The Streamlining Federal Grants Act of 2026 directs the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to stand up a Grants Council, designate senior agency grant officials across grantmaking agencies, and issue guidance requiring agency-specific plans to simplify grant notices, applications, administration, and reporting. The bill emphasizes user experience improvements (including notices of funding opportunity in plain language and a 500‑word summary), outreach to organizations that have not historically received federal awards, and coordination across agencies through common data standards and working groups.
The measure matters for grantmaking agencies, recipients, and intermediaries because it creates a long-lived, OMB‑led structure for harmonizing grant processes, mandates public reporting and evaluation, and compels a multi-year program of reviews (including a Grants.gov study and GAO evaluations) designed to reduce barriers to access and improve performance management. Those changes could shift how agencies design NOFOs, deploy grant-management systems, and track applicant geography and characteristics.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires each federal agency that awards grants or cooperative agreements to designate a senior grants official, participate on a new OMB Grants Council, and develop agency plans to simplify application, administration, and reporting for all covered programs. OMB must issue guidance, create common data standards, convene interagency working groups, and direct improvements to Grants.gov based on a mandated study.
Who It Affects
Affected parties include federal grantmaking agencies and their internal grant-management teams, Grants.gov (and its operating agencies), state and local governments, Indian Tribes, nonprofits (including faith-based and community organizations), institutions of higher education, and contractors that supply grant‑management platforms or training.
Why It Matters
The Act institutionalizes centralized, OMB-driven coordination of federal grant practices—potentially reducing duplicative requirements and improving access for underrepresented applicants—but it also creates new compliance and reporting responsibilities for agencies and a multi-year implementation timeline with required GAO oversight.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Act establishes a new Grants Council housed at OMB and chaired by the Controller for Federal Financial Management. Membership will include each agency’s designated senior grants official and other agency representatives the Chair deems necessary.
The Council is charged to solicit user feedback (including from applicants who historically have not received awards), coordinate common data standards across agencies, develop plain-language improvements to notices of funding opportunity, and promote consistent interpretation of federal financial assistance policy.
OMB must publish a public list of senior agency grants officials soon after enactment, issue guidance for agency improvement plans, and make administrative arrangements (GSA to provide support). Agencies must name a senior grants official within 60 days, and OMB must form the Council within 80 days.
Guidance will require agencies to create plans covering application simplification, applicant assistance, accessibility for limited English proficiency populations, adoption of grant-management solutions that meet usability standards, and annual measurable goals.Agencies will publish draft plans in the Federal Register, review public comments, and consult with non‑Federal entities during plan development and implementation. OMB can exempt agencies or programs that do not administer a significant number of awards and must maintain and publish a list of such exemptions.
The Director will also direct updates to Grants.gov after a mandated accessibility and user‑experience study and will implement recommendations within a three‑year window.Oversight and evaluation are built into the statute: OMB must report on implementation every two years for 15 years and provide a recommended changes report after four years; the Government Accountability Office must analyze barriers to access within two years and provide a five-year evaluation of the Act’s effectiveness. The law therefore couples near-term administrative changes with medium- and long-term assessment of whether those changes actually expand access and improve grant performance.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Agencies must designate a senior agency official for grants within 60 days of enactment, and OMB must publish the full list within 90 days.
OMB must establish the Grants Council within 80 days; the Council will be chaired by the OMB Controller and include each agency’s senior grants official.
OMB guidance for agency grant-improvement plans must issue within 270 days and plans must be submitted within 1 year of that guidance (subject to a possible one‑year extension).
Grants.gov must undergo an accessibility and user‑experience study within 1 year, and OMB (with HHS) must implement the study’s recommendations within 3 years.
GAO must produce (1) a report on access barriers for small, rural, faith‑based and community organizations within 2 years and (2) a five‑year evaluation of the Act’s effectiveness, and OMB must deliver recurring implementation reports every 2 years for 15 years.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Senior agency grants official requirement
Section 4 obligates each grantmaking agency to designate a single senior official responsible for agency‑wide grant policy, strategy, and compliance with this Act. The practical effect is to create a clear internal point‑person for coordination with OMB, the Grants Council, and external stakeholders; OMB will post the roster publicly. That designation centralizes accountability but also concentrates implementation workload in a single role within agencies that may vary widely in resources and grant portfolios.
Creation and duties of the Grants Council
Section 5 creates the Grants Council at OMB, chaired by the Controller, with the senior agency grants officials as core members and authority to add others. The Council must coordinate common data standards, plain‑language NOFO guidance, interagency data sharing for performance management, workforce development, and conflict‑of‑interest rules for grant awards. It also establishes an agency co‑chair rotating two‑year term and authorizes OMB to use interagency working groups. The Council’s remit is broad—spanning technical standards, policy interpretation, and operational modernization—so its effectiveness will hinge on OMB’s ability to convert cross‑agency recommendations into implementable standards.
