The Uniform Guidance Rewrite: Four 2 CFR 200 Changes Federal Grant Recipients Need to Plan For in 2026
← Back to Blog Compliance

The Uniform Guidance Rewrite: Four 2 CFR 200 Changes Federal Grant Recipients Need to Plan For in 2026

OMB's May 29, 2026 proposed rewrite of 2 CFR Part 200 ends fixed-amount awards, codifies termination for convenience, extends E-Verify to grant recipients, and adds senior-appointee approval.

by iSi Environmental

If you run grants at a city, a water utility, a regional planning council, a tribal government, or a nonprofit that touches federal dollars, the rewrite of 2 CFR Part 200 that the Office of Management and Budget published in the Federal Register on May 29, 2026 is not background noise. It is four discrete operational changes that hit your finance system, your HR onboarding workflow, your subaward templates, and the way you scope multi-year projects. Monday morning, after the long Memorial Day weekend, your grants administrator is going to ask which of these affect your active awards and which affect the awards you are about to submit. The honest answer is: all of them, but on different timelines.

This is the largest revision of the Uniform Guidance since the regulation was first issued in 2013 (NACo). The proposed rule layers on top of substantive 2024 revisions that already raised the single audit threshold from $750,000 to $1 million and the de minimis indirect cost rate from 10% to 15% (Baker Tilly). The 2026 proposal does something different. It restructures the grant relationship itself.

Four changes drive most of the operational work. We will walk through each, then surface what most of the headline coverage is glossing over.

What Are the Four Big 2 CFR 200 Changes Coming in 2026?

The proposed rewrite is structurally aggressive in four directions. None of them are subtle.

1. Fixed-amount awards are eliminated. Lump-sum grant instruments would be prohibited going forward. Every award would move to a cost-reimbursable model that requires detailed cost accounting against approved budgets (Feldesman). If your finance team has been managing fixed-amount awards as if they were milestone payments — book the cash, deliver the work, close the file — that workflow ends when the final rule takes effect.

2. Termination for convenience is codified. Federal agencies could end an award at any time if they determine it no longer aligns with current agency priorities, mirroring the standard from federal procurement contracts (Greenberg Traurig). This is non-cause termination. The recipient does not have to be in breach. The agency does not have to prove fault. The award ends because the agency says it ends.

3. E-Verify extends to all grant recipients and subrecipients. A requirement that previously applied only to federal contractors is now grant-side too. Every project staff member whose salary is charged to a federal award has to flow through E-Verify (NACo). HR onboarding workflows that were not set up for it need to be.

4. Senior-appointee approval before any notice of award. Agencies cannot issue a grant notice until a senior political appointee signs off (Clark Nuber). The proposal also extends the “Huawei Ban” — the prohibition on Chinese telecommunications and surveillance equipment — to drones. Both changes shift control upward and slow the procedural pipeline.

The proposal published May 29, 2026 in the Federal Register as docket OMB-2026-0034. The public comment period is 45 days. Comments are due July 13, 2026 (National Council of Nonprofits).

Who Does the Uniform Guidance Rewrite Apply To?

Every entity receiving federal financial assistance. The Uniform Guidance applies to state, local, and tribal governments; institutions of higher education; nonprofits; for-profit entities receiving certain federal awards; and pass-through entities distributing federal funds to subrecipients (2 CFR Part 200). There is no carve-out by size, sector, or program. The rewrite reaches subrecipients with the same force as direct recipients.

For organizations adjacent to environmental work, that means municipalities receiving federal infrastructure grants — IIJA, EPA State Revolving Funds, Brownfields awards — fall in scope. So do nonprofits receiving EPA environmental justice or community-based program grants, universities with federally funded environmental research, tribal governments administering federal environmental programs, regional planning organizations receiving federal transportation conformity grants, and water and wastewater utilities receiving EPA WIFIA or Clean Water SRF funds.

The self-qualification test is straightforward. Do you receive federal grants, cooperative agreements, or federal pass-through funds? Do you receive subawards through any state or pass-through entity that uses federal funds? If the answer is yes, the rewrite applies to you.

