Third Act SoCal member Ken K., a physician and life-sciences executive, has written the following blog urging readers to submit comments opposing the U.S. Office of Management and Budget’s dangerous proposal to radically restructure how the federal government funds local programs critical to the future of this country. As Ken writes, this anti-democratic, anti-science revamp to grant-making would muzzle free speech by anyone who might want to seek federal funding—nonprofits as diverse and critical as the San Diego Natural History Museum, the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles and TreePeople–and weaponize federal funding to retaliate against anyone who doesn’t fall in line with the White House’s ideological agenda. Comments must be submitted by July 13, so we join Ken in urging comments on this proposal.
By Ken K.
The Office of Management and Budget is proposing a dramatic restructuring of how the federal government uses our tax dollars to support local communities. I was recently asked, “I’m not a scientist, why should I care about it?” and decided to peel away some of this proposal’s layers, without reference to science. What I found disturbed me profoundly; I hope this piece convinces you of the urgent need to comment on this proposal.
I work hard to earn a living and expect that the stewards of my tax dollars will follow a system of spending rules that is stable and reliable, that allocates money fairly, transparently, and equitably (e.g., based primarily on the merits of the application), that raises the standard of living for all Americans, and that is administered without bias. We have made great, albeit imperfect, strides towards these objectives; if implemented, this proposal would sweep away all that progress.
Why does it matter?
The government generally distributes money in five ways: 1.) direct payments to individuals (e.g., monthly Social Security checks) 2.) loans and loan guarantees 3.) insurance (e.g., federal crop insurance) 4.) contracts for materials and services 5.) grants to state/local governments, universities, and nonprofits (the proposal’s focus).
In dollar terms, nearly $1 trillion, spread across 1,183 grant programs and 42 different agencies, flows through mechanism 5.). By comparison, the US spent $1 trillion on the War on Terror (including Afghanistan, Iraq, and other operations) between 9/11/2001 and 2010. As a percentage of total outlays, more money (16% vs. 14%) goes to state and local government grants than towards the interest servicing the national debt. This contrast is underestimated, since official figures don’t directly reflect university and nonprofit grants.
Grants must not “promote anti-American values” and must “demonstrably advance the President’s policy priorities.”
This impacts urban and rural communities in both blue and red states.
Grantees falling under this rule include:
- San Diego, CA: social and human services programs, housing and community development block grants, public safety funds, highway/road and building projects, sanitation and water projects, after-school programs, small businesses, disaster victims (through FEMA), Medi-Cal, and Cal-Fresh.
- Joplin, MO: Homeless services, food banks, parks, stormwater drainage, and regional airport funding.
- Legal services organizations, e.g.: The Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, the San Diego Volunteer Lawyer Program, and Bet Tzedek Legal Services.
- Museums and arts organizations: Broad prohibitions on accessibility and DEI initiatives may threaten programming and policies by the San Diego Natural History Museum, the Museum of Us, the LA County Museum of Art, the Japanese American National Museum, and the Museum of Tolerance.
- The Tijuana River trash boom (2022) was partly funded by federal grants.
Heavier oversight and reporting burdens
Recent federal employment of grant recipients and staff, their actions that could cause reputational harm to the government, and certain criminal violations (e.g., fraud/misuse of immigration documents, making false statements) must be reported. These latter will be fast-tracked to DOJ.
All grant recipients and their staff must be processed through Homeland Security’s E-Verify program, which has been criticized for falsely flagging 0.15% of legitimately eligible Americans as ineligible for work, while missing up to 54% of ineligible workers. E-Verify results can be shared with ICE and Border Patrol.
Threats to business
Business agility depends on funding stability and predictability. However, political appointees can terminate funding at any time, at will. Sourcing and work must follow a “domestic-first” (e.g., Buy America) framework, with exceptions allowed only if the government considers it in the national interest. Even then, a vaguely defined list of “covered foreign countries (or entities)” limits allowable options. How this proposal intersects with Bayh-Dole legislation is not yet clear, but patent filings may entail increased cost, risk, and burden.
What can I do?
Ask yourself: if my tax dollars are not going to fund programs that benefit me or my community, then where are they going to go?
Then file comments here by July 13. Anyone, including non-citizens and residents of foreign countries, can file; anonymous submissions are accepted.
The Federal Grant Rules Action Center and American Public Health Association offer tools to help you write effective comments. A former NIH grants official has articulately laid out threats to science and provided detailed, pragmatic comment-writing advice.
When you write:
- Be clear (about why you are concerned)
- Be specific about which section of the proposal you are commenting on (see hyperlinked resources)
- Be personal about how this proposal will affect you, and
- Don’t be afraid. Others (80,803 as of 7-5-2026) are standing up with you, momentum is building in opposition, and you are the expert on what affects you.
In closing
Your comments matter! OMB must respond to all substantive comments before the rule can take effect, the entire record will be archived, and it can be used in future legal proceedings.
This is a serious threat that requires our entire community to mobilize. Please file comments and urge your legislators to fight this proposed rule.