A sweeping federal proposal that would change how the U.S. government awards research grants could shake the very foundation of the agricultural science American farmers depend on every season. With a public comment deadline of July 13, growers and agriculture professionals have only a narrow window to make their voices heard on a decision that could directly affect productivity, profitability, and the nation’s long-term competitiveness.
On May 29, the White House Office of Management and Budget released a 412-page proposed rule rewriting the federal Uniform Guidance, the common rulebook that governs how every federal agency, including the U.S. Department of Agriculture, awards and oversees grant funding. The proposal revises more than 320 provisions, and if finalized, it would take effect October 1, 2026.
The stakes for agriculture are considerable. The USDA’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture distributes more than 1.5 billion dollars in federal funding each year to universities for agricultural research, with the bulk going to land-grant universities. These institutions are the workhorses behind disease-resistant crop varieties, pest and pathogen management tools, and the soil and yield science that farmers rely on. According to USDA’s Economic Research Service, every dollar invested in public agricultural research returns roughly 20 dollars in benefits to the U.S. economy. Losing the ability to count on these funds could threaten vital advancements in soil health, input efficiency, and crop productivity, while slowing economic gains for the whole country.
Two changes in particular have drawn attention from stakeholders across agriculture. The first is a reduced role for scientific peer review. Independent expert review, the decades-old system of subject-matter experts judging proposals on merit, would shift from a decision-making role to an advisory one, with final authority moving to political appointees. The second is expanded grant cancellation authority. Federal agencies would gain broad power to terminate research projects already underway as federal priorities shift, even when that research is meeting its goals.
For farmers, those changes are not abstract. They introduce real uncertainty into long-term investments like plant-breeding programs and multi-year field trials. A project cut short could mean lost data, lost plant material, and lost funding, delaying or derailing the very innovations producers count on to stay competitive.
The ripple effects reach past federal dollars. Commodity boards invest growers’ own money in research that is often leveraged with federal grants. So a cancelled grant, or a merit review overridden by political appointees, puts that grower investment at risk right alongside the public one.
Lindsey du Toit, professor and chair of the Department of Plant Pathology at Washington State University, put it plainly. When a project is cut halfway through, we don’t just lose a study, she said. We lose the answers to growers’ questions that we were counting on addressing for the next seasons. Growers need to know this is happening, and that there’s a short window to be heard.
The proposed rule would also tighten limits on international research collaboration. Because destructive crop pests and plant diseases move easily across borders, scientists rely on global cooperation for early warning and rapid response to emerging threats. Additional provisions would restrict federal grant support for scientific publishing costs and conference attendance, limiting how new agricultural knowledge reaches Extension agents, growers, and the broader scientific community.
Carolee Bull, president of The American Phytopathological Society, framed the issue in terms farmers know well. Farmers count on research being judged by whether it works in the field, not by who happens to be in office, she said. Peer review is how we make sure public dollars support science most likely to protect crops and yields.
Taken together, the proposal signals a historic shift in how the U.S. funds research and promotes scientific discovery for agriculture and beyond.
For those who want to weigh in, the process is straightforward but time-sensitive. Stakeholders can submit comments to OMB through Regulations.gov under Docket OMB-2026-0034, highlighting specific examples of how research impacts commodity groups, growers, and regional economies. They can engage their Congressional delegation to share how federally funded agricultural research supports producers in their state and the risks posed by the proposed changes. And they can coordinate with peer organizations to amplify the collective voice of U.S. agriculture. The deadline to act is 11:59 p.m. EDT on July 13, 2026.
The American Phytopathological Society is a non-profit, professional organization of 3,600 plant pathology scientists and practitioners working to safeguard agriculture.
To learn more about the proposed rule and how to submit comments, visit Regulations.gov under Docket OMB-2026-0034, or contact The American Phytopathological Society at www.apsnet.org.