Why Is Termination for Convenience the Most Contested Change?

Termination for convenience is the structural shift inside the rewrite. The other three changes are operational. This one rewrites the durability of the federal funding commitment itself.

In the 2024 revisions, OMB had specifically said the convenience-termination provision could only be used when expressly included in the terms and conditions of an award. The August 2025 Executive Order on enhanced grant oversight directed agencies to amend existing grants to include termination for convenience “to the maximum extent permitted by law” and to make it standard in future discretionary grants (Greenberg Traurig). The May 2026 proposed rule operationalizes that EO direction inside the Uniform Guidance.

The procedural distinction matters. Termination for default requires recipient breach — you missed a deliverable, you misspent funds, you failed to comply. There is a process. There are appeal rights. Termination for convenience requires no fault. The agency determines the award no longer advances current agency priorities and the award ends. Procedural appeal rights are limited compared to default termination.

Recent enforcement focus has tracked political priority changes. Grants for programs viewed as inconsistent with current administration priorities have faced increased scrutiny and termination action. The convenience-termination provision codifies the procedural mechanism for that scrutiny (National Council of Nonprofits).

For your project plans, the practical effect is that grant-funded work now carries non-cause termination risk. Multi-year capital projects, environmental remediation work funded through Brownfields or SRF, water infrastructure projects under WIFIA — none of them have built-in contingency for mid-stream termination. The plans should.

What Should Grant Managers Do Before July 13, 2026?

The comment deadline is the first procedural deadline. National associations — NACo, the National Council of Nonprofits, the American Council on Education, the Association of Governing Boards, and the major university associations — are coordinating sector-specific comments. Joining a coordinated comment is often more effective than individual filing.

Before that deadline, three internal tasks should be done.

Inventory your current and pending awards. Identify which are fixed-amount and which are cost-reimbursable. Identify which already include termination-for-convenience language and which do not. The August 2025 EO directed agencies to amend existing awards where legally permitted; some of your awards may have been amended already.

Inventory your subrecipient relationships. Pass-through entities will need to include termination-for-convenience provisions in subawards under the proposed rule. If you are a pass-through entity, your existing subaward templates need revision. If you are a subrecipient, your pass-through entity will be revising the terms you operate under.

Assess your E-Verify readiness. E-Verify enrollment typically takes 30 to 60 days but can take longer for complex organizations. If your HR onboarding workflow does not currently support E-Verify for federally funded project staff, the time to start is now, not after the final rule.

What Is the Single Audit Threshold and the De Minimis Rate in 2026?

Two changes from the 2024 revisions are already in effect and worth confirming, because they get conflated with the 2026 proposed rule.

The single audit threshold is $1,000,000 in federal expenditures, up from $750,000 (Baker Tilly). Organizations between $750,000 and $1,000,000 in federal expenditures no longer require a federal single audit under 2 CFR Part 200 Subpart F. State and pass-through entity requirements may still mandate audits below the federal threshold, however. Do not drop your audit without confirming all pass-through requirements first.

The de minimis indirect cost rate is 15%, up from 10%. Organizations that do not have a federally negotiated indirect cost rate can apply the de minimis rate to modified total direct costs. The 5-percentage-point increase is a meaningful budget impact on most awards — large enough that proposals and renewals should be recalculated against the higher rate.

The Counter-Signal Most Coverage Is Missing

Here is the part the headline coverage tends to skip.

The de minimis increase from 10% to 15% was framed as a benefit to small recipients without negotiated rates. In practice, the benefit has lagged the regulation by 12 to 18 months at most state and pass-through agencies. Subaward templates and reimbursement workflows did not update on the same schedule the federal rule did. Many subrecipients eligible for the 15% rate are still being reimbursed at 10% because the pass-through system has not caught up.

