A.R.T. Public Comment on Office of Management and Budget’s Proposed Rule “Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance” (91 FR 32198)

The Archivists Round Table of Metropolitan New York, Inc. (A.R.T.) is writing to express its opposition to OMB Docket OMB-2026-0034. A.R.T. is composed of nearly 400 cultural heritage workers representing a diversity of cultural and governmental institutions, collections, archives, libraries, museums, and historic sites in the New York metropolitan area. Cultural heritage organizations (which are overwhelming non-profits) utilize federal grant programs to further their missions to safeguard historical documentation and ensure that our nation’s history is accessible to the public. If implemented, this proposed rule would limit access to critical programs at IMLS, NEA, NEH, among others. We ask that OMB reconsider the proposed rule as it unduly impacts the institutions and organizations that A.R.T. represents, as well as the cultural heritage field at large. Some of our major concerns are outlined in our comments below. 

Political Appointees Control Grant Awards Instead of Independent Peer-Reviewers (§200.205,  §200.205(d))

The proposed changes would demote independent peer reviewers to an advisory role while requiring that senior political appointees (or their designees) preapprove all top proposals before awards are finalized. Unbiased and nonpartisan peer review has always been the bedrock of grantmaking in the historic and scientific communities. Political appointees should be encouraged to defer to peer reviewers who, as experts in their fields, are far better equipped to determine whether proposed projects align with the goals and objectives of the federal agencies that support our country’s cultural heritage programs. 

Ideological Discrimination Against Viewpoints (§ 200.300, §200.205(b))

The prohibition of DEI and gender ideology from grant applications (§ 200.300) would  disproportionately burden and discourage archives, libraries, museums and other cultural institutions from seeking federal funding. As stewards of history, these organizations are uniquely positioned to interpret and understand our nation’s past, including by highlighting multiple perspectives and the cultural diversity of the American experience. This provision would undermine cultural heritage institutions who focus on civil rights and other institutions dedicated to preserving and interpreting culturally specific histories.

Furthermore, in recent cases such as American Council of Learned Societies et al. v. National Endowment for the Humanities, the courts determined that this administration’s termination of federal grants based on their purported promotion of DEI was unlawful and amounted to viewpoint discrimination. The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) used the same Executive Orders (such as Executive Order 14151 and 14168) cited in OMB’s proposed rule to define DEI and gender ideology. In practice, this definition of DEI led to DOGE’s illegal cancellation of grants that focused on research into the history of minority groups. Should the proposed rule go forward with these definitions of DEI and gender ideology, it could prevent federal funding from going to cultural heritage institutions whose collections contain significant documentation of historically marginalized communities. We recommend that all mentions of DEI and gender ideology be removed from the proposed rule. 

Finally, the wording of §200.205(b) as it refers to Executive Order 14332 on “anti American” values should be removed due to its vagueness and potential problematic interpretations and implementations. The public trusts archives, libraries and museums because they rely on independent scholarship and research, uphold high professional standards, and embrace open inquiry. These institutions often collect and display records for educational and research purposes that promote politically unpopular ideas, or histories that some may find offensive. Cultural heritage institutions applying for federal funds should not be disqualified or have to censor their collections out of fear that they are disfavored by current or future administrations. 

Active Grants Can Be Terminated at Will (§ 200.211, § 200.340, § 200.341, § 200.342, §200.343)

As has been pointed out by our colleagues in other fields, the proposed rule gives federal agencies the ability to terminate awards at any time. This change in OMB policy also eliminates the opportunity to appeal or schedule a hearing on the termination. This would leave grantees with no meaningful opportunity to understand, challenge, or respond to an unjustified cancellation of funding. Based on the federal government’s recent history of unlawful termination of previously awarded federal grants, grantees have reason to be concerned about entering into a grant agreement that could be canceled out of mistake or malice, while being left with no recourse to challenge potentially unfair, unjust, or mistaken terminations. 

Cultural heritage institutions make long-term budget and programming decisions based on grant proposals. The above provisions introduce new and unreasonable risks for institutions seeking federal funding.

If implemented, this proposed rule could exclude a significant percentage of cultural heritage institutions from receiving federal funds. We anticipate that many organizations would not be eligible to receive federal grants without significantly altering their activities and practices in order to align them with the political preferences of current or future administrations. This would result in increased financial pressure for non-profits in already challenging times. Therefore, we ask OMB to reconsider the proposed rule and delay any further implementation.

Sincerely,

The Archivists Round Table of Metropolitan New York, Inc., Advocacy Committee

A.R.T. Public Comment on OMB Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance-2.pdf