Submit at regulations.gov. Deadline: Midnight, EDT, July 13, 2026.
Copy and paste the text. Customize the highlighted fields before submitting. Please save your letter — we may ask you to forward it to your representatives on Capitol Hill.
Re: Proposed Rule — Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance
Docket No. OMB-2026-0034
Submitted by: [Organization Name]
Contact: [Name, Title, Email]
[Organization Name] respectfully submits these comments in opposition to key provisions of the Office of Management and Budget’s proposed rule titled “Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance,” published in the Federal Register on May 29, 2026 (Docket OMB-2026-0034).
[Organization Name] is a [brief description — e.g., “a 501(c)(3) nonprofit museum located in [City, State]”] and a designated partner of Freedom’s Frontier National Heritage Area (FFNHA). FFNHA is a Congressionally authorized National Heritage Area serving 41 counties across eastern Kansas and western Missouri, preserving the history of the frontier, the Missouri-Kansas Border War, and the enduring struggle for freedom. We rely on FFNHA’s federal pass-through grants to [describe specific use — e.g., “support our educational programming, maintain historic exhibits, and attract regional visitors”].
We write to raise the following specific concerns:
1. Expanded termination authority undermines multi-year planning.
The proposed rule would allow federal agencies to terminate awards whenever they determine a grant no longer advances “agency priorities or the national interest,” without defining those terms. This provision creates unacceptable uncertainty for organizations like ours that depend on stable, multi-year funding to plan staffing, capital projects, and community programming. FFNHA has already experienced a funding freeze in 2025 that brought the organization to the brink of closure; this proposed rule would institutionalize that instability. We urge OMB to retain the current standard requiring specific cause for termination and to define any discretionary termination criteria with precision.
2. Political appointee pre-issuance review politicizes heritage grant awards.
The requirement that senior political appointees review and approve all discretionary grants before issuance — and that they may not defer to career staff or program officers — would interject partisan considerations into a grant-making process that has historically been administered on merit. National Heritage Areas were designated by Congress precisely to protect and interpret significant historic and cultural resources. Inserting political review into that process is inconsistent with congressional intent and threatens the integrity of heritage programming.
3. New pass-through requirements would burden small partner organizations.
The proposed rule imposes significant new requirements on organizations that serve as pass-through entities — distributing federal funds to subrecipients rather than spending them directly. FFNHA functions as exactly this kind of pass-through, and as one of its subrecipients, our organization is directly affected by what those requirements demand. Under the proposed rule, the monitoring, reporting, and oversight obligations attached to federal awards would expand substantially — flowing downstream to partner organizations like ours. For small museums, historical societies, and community organizations that operate with limited staff and no dedicated grants compliance capacity, these requirements would not be a minor inconvenience. They would represent a real barrier to participation, and could effectively price smaller partners out of receiving grant funding altogether. We urge OMB to ensure that any new subrecipient requirements are proportionate to the size and capacity of the organizations subject to them.
4. The consequences for our region are concrete and immediate.
The effects of this rule would be felt directly in the communities, classrooms, and local economies that Freedom’s Frontier and its partners serve. Federal grant funding supports heritage tourism and visitor spending that flows into local hotels, restaurants, and small businesses — particularly in rural communities with few other economic anchors. It funds historic preservation work that cannot simply be paused and restarted; deterioration does not wait for federal politics to settle. It supports programs like Bus on Us that make free field trips possible for students who would otherwise never visit the sites that shaped this region’s history, and it underwrites the regional history education that ensures future generations understand where they come from and why it matters.
[If your organization has ever received an FFNHA grant, describe how it benefited your organization and your community here.]
[Organization Name] urges OMB to withdraw this proposed rule. We are committed to responsible stewardship of federal funds and full compliance with all applicable requirements. We ask only that the rules governing our work remain clear, stable, and consistent with the congressional intent behind the programs that support us.
Respectfully submitted,
[Name]
[Title], [Organization Name]
[Date]
Re: Proposed Rule — Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance
Docket No. OMB-2026-0034
My name is [Your Name]. I am a resident of [City, State] and a supporter of Freedom’s Frontier National Heritage Area (FFNHA), a Congressionally authorized heritage area spanning 41 counties in eastern Kansas and western Missouri. I am submitting these comments to oppose key provisions of OMB’s proposed rule published May 29, 2026.