Agency grant improvement plans and public consultation
Section 6 requires OMB guidance for agency plans to simplify applications and reporting, improve user experience, provide training/assistance listings, and ensure LEP accessibility; it mandates a 500‑word NOFO summary and requires agencies to integrate plan goals into their performance plans. Agencies must publish plans for public comment in the Federal Register and consult with non‑Federal entities, with OMB authority to grant limited exemptions. This section operationalizes the Act’s user‑focus but leaves open how detailed plans must be, which programs qualify for exemption, and how OMB will reconcile program‑specific legal constraints with uniform simplification goals.
Grants.gov study and implementation
Section 7 orders a one‑year study of Grants.gov’s accessibility and user experience (to be led by OMB with HHS coordination), followed by implementation of the study’s recommendations within three years. That creates a concrete timetable for modernizing the federal portal used by most applicants and signals potential procurement or architecture changes, but it does not specify funding sources or technical scope for modernization.
GAO study of access barriers
Section 8 directs the Comptroller General to identify application, administrative, and reporting barriers faced by small, rural, faith‑based, and community organizations; determine why some entities avoid federal awards; and analyze agency collection of applicant characteristics and geography. The resulting analysis is intended to ground policy changes in evidence, but it depends on agencies’ current data collection and the GAO’s access to usable records.
Five‑year GAO evaluation and OMB reporting cadence
Section 9 requires a GAO evaluation five years after enactment assessing whether the Act meets its purposes, offering recommendations, and evaluating agency performance against the plans required under Section 6. Separately, OMB must submit implementation reports every two years for 15 years and a report with recommended statutory/regulatory changes within four years. Together these provisions create a sustained oversight sequence intended to measure outcomes rather than just process changes.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Small nonprofits and community‑based organizations: the Act directs improved NOFO clarity, training listings, and LEP access, which can lower application costs and administrative barriers for groups that have struggled with complex federal requirements.
- Rural and small local governments: the mandated GAO analysis and OMB plans must consider geographic distribution and outreach, increasing the likelihood of targeted assistance and simplified application pathways for smaller jurisdictions.
- Prospective applicants who are non‑traditional grantees (faith‑based organizations, newer community groups): explicit consultation requirements and an emphasis on organizations that have not historically received awards aim to expand the applicant pool and raise awareness of opportunities.
- Agency grant officers and program managers: common data standards, guidance, and centralized coordination can reduce duplicative requests for information and create shared tools that streamline day‑to‑day administration.
- Users of Grants.gov and potential successors: the required study and implementation timetable create a statutory driver for portal modernization, which should improve searchability and submission workflows.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal grantmaking agencies: developing and implementing plans, appointing senior officials, and participating in Council workstreams will require staff time, potential procurement for new grant‑management systems, and ongoing reporting obligations.
- Office of Management and Budget: OMB assumes a sustained coordination, reporting, and implementation role (including two‑year reports for 15 years), increasing its oversight workload without the bill specifying new appropriations.
- Grants.gov operating agencies and contractors: a statutory study and required implementation create procurement, redesign, and integration demands that may necessitate reallocation of program funds or new contracting.
- General Services Administration (GSA): tasked with providing administrative support to the Council, GSA will need to supply meeting, records, and support services that could strain existing resources.
- Program offices with legally distinct grant rules: programs with statutory or regulatory constraints may need to seek legal workarounds or request exemptions, creating transaction costs and potential tension with uniform simplification goals.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central trade‑off is between simplifying and expanding access to federal grants (reducing administrative burdens and opening doors to underserved applicants) and preserving program accountability and statutory compliance (which often requires detailed financial and performance reporting). The bill tilts toward access and harmonization through OMB leadership, but achieving both goals will demand resources, careful exemptions, and technical solutions—none of which the law fully funds or prescribes.
The Act centralizes coordination at OMB and pushes agencies toward common data standards and streamlined NOFOs, but it does not appropriate funds to pay for the modernization, workforce development, or system redesign it anticipates. Agencies with large, specialized grant portfolios—where statutory requirements, eligibility rules, or program‑specific accountability needs are tight—may struggle to reconcile a one‑size simplification mandate with legal and programmatic constraints.
The exemption authority for OMB helps, but the bill leaves the exemption standard vague (“not a significant number of grant and cooperative agreement programs”), which could invite disputes over which components must comply.
The data‑sharing and performance‑management ambitions raise questions about systems integration, privacy, and data governance: common data standards can improve oversight but require investment in secure interfaces and clear rules about what applicant and recipient data agencies may share across systems. The consultation mandate aims to reach organizations that historically have not received awards, but the statute does not define minimum expectations for meaningful outreach, nor does it require dedicated technical assistance funding—so practical access improvements may lag behind procedural changes.
Finally, the multi‑year cadence of reports and GAO evaluations sets up accountability, but without interim funding or mandated milestones tied to resources, OMB and agencies may produce plans and reports without materially changing on‑the‑ground access.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.