A Rule Nobody Voted On Could Cut Federal Funding to Your Community

The White House budget office is a powerful agency called OMB that most Americans have never heard of. On May 29, 2026 OMB proposed a new rule that would give White House appointees complete control to approve or cancel every grant program created by Congress representing over $1.1 trillion a year.

Your elected members of Congress design federal grant programs to serve the American people. Through legislation they decide how much money goes to each program, and the money is distributed to the states by agencies. Once a grant is awarded, independent experts and established rules within the agencies determine who gets the money and protects it from being canceled without cause. This new rule proposed by the White House OMB would change all of that. It would give White House appointees the direct power to veto any grant before it is awarded, or to cancel any active grant at any time, with no appeal and no explanation required, completely overriding Congress.

This veto power would extend to every federal grant, from every agency. It may be a grant that funds your child’s Head Start program. Or it might be the grant that is finally bringing broadband internet to your rural town. Perhaps it will be the federal funding keeping your county’s rural hospital open or the big infrastructure project your state has been waiting years to complete. These programs could all be canceled by the White House on a whim.

Right now, a 45-day public comment period is open and it closes on July 13, 2026. Under federal law, the government is required to read every single comment it receives and respond to the significant ones before this rule can take effect. That means your voice, your specific story about how federal money reaches your community, has genuine legal power. One well-written personal comment from someone whose life would be affected carries more impact than ten thousand identical form letters.

You do not need to be an expert. You only need to describe what is at stake for you.

Here is what is at stake for all of us.

The bridge your county has been waiting years to fix.

Federal transportation grants fund highway repairs, bridge replacements, transit systems, and port improvements across the country. These are often multi-year projects where engineers are hired, contractors are brought in, and communities make plans around the promise that the money will be there. This proposed rule includes a new termination provision that would allow any active federal grant to be canceled mid-project because a White House appointee decides the project no longer serves the national interest. They won’t even need to provide an explanation beyond a brief written note, and there would be no appeal. If the money for a half-built bridge is cut, how will the community finish it?

The rural hospital that is the only one for fifty miles.

Rural hospitals operate on tight budgets. Many of them depend on federal grants just to keep their doors open. When a rural hospital closes, it does not just affect healthcare. It also shuts down the largest employer in many small communities. Under this proposed rule, every grant that keeps a rural hospital running is at risk of termination at any time, for any reason, with no meaningful process for challenging the decision.

The Head Start center where your neighbor drops off her kids every morning.

Six hundred thousand low-income children are enrolled in Head Start programs right now. These programs operate preschools with teachers hired, children enrolled, and parents who depend on that childcare while they work. Head Start is funded by federal grants. With this new proposed rule, a Head Start center could lose its grant mid-year because a White House appointee decides the program no longer aligns with the administration’s priorities. The children would lose their classroom and the parents would lose their childcare.

The broadband project that was finally going to connect your rural community.

Federal grants have been deploying high-speed internet to rural communities that have waited decades for reliable connectivity. These are multi-year infrastructure projects involving contractors laying fiber. Under this new rule, a grant terminated mid-deployment would leave a community with partially built cable lines that serve no one.

The drinking water system that needed an upgrade.

Water and wastewater infrastructure upgrades in small communities that have no other way to finance them rely on federal grants. Cutting off funding for a water treatment plant mid-construction would have immediate and severe public health consequences.

The school that relies on federal funds for low-income students and students with disabilities.

Federal education grants support schools in communities across every state. The teachers hired with that funding, the programs built around it, and the students who depend on it are all now at risk under a rule that will allow funding to be cut at any time, for any reason, with no appeal.

The substance abuse treatment clinic or mental health center serving your neighbors in crisis.

The federal government distributes nearly $800 million every year through grants to community mental health centers and substance abuse treatment programs across all 50 states. These are the clinics providing opioid treatment, mental health counseling, and crisis services to people who have nowhere else to turn. Many of these clinics operate in communities where private insurance and private providers are scarce or nonexistent.

