White House Drops Bid to Politically Vet $48 Billion in NIH Grants
Updated
Updated · The New York Times · Sep 23
White House Drops Bid to Politically Vet $48 Billion in NIH Grants
3 articles · Updated · The New York Times · Sep 23
Summary
Four people familiar with the matter said the White House has backed away from an executive order that would have let a new commission block NIH grants misaligned with President Donald Trump’s agenda.
Fierce bipartisan opposition on Capitol Hill forced the reversal after lawmakers expected Trump could sign the order as soon as this week.
The shelved plan targeted the NIH’s $48 billion annual budget, which is typically awarded through expert peer review for research on cancer, infectious diseases and other health priorities.
Officials have not fully abandoned tighter control over research spending, continuing a broader Trump effort to curb funding labeled “woke” and pressure Harvard and other elite universities.
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.