Federal grantees should be aware of a proposed change to SAM.gov registration requirements titled “Information Collection; System for Award Management Registration Requirements for Financial Assistance Recipients.” The proposal would add new certifications related to compliance with federal anti-discrimination law; diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives; immigration-related provisions; and national security statements.
If you were paying attention to the earlier Executive Orders in 2026, you know where this is going. The EO language, along with Department of Justice guidance, set the policy direction, and this proposal takes the next step: it embeds that direction directly into the SAM.gov registration process. In other words, what began as executive policy guidance would now become a formal certification required of every applicant and recipient. Grant recipients have always had to indicate they would comply with federal law, but EOs aren’t laws, and the proposed changes aren’t routine checkboxes. They’re broad, organization-level attestations, and broad language creates risk.
Potential Issues
First, the DEI-related certification may create a chilling effect. The phrase “illegal DEI” is not a precise compliance standard. It depends on interpretation and enforcement. Some organizations may narrow lawful, equity-focused programs, scholarships, fellowships, or outreach simply to avoid scrutiny.
Second, immigration-related attestations could also influence service delivery. Even when serving eligible participants lawfully, staff may overcorrect their intake practices or request documentation they do not need. That can reduce access, create an administrative burden, and weaken trust.
Third, these certifications apply at the entity level inside SAM.gov. If an agency later determines a certification was inaccurate, it could trigger audit findings or exposure under the False Claims Act. If you’re the primary grant recipient, you are responsible for ensuring your subrecipients and contractors are complying with the attestations. If you’re the subrecipient, you’ll have to comply, increasing administrative burden across funding chains.
But what if you don’t get federal grants and don’t plan to? Well…There may also be spillover. Private foundations sometimes mirror federal language in grant agreements. Insurers and auditors adjust risk guidance based on federal trends. Over time, this could reshape sector practices, including for nonprofits that do not receive federal funds.
In short, the proposal may not outlaw common nonprofit activities, but it does bring ambiguity, risk, fear, and increased compliance burden.
There Is Something You Can Do
This change is open for public comment through March 30, 2026. Here’s how to submit a comment about these proposed changes and their impact on your organization and the clients you serve. Here’s how:
- Go to Regulations.gov:
https://www.regulations.gov/docket/GSA-GSA-2026-0001 - Open the document labeled:
GSA-GSA-2026-0001-0001 - Click “Comment.”
- Paste or upload your feedback. Be specific. Describe your organization, the programs you operate, and how these certifications could affect service delivery, partnerships, or compliance costs.
- Submit before March 30, 2026.
You don’t need legal language. Clear, practical examples will be the most effective.
Should You Contact Your Members of Congress?
Possibly, yes. This proposal is moving through the regulatory process, but congressional offices can provide oversight. I’m hearing from colleagues that many members of Congress may not be aware of these proposed changes yet. A short, factual email explaining the operational impact on your organization and the communities you serve can prompt them to request clarification or a briefing from the agency.
What About 501(c)(3) “Lobbying”?
There is a common belief that nonprofits can’t engage in lobbying, and many confuse lobbying and advocacy. Submitting a public comment on a federal rule isn’t lobbying. You are participating in the administrative rulemaking process, which you’re allowed to do. Even contacting members of Congress to share factual information about operational impact is generally permissible advocacy for 501(c)(3) organizations, as long as it doesn’t become a substantial part of your activities. Most nonprofits stay well within safe limits when they:
- Provide factual information
- Share program impact
- Request oversight or clarification
- Avoid partisan political activity, like endorsing or opposing a candidate for office, donating to a campaign, etc.
You’re allowed to speak about how federal policy affects your work. In fact, you’re often the most credible voice in the room.
(For those who are curious, 501c3s are also allowed to lobby, as long as it’s not a “substantial part” of your total activities. Lobbying is an attempt to influence legislation by talking with legislators who have a say in the legislation.)
If your organization relies on federal funding or partners with those that do, this proposal is worth five minutes of attention. It may be tucked inside the federal rulemaking process, but its practical implications are real.