Every one of these behavioral health grants would be governed by this newly proposed rule and could be subject to termination at any time by the White House. A treatment program mid-cycle, serving patients in active recovery, could lose its federal grant because a President’s appointee decides it is no longer a priority for the administration. For people in recovery, disruption to life saving treatment is not an inconvenience. It is a crisis.

The Meals on Wheels program and senior services keeping your elderly neighbors independent.

The federal government distributes more than $2 billion every year through the Older Americans Act to fund services for Americans aged 60 and older in every state and community. These grants fund Meals on Wheels home delivery programs, senior centers, adult day care, transportation for seniors who can no longer drive, in-home assistance with daily tasks, family caregiver support, and legal services for vulnerable elders. Every one of these programs is administered by local Area Agencies on Aging using federal grant dollars.

For many elderly Americans living alone, a Meals on Wheels delivery is not just a meal. It is a daily check-in, a connection to the outside world, and often the reason they can remain in their own home rather than moving to a care facility. A grant canceled by the White House because a political appointee decides the program no longer serves administration priorities will hurt these seniors in our communities.

What is going on?

Congress passed specific laws creating each one of these grant programs. The goal is to provide needed community services in each state, making sure that your tax money is directly helping your community. All of these programs were created through the Congressional budget process, and built on the expectation that the federal commitments would be honored. Communities built their planning around these expected grants. The hospitals, schools, water utilities, behavioral health clinics, and county engineers all made real, binding decisions based on the reasonable belief that these federal funds would be delivered.

This newly proposed White House budget would break that promise from Congress.

OMB is attempting to do all of this through a single regulatory change, buried in 412 pages of technical language, with a 45-day window for the public to respond. They are doing this to get around Congress and cut off money to your community. And they are counting on most Americans not knowing this is happening until it is too late. The 45-day window to stop it closes July 13. Make sure your community’s voice is in the record.

What you can do right now.

Go to this link and submit a comment in opposition to this rule before July 13: https://www.regulations.gov/commenton/OMB-2026-0034-0001

You do not need to be an expert or a lawyer to submit a comment. You just need to describe, in your own words, what is at stake for you and your community if federal grants can be canceled for no stated reason by the White House.

One important note: do not copy anyone else’s comment, including the examples below. The government counts all identical comments as a single comment, no matter how many people submit them. The goal is to get as many comments as possible to show that Americans oppose this rule. A comment written in your own words, about your own life and community, is perfect testimony. Even three sentences in plain language about your specific situation is more valuable than a polished paragraph you copied from somewhere else.

Not sure what to say? Here are some real situations that could make powerful comments. Use them as inspiration, not as scripts.

A teacher in a high-poverty school whose students depend on Title I federal funding might write about what would happen if that funding were subject to cancellation mid-year based on a White House appointee’s decision, and what it would mean for her students.

A county official overseeing a federally funded infrastructure project might describe how far along the project is, what commitments have already been made, and what a mid-project termination would cost the community.

A parent whose child attends Head Start might describe what that program means to their family, why it matters, and what losing it mid-year would mean for their child and their ability to work.

A person in recovery, or a family member of someone who depends on a federally funded mental health program, might describe what that program has meant and what disruption to it would look like for patients.

A parent whose child requires disability educational services relies on federal funding to make that programming viable in their school district. Parents can describe what it would mean for their child if that funding were subject to cancellation based on a White House appointee’s decision.

A rural resident still waiting for broadband might describe how long they have been waiting, what a federally funded high-speed internet connection would mean for their family or business, and what it would mean if that grant were canceled before completion.

A family whose elderly parent lives alone and relies on Meals on Wheels delivery services could speak about the direct harms that would be caused if this type of grant money is canceled.

Whatever your situation, the formula is simple. Say who you are. Describe the program that matters to you. Explain what losing it, or losing the stability of knowing it will be there, would mean for your life. Then finish your comment by saying clearly that you oppose this new rule.

Deadline: July 13, 2026 at 11:59 PM Eastern

Comment here: https://www.regulations.gov/commenton/OMB-2026-0034-0001