indirect costs generated by such an award). Different types of non-profit institutions should not be excluded per se.

§200.202(e)(1) An agency senior appointee (aka political officer) should not have the authority to authorize federal awards for research and development to foreign entities otherwise statutorily ineligible for such awards.

§202.202(e)(2) “Domestic-first” is very vague and provides no guidance. “International elements” is overly vague and would even include collaborations on a no-exchange-of-funds basis. In 200.205(e)(5), “international elements” would include an American scientist attending a scientific conference outside of the US, making all this exceptionally burdensome. This does not appreciate that American science has and continues to greatly benefit from international collaborations.

§200.202(e)(3). Poorly written. Adds a lot of burden to the agency. Assessments of foreign element value (if legal) are already part of the peer-review process.

§200.202(e)(4). This should be governed by statute.

§200.202(e)(5). This should be governed by statute.

§200.202(f). Ignorant. The vast number of federal grant awards (certainly by NASA and NSF) are...