2026 has brought an unusually dense wave of proposed and emerging changes to the rules governing federal research and grant administration. Government-wide proposals are unfolding alongside agency-specific revisions, while research administrators are also navigating shifts in federal funding, research security, peer review, eligibility, and institutional oversight. The pace and breadth of activity have made this a “Year of Shifting Regulations” for the research administration community.
As the federal policy landscape continues to evolve, six areas warrant particular attention in the months ahead.
1. Uniform Guidance and agency-specific grant rules
OMB’s proposed Uniform Grants Regulation remains the most consequential government-wide grants policy development of 2026. Congress has delayed OMB from finalizing the proposal through December 11, but the proposal itself remains unresolved. At the same time, agencies are revising their own rules and guidance, including NSF’s PAPPG and financial assistance policies and the Department of Education’s proposed revisions to EDGAR. Further, federal agencies are required to submit their agency action plans for implementing the Science: A New Golden Age to the White House by mid-October. Research administrators should monitor both government-wide requirements and the agency-specific rules that translate them into day-to-day award administration. Expect to see agencies piloting changes in research administration policies in the coming months.
2. F&A, costs, and financial administration
Facilities and administrative costs remain an active policy issue even though OMB did not propose to replace the negotiated indirect cost rate system through its current rulemaking. Congress continues to address indirect costs through annual appropriations language, while broader grant-rule changes could still affect allowability, documentation, payment practices, and recipient risk. Research administrators should watch both direct changes to F&A policy and less visible changes to cost and financial management requirements.
3. FY2027 appropriations and the pace of federal awards
The continuing resolution funds the federal government through December 11 while Congress continues work on completing the FY2027 appropriations bills. Topline appropriations amounts, however, tell only part of the story. During FY2026, several research agencies made new awards at rates below historical averages, illustrating that enacted funding does not necessarily translate immediately into sustaining the pace of grantmaking and cooperative agreements. Research administrators should keep an eye on funding levels, but also how quickly agencies release solicitations, obligate funds, make awards, and manage year-end spending. Site such as https://grantwitness.org/ track obligations and award numbers for several research agencies.
4. Research security and international collaboration
Research security continues to expand through legislation, agency policy, award terms, foreign financial disclosure requirements, restricted-party screening, and scrutiny of institutional relationships with foreign entities. Recent Department of War research-security audits of U.S. academic institutions underscore that implementation is becoming increasingly operational and institution-specific. Research administrators should continue coordinating closely with research security, export control, legal, compliance, and international offices as sponsor expectations evolve.
5. Peer review, agency discretion, and changing research priorities
Agencies are changing not only what they fund, but how they evaluate proposals and organize research portfolios. NIH’s Unified Funding Strategy and proposed changes to reporting peer review outcomes are prominent examples (see Resources and What We’re Watching, respectively, in this month’s newsletter). Defense research organizations are also sharpening the connection between fundamental research, mission priorities, and technology transition: AFRL has reorganized its research enterprise, Army Research Laboratory leadership is emphasizing stronger pathways from academic discovery to mission use, and ONR is using long-range science and technology roadmaps to inform future opportunities. Strategy documents, organizational changes, and agency engagement activities can signal future funding structures before those changes appear in solicitations.
6. Eligibility, legal developments, and emerging operational issues
Legal and policy developments are reshaping program eligibility and institutional obligations. The Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel has concluded that several NSF STEM education programs contain unconstitutional race-based criteria (see What We’re Watching in this month’s newsletter), while federal litigation continues to test agency authority over grants and other executive actions. The Department of Education has separately proposed accreditation changes that include expectations related to research integrity. Research administrators should also keep emerging operational issues such as generative AI in proposal development on their radar as agencies and institutions continue developing expectations for responsible use.
The common thread is that research administrators increasingly need to monitor a wide array of policy areas that shape how federal awards are selected, administered, and sustained.
#Pulse