OMB Public Comment
Subject: Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance (Docket ID: OMB-2026-0034)
July 9, 2026
I am writing to express profound disapproval and alarm at the composite regulations from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB-2026-0034).
The United States of America has been the global leader in science and technology since the end of World War II because all administrations, regardless of political affiliation, have understood that freedom of inquiry and federal funding of merit-based science leads to innovation and prosperity — keeping America strong on the global stage.
There are numerous causes for alarm in these regulations, but as a professional working in the atmospheric sciences, there are five specific items that will harm the American public.
First, there will be reduced public access to basic weather information, as those receiving federal funding will face onerous restrictions on public communications of the phenomena they are studying and how the public will benefit (§ 200.206 and § 200.450).
Second, there will be a reduction in commercial potential of new scientific discoveries due to the restriction of government funding to attend scientific meetings and symposia — locations where researchers routinely engage with colleagues in the private sector (§ 200.407, § 200.454, and § 200.432).
Third, there will be reduced emphasis on scientific merit for grants as political appointees, often with no formal training in the scientific method, prioritize short-term personal and political gain with no regard to the long-term benefits to the American people (§ 200.202, § 200.211, § 200.340, § 200.341, § 200.342, § 200.343).
Fourth, there will be a crushing reduction in stability for multi-year research that requires sustained effort and investment. For example: long-term observation networks, long-running research projects, and training of the future scientific workforce are all at grave risk (§ 200.202, § 200.205, § 200.211, § 200.340, § 200.341, § 200.342, § 200.343).
Fifth, there will be fewer opportunities for scientific advancement as scientists would be severely limited in how they report their research findings in professional scientific journals (§ 200.461) and less able to attend meetings where discussions of recent events, research advances, and the potential new projects occur (§ 200.432).
Having worked professionally in the weather enterprise for more than 30 years, it should be celebrated as a beacon of public-private partnership, successfully balancing roles between government, private-sector companies, NGOs, and academia. The return on federal investment has been enormous, as current estimates put a value on weather information in excess of $100 billion annually — approximately 10 times the investment from American taxpayers.
The proposals from OMB would cripple American science, ceding American innovation, jobs, and prosperity to adversarial nations — many of which would be more than happy to see American science reduced to rubble.
I join my professional colleagues in the American Meteorological Society in urging a full and complete withdrawal of these OMB proposals.
Sean Sublette
Richmond, Virginia
