Skip to content
News and updates

Category: Administration

House Committee Passes “Less Bureaucracy, Better Education” Package

Posted on

In the latest effort by Republicans to dismantle the Department of Education, the House Education and Workforce Committee passed 10 bills out of committee yesterday which would codify the Trump administration’s plan to transfer ED responsibilities to other federal agencies. The “Less Bureaucracy, Better Education” Legislative Package includes:

All but one bill in the package passed with unanimous support from the Republican majority, who argued that the bills would prevent fraud and waste in the education system. The Wednesday meeting, which lasted over six hours, featured strong opposition from Democrats who argued these interagency agreements would create more bureaucracy and worsen student outcomes.

If the package were to pass the House, it would face significant challenge from the Senate, where not all Republicans support dismantling the department.

UW Submits Comment Opposing Proposed Changes to Uniform Guidance

Posted on

The comment period for OMB’s proposed changes to the Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance (known as Uniform Guidance) closed last night at 11:59pm Eastern. The University of Washington has submitted a formal letter expressing concerns related to OMB’s proposed changes, based on feedback received from the UW community.

In summary,

“The proposed changes in the Uniform Guidance, shifting it to a set of uniform grant regulations, would undermine what is a revered pillar of American greatness; our scientific enterprise. Our nation has benefited enormously from a research funding system grounded in scientific excellence, peer review, and long-term investment. It has allowed us to be the world’s economic driver for generations. Our nation should invest in science, including a funding framework that promotes scientific independence from political interference, stability, and evidence-based decision making, to preserve our dominance. These changes will only undermine our leadership. The University of Washington urges OMB to withdraw the proposed rule entitled “Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance” in its entirety.”

The full UW comment letter is available here.

The proposed effective date for the new guidance is October 1, 2026. When the comment period closed last night, OMB had received 496,769 comments, which are public record and will continue to be published here.

Additional comment letters:

In addition, this tracker from APLU contains up-to-date information of letters sent by Members of Congress regarding Uniform Guidance.

Sen. Collins Asks OMB to Withdraw Parts of Grant Rule, Extend Comment Period

Posted on

Senator Susan Collins (R-ME), who chairs the Senate Appropriations Committee, sent a letter yesterday to White House Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought, asking him to extend the comment deadline for OMB’s proposed revisions to Uniform Guidance by 45 days and to withdraw portions of the rule. Collins specifically objected to the following provisions:

  • Allowing federal agencies to terminate discretionary grants at any time without an appeal process opportunity
  • Requiring senior political appointees to approve grants, noting “this additional review for awards that have already been selected through a scientific, merit-based peer review process would undermine the objective that the Federal government fund scientific and biomedical research projects based on scientific merit and value, rather than political ideology.”
  • Requiring agencies to consider the president’s policy priorities when administering grants, Collins argued that the proposed rule fails to “ensure that consideration of the President’s policy priorities does not supersede congressional intent for the administration of these awards.”

In her letter, Collins asked OMB to withdraw these provisions, among others, and to extend the comment deadline to 90 days.

Proposed Uniform Guidance Changes

Posted on

On May 29, 2026, the federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB) published a proposed rule in the Federal Register that would substantially revise 2 C.F.R. Part 200, commonly referred to as the “Uniform Guidance”, which applies to federal grants, cooperative agreements and other types of federal assistance funding.

If finalized, the proposed rule would significantly impact federal awards, including requiring political appointee review of grant decisions, restrictions on who applicants may work with, expanded rights the federal government has in modifying or terminating awards, and much more. Because these changes have significant implications for federally funded research, the University and UW Medicine are compiling an institutional response to the federal government. 

Please use the University’s “Uniform Guidance – Proposed Changes” form (UW NetID required) to provide your comments to University leadership to support the University’s official response to OMB. Your feedback and examples of impacts will inform our official UW response, and comments are still being accepted.

As a member of the public, you may also comment directly to OMB; however, OMB will consider only one comment per institution. Therefore, if you choose to submit comments to OMB in an individual capacity, you should state your experience generically (e.g. a faculty member in at a large public university) but do not mention your affiliation with the University of Washington.

Additional analysis from APLU can be found here: Summary of Uniform Guidance Issues.

Supreme Court Upholds Birthright Citizenship

Posted on

In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court upheld a broad conception of birthright citizenship, rejecting Trump’s executive order declaring that children born in the US are not American citizens if their parents were here illegally or temporarily.

“Citizenship, then and now, was the right to have rights—to freely participate in our political community. The Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment extended that promise to ‘every free-born person in this land,’” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court, citing congressional debate over the amendment, “We keep that promise today.”

Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorusch, and Samuel Alito dissented. Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the court’s majority to strike down the executive order but said he based his decision on a federal law, not the Constitution. Back in April, Trump attended the oral arguments for this case, Trump v. Barbara, becoming the first sitting president ever to do so. The Court was expected to uphold birthright citizenship, but the final ruling was closer than predicted, with most expecting a 7-2 ruling.

The decision is one of several key rulings released over the past week:

  • In a 6-3 decision, the Court upheld state laws barring transgender girls and women from playing on school athletic teams, ruling that state bans in Idaho and West Virginia don’t violate the Constitution or Title IX.
  • In a 6-3 decision, the Court expanded the power of the executive branch to fire independent regulators, with the notable exception of members of the Federal Reserve. Despite allowing Fed governor Lisa Cook to stay in her role, this ruling increases the power of the president to fire agency heads at will.
  • In a 5-4 decision, the Court upheld Mississippi’s grace period for late mail-in ballots, rejecting Trump’s persistent attempts to invalidate ballots arriving after Election Day. This ruling is significant for protecting mail-in voting across 2026 battleground districts. Over half of states permit mailed ballots to be counted a certain number of days after the election, if they are postmarked by Election Day.
  • In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court erased party spending limits in federal elections, striking down a federal election law more than 50 years old.
  • Also in a 6-3 decision, the Court ruled the Trump administration may end legal protections for migrants fleeing violence in Haiti and Syria, allowing DHS to end the temporary protected status program.