Trump Seeks Control of $48 Billion NIH Grant Funding, Escalating Political Oversight
Updated
Updated · POLITICO · Sep 20
Trump Seeks Control of $48 Billion NIH Grant Funding, Escalating Political Oversight
3 articles · Updated · POLITICO · Sep 20
Summary
Trump asked budget chief Russell Vought to draft an order putting federal health research funding under his direct control, according to officials familiar with the meeting.
The move would upend NIH’s long-standing 2-step grant process, in which peer-review panels and advisory councils vet applications before institute directors make final funding decisions.
Vought has pushed for political appointees to gain wider power to review or terminate grants that conflict with presidential priorities, arguing career NIH staff have favored progressive academics.
OMB already proposed a governmentwide rule in May to let appointees block grants deemed inconsistent with administration policy, drawing bipartisan criticism from lawmakers, scientists and state attorneys general.
HHS said NIH grant money will still be disbursed, but the proposed board would mark a significant expansion of White House influence over U.S. health research.
Could a new executive board fundamentally alter which medical breakthroughs receive federal funding in the coming years?
Will removing numerical scores from NIH grant reviews increase transparency or silently shift power to non-scientific reviewers?
The 2025–2026 NIH Grant Freeze: How Political Crackdowns Cut 7,800 Research Projects, Triggered a Brain Drain, and Threaten U.S. Biomedical Leadership
Overview
In early 2025, the Trump administration rapidly imposed executive orders that silenced federal science agencies and froze or cut thousands of NIH and NSF grants, especially targeting diversity and health disparity research. This sudden funding disruption led to halted clinical trials, job losses, and a sharp decline in graduate admissions at top universities, fueling a wave of U.S. scientists seeking jobs abroad as international competitors offered attractive recruitment packages. As universities and lawmakers pushed back through legal challenges and protective legislation, the administration proposed further NIH budget cuts and sweeping regulatory changes to shift grant decisions from scientific peer review to political oversight, sparking massive public opposition and raising concerns about the future of American biomedical innovation.