Farm Commons is a small national nonprofit with four full-time equivalent employees that develops legal education for farmers, ranchers, and agricultural professionals. Over the past 13 years, we have received over $2 Million in USDA funding to develop more than 50 farm law education resources that continue to benefit agricultural communities nationwide. These comments reflect our direct experience administering at least 48 separate federal awards as both a prime and subaward recipient.
First, we are concerned that the proposed discretionary suspension and termination provisions (§§ 200.211, 200.340–343) would significantly complicate how small organizations like ours manage federal awards. Because our work is complex, we plan projects 6 to 18 months in advance and carefully allocate staff time and consultant support. Expanding discretionary termination would require us to divert scarce organizational capacity from serving farmers to responsible contingency planning and risk management, reducing resources available for project delivery. We are also concerned that the proposal does not explain how these discretionary authorities would interact with existing statutory administrative review processes, including the USDA National Appeals Division, or otherwise provide recipients an opportunity for reconsideration or appeal. The proposal also fails to acknowledge how these discretionary authorities would operate alongside existing statutory program requirements and congressional appropriations for USDA programs.
Second, the proposed partnership oversight provisions (§§ 200.330–332) would increase our administrative costs and elevate our legal risk when working with partners. These provisions would require us to interpret broad standards such as “illegal DEI,” “gender ideology,” and actions that could “significantly damage the reputation” of the federal government without clear definitions and objective implementation guidance. Our educational model depends on trusted local organizations that connect our nationally developed legal resources with farmers in their communities. Increased recipient liability and uncertainty would discourage the partnerships that many USDA programs are specifically designed—or in some cases required by statute—to foster.
Third, the proposal would significantly increase our administrative and compliance costs. We are concerned that the proposed payment and reimbursement procedures (§ 200.305) appear to require recipients to provide additional justification for reimbursement requests even after budgets and scopes of work have been approved. We rely on timely reimbursement to manage cash flow and carry out federally funded work. Approved budgets and scopes of work should remain sufficient justification for reimbursement absent a clearly identified compliance concern. In addition, the combined changes to financial management, recordkeeping, and monitoring requirements (§§ 200.302, 200.303, 200.329, 200.332, and 200.334) would require substantially more staff time devoted to compliance rather than program delivery. As a small organization, we rely on the 15% de minimis indirect cost rate to help cover our administrative expenses, yet the proposal does not provide a corresponding increase to reflect these additional responsibilities. These are not simply administrative costs—they are opportunity costs that reduce our ability to deliver federally funded projects. We are also concerned that the proposal fails to clearly define the scope of recipient certification, monitoring, and compliance obligations, creating uncertainty about whether those responsibilities extend beyond the federally funded project.
Farm Commons respectfully requests that OMB:
A detailed attachment provides additional support for these recommendations.
Farm Commons respectfully submits these comments on OMB’s proposed revisions to the Uniform Guidance.
Farm Commons is a small national 501(c)(3) nonprofit with four full-time equivalent staff. We offer practical legal education, plain-language resources, and community-based networks that help farmers and ranchers build resilient businesses and strengthen local food systems in rural and urban communities throughout the country. Over the past 13 years, we have received over $2 Million in USDA awards to develop legal education resources for producers, including direct grants, subawards, and consulting funds from the Local Agricultural Market Program, Risk Management Agency Partnership projects, Specialty Crop Block Grants, Beginning Farmer and Rancher Development Program, SUstainable Agriculture Research and Education, Extension Risk Management Education, and more. Those awards have enabled us to create legal education resources that continue to benefit farmers, agricultural service providers, and local partner organizations well beyond a single grant period. Our comments below reflect how these proposed changes would adversely affect our ability to serve farmers and agricultural communities.