Freedom’s Frontier preserves some of the most significant history in America — the struggle over slavery that made Kansas a battleground before the Civil War, the settlement of the western frontier, and the ongoing story of the fight for freedom that runs through sites like the Brown v. Board of Education National Historic Site. I care about this history, and I care about the organizations — museums, historic sites, libraries, and nonprofits — that keep it alive in our communities.
This proposed rule would put that work at risk in several ways.
The rule would give political appointees the authority to approve or reject federal grants based on undefined criteria like “the national interest.” That kind of open-ended political control over which history gets funded and which does not is dangerous. Congress designated Freedom’s Frontier specifically to protect and share this history. Allowing any administration to override that designation through a grants rule — without new legislation — is not in keeping with how our government is supposed to work.
The rule also allows agencies to terminate grants at any time if they decide a project no longer fits their priorities. Freedom’s Frontier nearly ceased operations in 2025 when the administration froze funds that Congress had already appropriated. This rule would make that kind of action easier and harder to challenge.
The consequences for our region are concrete. Federal grant funding supports heritage tourism and the visitor spending that flows into local businesses — particularly in rural communities across eastern Kansas and western Missouri that have few other economic anchors. It funds historic preservation work that cannot simply be paused and restarted; once a structure deteriorates or a collection is dispersed, that history is gone. It supports programs like Bus on Us that make free field trips possible for students who would otherwise never set foot in the sites that shaped this region’s story. And it underwrites the history education that ensures future generations understand where they come from and why it matters. Just two weeks ago, Freedom’s Frontier awarded more than $80,000 in grants to partner organizations across the heritage area. This rule would place every one of those active grants — and every future award — at risk.
I urge OMB to withdraw this proposed rule.
Thank you for considering my comments.
[Your Name]
[City, State]
[Date]
Re: Proposed Rule — Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance
Docket No. OMB-2026-0034
Submitted by: [Organization Name]
Contact: [Name, Title, Email]
[Organization Name] respectfully submits these comments in opposition to key provisions of the Office of Management and Budget’s proposed rule titled “Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance,” published in the Federal Register on May 29, 2026 (Docket OMB-2026-0034).
[Organization Name] is a [brief description — e.g., “a 501(c)(3) nonprofit museum located in [City, State]”] and a designated partner of Freedom’s Frontier National Heritage Area (FFNHA). FFNHA is a Congressionally authorized National Heritage Area serving 41 counties across eastern Kansas and western Missouri, preserving the history of the frontier, the Missouri-Kansas Border War, and the enduring struggle for freedom. We rely on FFNHA’s federal pass-through grants to [describe specific use — e.g., “support our educational programming, maintain historic exhibits, and attract regional visitors”].
We write to raise the following specific concerns:
1. Expanded termination authority undermines multi-year planning.
The proposed rule would allow federal agencies to terminate awards whenever they determine a grant no longer advances “agency priorities or the national interest,” without defining those terms. This provision creates unacceptable uncertainty for organizations like ours that depend on stable, multi-year funding to plan staffing, capital projects, and community programming. FFNHA has already experienced a funding freeze in 2025 that brought the organization to the brink of closure; this proposed rule would institutionalize that instability. We urge OMB to retain the current standard requiring specific cause for termination and to define any discretionary termination criteria with precision.
2. Political appointee pre-issuance review politicizes heritage grant awards.
The requirement that senior political appointees review and approve all discretionary grants before issuance — and that they may not defer to career staff or program officers — would interject partisan considerations into a grant-making process that has historically been administered on merit. National Heritage Areas were designated by Congress precisely to protect and interpret significant historic and cultural resources. Inserting political review into that process is inconsistent with congressional intent and threatens the integrity of heritage programming.
