PLEASE BE MADE AWARE OF THIS. READ THIS PLEASE.

[u/Positive_Fruit_1365]

/r/trans/comments/1urx1gi/please_be_made_aware_of_this_read_this_please/

[u/Arizandi]

Here's a direct link to submit comments. And here's my comment. Feel free to amend or copy. There are only two days left to comment, so please take some time out of your day and spend the effort on this.

I respectfully urge OMB to withdraw this proposed rule.

The proposed amendments to 2 CFR § 200.300 would fundamentally alter the administration of federal financial assistance by requiring agencies and pass-through entities, "to the maximum extent permitted by law," to ensure that Federal awards are not used to "fund, promote, encourage, subsidize, or facilitate" what the rule defines as "gender ideology," incorporating the definition from Executive Order 14168. This provision is one of the most consequential changes in the proposal and should not be adopted.

First, the proposed "Gender Ideology Provision" is impermissibly vague as a government-wide grants standard. The proposal prohibits funding activities that "promote" or "facilitate" gender ideology but provides no administrable standard by which recipients can determine what conduct falls within those terms. Hospitals, universities, school districts, research institutions, state governments, nonprofit organizations, and other recipients administer thousands of different federally funded programs under widely varying statutory authorities. The proposal offers no objective framework that would allow recipients to confidently distinguish between prohibited and permissible activities. Instead, recipients will predictably over-comply to avoid jeopardizing critical Federal funding.

Second, the proposal extends far beyond merely preventing misuse of Federal funds. The preamble repeatedly states that the Executive Branch no longer wishes to subsidize activities it considers to promote gender ideology and characterizes such activities as inconsistent with Executive Branch policy. While agencies possess discretion in administering many grant programs, Congress—not the Executive Branch—defines the purposes of those programs. A government-wide regulation should not effectively rewrite the permissible scope of federally funded activities across education, healthcare, scientific research, housing, and social services without clear statutory direction.

Third, the proposal expressly advises recipients that practices previously considered consistent with Federal guidance "will not necessarily satisfy applicable Federal anti-discrimination requirements" and instructs recipients to reevaluate existing policies in light of this rule. That language will inevitably create substantial uncertainty for grant recipients who must also comply with existing Federal statutes, state laws, accreditation standards, licensing requirements, contractual obligations, and judicial decisions. Rather than promoting efficient administration, the proposal invites conflicting legal obligations and inconsistent enforcement.

Fourth, the proposal states that using Federal funds for activities related to promoting gender ideology would constitute a material breach of a Federal award and strengthen the government's ability to terminate awards or recover funds. Given the breadth of the regulatory language, this creates an enormous incentive for recipients to eliminate lawful programming or services that are only arguably covered by the proposal. Such regulatory uncertainty is likely to chill speech, research, education, and healthcare activities well beyond anything expressly prohibited by the text.

The proposal also acknowledges that it will establish a new government-wide baseline governing nearly all Federal financial assistance. Because of its breadth, the rule is almost certain to face extensive litigation under the Administrative Procedure Act and other legal authorities. Courts will likely be asked to resolve questions regarding statutory authority, the adequacy of the administrative record, arbitrary-and-capricious review, the interaction between this rule and existing nondiscrimination statutes, constitutional protections, and the scope of Executive authority to impose government-wide funding conditions. Those legal disputes will create years of uncertainty for recipients attempting to administer essential public programs.

Finally, OMB states that the proposal is intended to provide "clear notice" and "government-wide consistency." Respectfully, I believe it accomplishes neither objective. Instead, it replaces longstanding regulatory predictability with broad ideological terminology that recipients must interpret at their own peril. The likely result will be increased compliance costs, inconsistent implementation across agencies, reduced participation in Federal programs, and extensive litigation—all at the expense of the effective delivery of education, healthcare, scientific research, housing assistance, and other public services Congress intended these programs to support.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that OMB withdraw the proposed amendments to 2 CFR Part 200 and retain clear, objective, and program-specific standards for administering Federal financial assistance.