Farm Commons develops legal educational resources that require extensive legal research, plain-language drafting, review, testing, and implementation. Because this work is complex and our organization is small, we plan projects six to eighteen months in advance and carefully allocate staff time and consultant support. We intentionally pursue projects that align with our mission and expertise so that we can produce high-quality legal education efficiently. When we receive a federal award, we make staffing decisions, enter contracts with consultants and local partners, develop detailed work plans, and make long-term commitments based on the expectation that an approved award represents a mutual commitment to improve the lives of our nation’s farmers and ranchers. We spend an estimated 80 hours of effort on preliminary work to institute the award, before grant funded activities begin. With our average award between $40,000 and $50,000 we need to make significant investments just to launch the project. Our partners are also investing similar time and effort into administration of MOUs and project monitoring.
The proposed revisions to §§ 200.211 and 200.340–343 create significant uncertainty regarding whether approved awards may later be suspended or terminated based on changing priorities. Rather than focusing our limited organizational capacity on accomplishing project objectives, we would need to devote substantially more time to contingency planning, risk management, and alternative staffing and implementation scenarios in case the approved federal funding is withdrawn.Those are resources that would otherwise be invested directly in serving farmers and agricultural communities. To do anything less than plan for these contingencies would be an irresponsible use of taxpayer resources, as we need to ensure that whatever time and money is invested in the project will extend to the benefit of agricultural communities. Our partners will also spend more time on contingency planning, which lessens total project impact even if an award is never rescinded. The possibility that the award can be rescinded will lessen the impact of federal dollars on our communities, even if termination never comes to pass. We are also concerned that the proposal leaves unclear how these discretionary authorities would operate alongside existing statutory program requirements and congressional appropriations for specific USDA programs.
In addition, we are concerned that the proposal does not explain how these discretionary authorities would interact with existing statutory administrative review processes or otherwise provide recipients opportunities to seek reconsideration or appeal. For many USDA agencies, Congress established the National Appeals Division (NAD) to provide independent administrative review of final agency decisions. The proposal leaves unclear how these new discretionary authorities would interact with those statutory appeal rights. Agencies can make decisions based on incomplete information, misunderstandings, or mistakes. Recipients should have a meaningful opportunity to seek reconsideration and respond before projects that have already been approved—and for which substantial investments and commitments have been made in reliance on approved awards—are suspended or terminated.
2. The proposal could discourage the local partnerships that make USDA programs successful.
Farm Commons develops legal education resources at the national level so they can be shared efficiently in local agricultural communities across the country. This approach allows federal investments to benefit producers in many states without requiring each local organization to recreate similar resources independently. About three quarters of our educational projects (or a value of $1.5 Million in federal dollars) depend on trusted local partnerships for success. We do this because farmers and ranchers are most likely to participate in our programs when they are invited by trusted local organizations and agricultural service providers that have deep relationships within their own communities. These partnerships allow us to reach producers more effectively than we could alone.
We are concerned that the proposed revisions to §§ 200.330–332 would increase our oversight and monitoring responsibilities for partners while requiring us to interpret broad and undefined standards such as “illegal DEI,” “gender ideology,” and actions that could “significantly damage the reputation” of the federal government. Several of these standards remain legally unsettled and continue to be interpreted through ongoing litigation and evolving federal policy. Without clearer definitions, objective criteria, and implementation guidance, we would need to devote additional staff time to legal review, partner oversight, and instruction—resources that would otherwise be invested in high quality legal education for farmers and agricultural communities. Based on our experience administering federal awards, we estimate these additional oversight and partner training responsibilities would require at least 10 additional staff hours for each federally funded project. As an organization that runs 5-8 federally funded projects at a time, this is a significant burden. If questions or scrutiny were ever raised regarding our partners we would incur substantially more administrative work and also carry the elevated risk of legal liability. Recipients should not be expected to make compliance determinations regarding unsettled legal standards without clear statutory authority, objective regulatory criteria, and practical implementation guidance.