3. New pass-through requirements would burden small partner organizations.
The proposed rule imposes significant new requirements on organizations that serve as pass-through entities — distributing federal funds to subrecipients rather than spending them directly. FFNHA functions as exactly this kind of pass-through, and as one of its subrecipients, our organization is directly affected by what those requirements demand. Under the proposed rule, the monitoring, reporting, and oversight obligations attached to federal awards would expand substantially — flowing downstream to partner organizations like ours. For small museums, historical societies, and community organizations that operate with limited staff and no dedicated grants compliance capacity, these requirements would not be a minor inconvenience. They would represent a real barrier to participation, and could effectively price smaller partners out of receiving grant funding altogether. We urge OMB to ensure that any new subrecipient requirements are proportionate to the size and capacity of the organizations subject to them.
4. The consequences for our region are concrete and immediate.
The effects of this rule would be felt directly in the communities, classrooms, and local economies that Freedom’s Frontier and its partners serve. Federal grant funding supports heritage tourism and visitor spending that flows into local hotels, restaurants, and small businesses — particularly in rural communities with few other economic anchors. It funds historic preservation work that cannot simply be paused and restarted; deterioration does not wait for federal politics to settle. It supports programs like Bus on Us that make free field trips possible for students who would otherwise never visit the sites that shaped this region’s history, and it underwrites the regional history education that ensures future generations understand where they come from and why it matters.
[If your organization has ever received an FFNHA grant, describe how it benefited your organization and your community here.]
[Organization Name] urges OMB to withdraw this proposed rule. We are committed to responsible stewardship of federal funds and full compliance with all applicable requirements. We ask only that the rules governing our work remain clear, stable, and consistent with the congressional intent behind the programs that support us.
Respectfully submitted,
[Name]
[Title], [Organization Name]
[Date]
Re: Proposed Rule — Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance
Docket No. OMB-2026-0034
My name is [Your Name]. I am a resident of [City, State] and a supporter of Freedom’s Frontier National Heritage Area (FFNHA), a Congressionally authorized heritage area spanning 41 counties in eastern Kansas and western Missouri. I am submitting these comments to oppose key provisions of OMB’s proposed rule published May 29, 2026.
Freedom’s Frontier preserves some of the most significant history in America — the struggle over slavery that made Kansas a battleground before the Civil War, the settlement of the western frontier, and the ongoing story of the fight for freedom that runs through sites like the Brown v. Board of Education National Historic Site. I care about this history, and I care about the organizations — museums, historic sites, libraries, and nonprofits — that keep it alive in our communities.
This proposed rule would put that work at risk in several ways.
The rule would give political appointees the authority to approve or reject federal grants based on undefined criteria like “the national interest.” That kind of open-ended political control over which history gets funded and which does not is dangerous. Congress designated Freedom’s Frontier specifically to protect and share this history. Allowing any administration to override that designation through a grants rule — without new legislation — is not in keeping with how our government is supposed to work.
The rule also allows agencies to terminate grants at any time if they decide a project no longer fits their priorities. Freedom’s Frontier nearly ceased operations in 2025 when the administration froze funds that Congress had already appropriated. This rule would make that kind of action easier and harder to challenge.
The consequences for our region are concrete. Federal grant funding supports heritage tourism and the visitor spending that flows into local businesses — particularly in rural communities across eastern Kansas and western Missouri that have few other economic anchors. It funds historic preservation work that cannot simply be paused and restarted; once a structure deteriorates or a collection is dispersed, that history is gone. It supports programs like Bus on Us that make free field trips possible for students who would otherwise never set foot in the sites that shaped this region’s story. And it underwrites the history education that ensures future generations understand where they come from and why it matters. Just two weeks ago, Freedom’s Frontier awarded more than $80,000 in grants to partner organizations across the heritage area. This rule would place every one of those active grants — and every future award — at risk.
I urge OMB to withdraw this proposed rule.
Thank you for considering my comments.
[Your Name]
[City, State]
[Date]
Freedom’s Frontier National Heritage Area (FFNHA) builds awareness of struggles for freedom in western Missouri and eastern Kansas. Established by Congress in 2006, FFNHA covers a unique physical and cultural landscape across 41 counties and 31,000 square miles. It promotes three diverse, interwoven, and nationally significant stories: frontier settlement, the Missouri-Kansas Border War and Civil War, and enduring civil rights disputes. FFNHA inspires respect for multiple perspectives and empowers area residents to preserve and share these stories, achieving its goals through interpretation, preservation, conservation, and education for all residents and visitors. It is one of 62 federally recognized national heritage areas across the United States.