US universities and their affiliated scholarly societies are navigating significant adjustments following a May 29, 2026, proposal from the Office of Management and Budget to revise the Uniform Guidance governing federal financial assistance. The changes, if finalized, would reshape how grant funds support professional development, publishing, and collaboration activities central to many academic organizations.
Background on the Proposed Revisions
The Office of Management and Budget published the proposed rule in the Federal Register on May 29, 2026. It aims to enhance transparency, accountability, and alignment with administration priorities in federal grantmaking. The revisions implement aspects of executive orders on grant oversight and would apply to a wide range of recipients, including higher education institutions across the United States.
Key provisions target allowable costs under federal awards. Conference attendance would generally require prior agency approval. Professional society memberships and subscriptions to academic periodicals would face stricter limits, often becoming unallowable without specific authorization. Publication costs, including article processing charges for open-access journals, would also see major restrictions.
Direct Effects on Scholarly Societies
Scholarly societies play a vital role in US higher education by facilitating peer review, disseminating research, and providing professional networks for faculty and researchers at colleges and universities. Many societies rely on revenue from memberships, journal subscriptions, and conference fees, much of which has historically been supported indirectly through federal grants awarded to institutions.
Under the proposed rules, researchers at US universities might find it more difficult to charge society memberships or journal access to their grants. This shift could reduce participation rates, particularly among early-career scholars and those at smaller or regional institutions with tighter budgets. Societies such as those in astronomy, medicine, and engineering fields have already begun assessing potential revenue shortfalls.
University Responses and Institutional Concerns
Leading research universities have issued statements highlighting risks to research productivity and collaboration. The University of Rochester, for example, has noted that the changes could limit flexibility in supporting scholarly communication and professional development. Yale University leadership has similarly emphasized the broad implications for how grants are administered and monitored.
Institutions are coordinating responses through national associations including the Association of American Universities and the Association of American Medical Colleges. These groups are preparing formal comments ahead of the July 13, 2026, deadline. Many universities stress that the proposals could disproportionately affect fields reliant on frequent conference participation and open-access publishing.
Broader Implications for Research Dissemination
Publication costs represent a growing share of research expenses at US colleges and universities. The proposed default unallowability of article processing charges and journal subscriptions could slow the transition to open-access models that many institutions have championed. Researchers might face new administrative hurdles when seeking agency approval for these expenses on a case-by-case basis.
Professional society memberships support not only individual career advancement but also collective advocacy and standards-setting within disciplines. Restrictions here could weaken the infrastructure that underpins peer-reviewed publishing and knowledge exchange across American higher education.
Stakeholder Perspectives from Higher Education
University administrators and faculty leaders express concern about increased compliance burdens and potential inequities. Smaller colleges and those serving underrepresented populations may struggle more to absorb costs previously covered by grants. At the same time, some observers note that the revisions aim to ensure taxpayer funds align closely with core research objectives rather than ancillary activities.
Medical and scientific societies have highlighted risks to innovation in rapidly evolving fields where cross-institutional collaboration is essential. Public comment periods provide an opportunity for higher education stakeholders to share specific examples of impacts on grant-funded work at their institutions.
Timeline and Next Steps
The public comment period runs through July 13, 2026. The Office of Management and Budget has indicated a target effective date of October 1, 2026, for a final rule. Universities and societies are actively reviewing the 400-page proposal and developing coordinated feedback.
Many institutions are encouraging researchers to document potential effects on ongoing projects and to participate in internal discussions about compliance strategies. National associations continue to monitor developments and advocate for provisions that preserve essential support for scholarly communication.
Potential Adaptations in Higher Education
US colleges and universities may explore alternative funding models for society memberships and publishing. Institutional subscriptions, departmental budgets, or new consortia arrangements could help mitigate gaps. Some societies are considering tiered membership structures or enhanced institutional partnerships to maintain engagement.
Faculty development offices at universities are likely to play a larger role in guiding researchers on allowable costs and approval processes. Training sessions on the revised guidance could become standard at research-intensive institutions nationwide.
Looking Ahead for American Academia
The proposed changes arrive at a time when federal research funding remains critical to the missions of US higher education institutions. Scholarly societies have long served as bridges between individual researchers, universities, and the broader public. Maintaining their vitality will require careful navigation of the new regulatory landscape.
As the comment period progresses, higher education leaders emphasize the value of balanced policies that support both accountability and the collaborative ecosystem essential to scientific and scholarly progress. Ongoing dialogue between federal agencies, universities, and societies will shape how these revisions ultimately affect research communities across the country.