These ambiguous standards significantly increase the legal risk associated with working through local partnerships. We would likely be more cautious about establishing and maintaining partner relationships because of increased potential liability, which undermines educational success and our continued ability to disseminate the fruits of federal funding to communities far and wide. This concern is especially significant because many USDA funding opportunities expressly encourage or even statutorily require collaboration among nonprofit organizations, Extension, conservation districts, Tribal organizations, and other community partners. Expanding recipient liability and oversight responsibilities without clear standards may discourage the very partnerships that USDA programs are designed–or in some cases required by statute–to foster. Fewer partnerships mean fewer farmers and ranchers reached through trusted local organizations and a less efficient use of federal funds.
3. The proposal would increase administrative costs without increasing program capacity.
Farm Commons intentionally operates with a small staff so that we remain nimble and flexible while devoting the bulk of our effort to legal education rather than administration. The proposal would increase administrative and compliance responsibilities throughout the life of an award. As a four-person organization without dedicated grants or compliance managers, even modest administrative increases require shifting organizational capacity away from serving farmers.
The proposal creates uncertainty regarding the scope of recipient certification, monitoring, reporting, and compliance responsibilities by failing to clearly distinguish between activities conducted under a federally funded project and an organization’s non-federally funded operations. Without clear limits, recipients cannot confidently implement these requirements or assess their legal obligations. Instead, organizations are left to interpret ambiguous standards, increasing both administrative burden and legal risk. Recipient certification, monitoring, and reporting obligations should be limited to activities conducted under the federally funded project—not a recipient’s unrelated operations or activities supported by non-federal funds.
We are also concerned about the proposed changes to payment and reimbursement procedures (primarily § 200.305), which appear to require recipients to provide additional documentation to justify payment requests even after a project, budget, and scope of work have already been reviewed and approved. Farm Commons relies on timely reimbursement of approved project costs to manage cash flow and carry out federally funded work. Preparing a single cost reimbursement request takes, on average, about 4 hours per month, per project between the bookkeeping and leadership staff in compiling receipts and preparing custom documentation. Farm Commons typically administers 5 to 8 federally funded projects simultaneously, meaning even modest documentation increases translate into dozens of additional staff hours each month. Requiring additional justification each time reimbursement is requested would significantly increase our administrative work, diverting our limited organizational capacity away from project delivery and performance without any corresponding improvement in accountability. This approach is inconsistent with the purpose of approving project budgets and scopes of work in advance, which is to establish a shared understanding of allowable project activities and expenditures before implementation begins. Once a project budget and scope of work have been approved, recipients should generally be able to rely on those approvals as the basis for reimbursement unless there is a clearly identified compliance concern.
We are also concerned that the combined changes to financial management, recordkeeping, and monitoring requirements (§§ 200.302, 200.303, 200.329, 200.332, and 200.334) would require substantially more staff time devoted to compliance rather than program delivery. As a small organization, we rely on the 15% de minimis indirect cost rate to help cover our administrative expenses, yet the proposal does not provide a corresponding increase to reflect these additional responsibilities.
For Farm Commons, these are not simply administrative costs—they are opportunity costs that reduce our ability to deliver federally funded projects.Every additional hour spent documenting reimbursement requests, maintaining records, responding to oversight requirements, or interpreting new compliance obligations is an hour that cannot be spent developing legal education resources, training agricultural service providers, or assisting farmers.
Conclusion
Farm Commons supports responsible stewardship of federal funds and recognizes the importance of accountability. Effective federal financial assistance depends on both accountability and reasonable reliance. Recipients must be able to plan projects, make commitments, and administer awards with confidence that approved funding will remain reliable, compliance obligations will be clearly defined, and administrative responsibilities will remain proportional to demonstrated risk.
We respectfully urge OMB to substantially revise these provisions to preserve reliable funding commitments, meaningful procedural protections, clearly defined compliance standards, and administrative requirements that are proportional to demonstrated risk. These concerns can be addressed through the following revisions to the proposed rule.
Farm Commons respectfully recommends that OMB revise the proposed rule as follows:
Preserve the Reliability of Federal Awards
Preserve Effective Partnerships
Ensure Clear, Proportional Recipient Responsibilities
