Stand Up for Science challenges NSF grant policy changes

Stand Up for Science filed a public comment Wednesday urging the National Science Foundation to withdraw proposed grant policy changes tied to an unfinished White House budget rule. The group says the move could expand federal control over universities and add burdens for grant recipients while public comments remain open through Aug. 24, 2026.

Why it matters: - Stand Up for Science says the NSF proposal could reshape how federal grants are administered before the underlying White House rule is final. - The group argues the changes could weaken civil rights safeguards, complicate international collaboration and increase reporting demands on universities. - The comment filing adds pressure to a broader fight over how much control the federal government should have over research funding and academic institutions.

What happened: - Stand Up for Science submitted a public comment to the Federal Register on behalf of its foundation responding to the National Science Foundation’s proposed grant policy update. - The NSF proposal would align agency grant rules with the Office of Management and Budget’s proposed “Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance.” - The OMB proposal is not finalized. - Cole Donovan, Stand Up for Science’s director of policy, called the NSF’s move to “pre-align” its grantmaking rules unusual while litigation continues over related executive orders and OMB still has thousands of comments to review. - Stand Up for Science launched an Action Center to help advocates file comments on the NSF proposal. - The NSF comment period runs through Aug. 24, 2026. - Stand Up for Science is also holding live workshops to help people draft comments.

The details: - The comment asks NSF to withdraw the proposal until OMB issues final agency action. - The filing says the proposal would remove requirements tied to statutory civil rights obligations. - The filing says the proposal creates conflicts through restrictions on international collaboration. - The filing says the proposal would impose broader information-collection requirements on institutions of higher education. - Donovan said using grant-related information collection to regulate speech and academic freedom at universities exceeds NSF authority. - Donovan said the new requirements would shift information collection from accountability to institutional and individual control. - The comment says the NSF revisions, combined with the president’s executive orders and the proposed OMB requirements, would create added institutional obligations and significant financial burdens for grant recipients. - The full text of the comment is available on the SUFS Foundation website. - Dr. Colette Delawalla, Stand Up for Science’s founder and CEO, said the pre-emptive alignment with OMB would intensify political control over grant funding.

Between the lines: - Stand Up for Science is trying to turn the NSF proposal into part of the same public backlash that hit the OMB rule. - The group’s messaging frames the issue less as a paperwork update and more as a test of federal influence over universities and scientific speech. - By building a comment campaign and workshops, Stand Up for Science is converting policy opposition into public organizing.

What's next: - NSF can consider the public comments before moving ahead with the proposal. - Stand Up for Science plans to keep promoting comments through its Action Center and workshops. - Donovan and Delawalla are available for comment. - The proposal remains open for public comment until Aug. 24, 2026.

The bottom line: - Stand Up for Science is pressing NSF to pause a grant policy rewrite until the White House finishes its own rulemaking, arguing the agency is moving too fast and expanding federal control too far.