Three things follow from that. First, if you are a subrecipient, audit your most recent subaward reimbursements. If you are being paid at 10% on awards issued after the 2024 effective date, you are entitled to ask the pass-through entity to update to 15% and apply the new rate prospectively. Second, if you are a pass-through entity, audit your subaward templates and reimbursement system. The compliance gap is yours, not the subrecipient’s. Third, expect the same lag on the 2026 changes. Implementation friction will likely produce inconsistent application across agencies for the first 24 months after the final rule, just as past Uniform Guidance changes have taken 12 to 18 months from final rule to effective implementation across all agencies (Clark Nuber).

The implementation timeline for the rewrite is also aggressive. Comments are due July 13, 2026. The final rule is expected by end of fiscal year 2026. That compresses the practitioner adjustment window. Past Uniform Guidance changes had 12 to 18 months from final rule to effective implementation across all agencies. The 2026 rewrite may not have that runway, which means the dual-compliance environment — awards issued before the effective date stay under old rules; awards issued after follow the new rule — will sit on your accounting systems for at least two years. Finance staff need to track both compliance regimes simultaneously on multi-year awards that straddle the transition.

What Grant-Funded Project Plans Need to Add

For grant-funded organizations that have not had to plan around non-cause termination, the project planning checklist needs a new section. Mid-stream termination contingency planning should cover four areas:

Staff transition. Federally funded project staff who would be left without funding mid-stream. Severance exposure, internal redeployment options, and the documentation required to demonstrate the staff were terminated for non-fault reasons (which affects unemployment claims, benefit transitions, and morale).

Equipment and IP disposition. Federally funded equipment is subject to 2 CFR 200 disposition rules. If the award terminates, the disposition timeline accelerates. Equipment over the use threshold, intellectual property created under the award, and shared-use equipment all need a documented post-termination plan.

Continuation funding strategy. What state, foundation, or local funding sources could continue the work if the federal award is terminated mid-stream? The realistic answer for most organizations is “very few,” but identifying the gap is the first step to closing it.

Subrecipient cascade. If you are a pass-through entity and the prime award terminates, your subrecipients lose funding too. Their workflows, their staff, and their projects all need to be in the contingency plan, not as an afterthought.

Most grant-funded organizations do not currently have these in their playbooks. Most procurement-contract-funded organizations have had them for years. The Uniform Guidance rewrite imports the procurement standard into the grant world, which means the grant world needs to import the procurement playbook.

What This Means for Grant Managers in Practice

Build a grant compliance update project plan with three phases.

Phase 1 (now through July 13, 2026): Inventory current grants, identify fixed-amount awards, identify subrecipient relationships, audit current de minimis rate application, draft comment if relevant. Confirm E-Verify enrollment status and timeline. This is the work that fits inside the comment period.

Phase 2 (final rule effective date through 90 days post): Update internal policies, train grant management staff on cost-reimbursement accounting, brief leadership on termination-for-convenience exposure. Update subaward templates if you are a pass-through entity. Update your indirect cost rate negotiation posture.

Phase 3 (90 days through 12 months post): Transition existing awards as renewals and amendments come up. Build the contingency planning section into your standard project scoping process. Run a tabletop on a mid-stream termination scenario for one major award and document what you would actually do.

Grant management cannot be a quarterly review function in 2026. The rewrite changes accounting structure, HR processes, subrecipient management, and procurement standards simultaneously. Each is a discrete operational lift. Together they are a system change.

How iSi Supports Federal Grant Compliance for Environmental Programs

iSi Environmental works with municipalities, water and wastewater utilities, tribal governments, and nonprofits that receive federal environmental grant funding — IIJA, EPA State Revolving Funds, Brownfields, EPA WIFIA, environmental justice grants, and the federal pass-through programs administered by Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Texas, and Nebraska. Our COOP retainer model covers the federal grant compliance work that sits adjacent to the environmental scope: subaward template review against 2 CFR Part 200, indirect cost rate posture, single audit readiness, and the operational checklist work that turns a Uniform Guidance change into an executed update across your finance, HR, and subrecipient systems.

If your organization receives federal environmental program funding and the May 29 proposal has surfaced gaps you need to close before the comment period closes, call us at (316) 264-7050 or use the Compliance Gap Checker to scope a review.

Sources

Tags: