The rules are new, uneven, and widely misunderstood. Here is what each funder has actually published, in plain language — and what it means for a research team. (Summaries, not legal advice; policies as of mid-2026 — always check the current issuance.)
The PAPPG's research-misconduct definition now explicitly covers fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism committed with AI-based tools. A citation an AI invented is treated no differently from one you invented. Proposer disclosure of generative-AI use is required — non-disclosure is treated as misrepresentation — and reviewers are barred from feeding your proposal into unapproved AI tools. What it means: use AI if you like, but you own every word and every reference, and you'd better be able to show which is which.
NIH does not accept applications substantially developed by AI as the applicant's original work, under Guide Notice NOT-OD-25-132, effective September 25, 2025. What it means: AI as an assistant is survivable; AI as the author is disqualifying.
NASA guidance calls for documenting generative-AI use in proposals (which tool, how used) and bars putting export-controlled content into public AI tools. What it means: keep a record of AI's role, and never paste sensitive technical content into a consumer chatbot.
The Department of Defense has published no agency-wide rules on AI in proposals. What it means: silence is not safety — accountability defaults entirely to the PI and the institution, under the general standards for accuracy and integrity that federal submissions already carry.
The Department of Energy likewise has no proposal-specific AI policy. What it means: the same — you own it all, with no safe-harbor rules to point to.
Book a conversation and we'll send the plain-language summary — useful even if we never talk again.
Book a pilot conversation