*Very * important * quick * task *

Tell Trump's OMB they cannot kill science & research in our country

River Road after Tropical Storm Chantal, which killed three people in Chatham Co.

Hi there, Frog Troublers. We are coming to you this morning with a simple request we hope you will please heed. It costs nothing and takes 10 minutes, tops!

Are you:

-A scientist or researcher?

-Someone who wants to be a scientist or researcher?

-Someone whose life has been helped by scientific research?

-Someone worried about climate change or trying to recover after natural disasters like Helene or Chantal?

-Someone who pays taxes and wants them to go to useful things that make life better?

Basically, if you live in America and benefit from our university system, medical research, the arts, humanities, or any kind of government-funded research, your voice matters here.

In May, the Trump administration’s Office of Management and Budget released a blueprint for a new set of rules governing federal funding. Usually, funding is decided by teams of experts in their fields in a process called peer review. Peer review is generally fair and nonpartisan, based on the strength of the proposed work and how likely it is to make a positive, useful contribution. When I applied for a National Endowment for the Arts grant in prose, for example, I applied using work published in my first book, Mattaponi Queen, a collection of stories about the rural Virginia community where I grew up. The $25,000 grant I received (in 2012) helped fund the writing of work that became The Art of Waiting, my next book, which among other things helped thousands of people struggling with infertility feel less alone. No one reviewing my application knew me personally, and my writing was reviewed based on its quality and anticipated impact. Many of your favorite writers and artists have likely been funded by NEA grants!

This proposed rule change would make it easier—and very likely—that Trump’s political appointees, not field-specific experts, will decide what research, what work, is worthy of our tax dollars. It is especially harmful for scientific and medical research, including research done at universities, which depend on federal funding. It will harm communities’ abilities to build climate resilience, it will interrupt clinical research including clinical trials currently saving lives, and it will force scientists, researchers, and professors to consider taking their life-saving teaching and research to other countries. This is already happening because of unnecessary funding cuts and cancelled grants that began in 2025, but this proposed rule will accelerate the process greatly. So if your kid or grandkid (like Bea) always wanted to go to NC State to study marine biology or plant biology, guess what? She may have fewer opportunities.

Until tomorrow at midnight, the OMB has to take comments from anyone who feels they will be affected by these rule changes. AND they have to respond! The nonpartisan group Stand Up for Science set a goal when the of collecting 10,000 comments and guess what? As of last night there were 287,884 comments posted!

Could we get to 300,000 or even more by Monday night? That would not only send a powerful message, it would create an important backlog of work for the OMB, which must respond to unique individual comments.

Let us show you how to make a unique, independent comment. Let your kids do it too! They have even more to lose than older folks, after all.

You can read around the published comments here (many are really interesting and poignant), but don’t copy and paste (some of the pro-OMB rule comments appear to be doing that; comments must be unique to be counted). NC-specific talking points

Here is how I structured my comment, if it helps:

I am a (list your primary identification here—mom, doctor, widow, student, cancer survivor, Helene survivor, etc.). I am also (list a secondary identification you’d like to mention here).

I am strongly opposed to the new OMB rule because (give your reason—it could be personal/medical, related to work, or related to federal grant-funded work your community).

In addition (give another reason here).

It helps to cite the part of the rule that most concerns you. You can read more about the rules here, but 200.300 is a good catchall rule to cite:

Rule §200.300 -- DEI and Related Prohibitions -- allows political appointees from the presidential administration (current or future) to cancel grants it disagrees with for any reason. That means it will be easier for political appointees to (give the thing you are most worried being cancelled or unfunded).

It will also (make the United States and our universities less desirable places for scientists to do research, teach, and mentor students, or something like that)

I urge you to reject this harmful/disastrous/destructive proposed OMB rule.

You can leave the comment anonymously, but remember that commenting on rules that govern the spending of our tax dollars is our right! (And some might say, our responsibility!). There is a box to tick that says you are commenting as an individual.

Comment here or through Stand Up for Science before Monday, July 13 at midnight.

Let us know if you left a comment and Bea and I will send you an audiobook of your choosing (while supplies last). If you can’t choose, tell us what you like to listen to and we’ll be glad to make a suggestion from our vast repertoire of well-narrated beloved books (some of them probably supported by NEA grants!)

Have a great Sunday! Lots of love from us.