Top lawmakers from the House and Senate appropriations committees have expressed strong opposition to potential new White House controls over how the National Institutes of Health (NIH) awards its research grants. The warnings come amid reports that the administration is considering an executive order to establish a commission to review NIH funding decisions.
Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Patty Murray (D-Washington), chair and vice chair of the Senate appropriations panel respectively, along with Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Connecticut), the senior Democrat on the House committee, conveyed concerns that the proposed changes could politicize the NIH’s $47 billion grant-making process, which they emphasize should be guided by scientific merit rather than political considerations.
Reports indicate that the White House budget office, led by Russell Vought, has expressed dissatisfaction with certain NIH-funded projects, accusing the agency of allocating resources to initiatives perceived as conflicting with President Donald Trump’s policy agenda. Vought has reportedly criticized the NIH for supporting grants deemed "woke," and the administration has taken issue with awards related to equity-focused research, citing Trump’s executive order that restricts funding for such projects.
The NIH, under the leadership of Jay Bhattacharya, a Trump appointee, defended its grant procedures during a meeting with the president. Last year, the agency took steps to terminate some grants that fell under scrutiny following Trump’s assumption of office.
The discussion over NIH grant oversight is part of a broader effort by the administration’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to exert greater control over federal research funding. OMB has proposed a rule that would require political appointees to review grants before they are awarded to ensure alignment with presidential priorities. Congressional appropriators, however, have delayed implementation of this rule through December in the most recent government funding legislation.
Collins criticized any political review of grant awards that have undergone rigorous scientific evaluation. She stated that such interference undermines the principle that federal funding should be based on scientific need and merit rather than political ideology. Murray underscored that NIH funding serves patients and families awaiting medical breakthroughs, not political interests.
The potential new controls have also drawn criticism from health care advocacy groups and academic leaders, who argue that politicizing research funding could hinder progress in developing cures and treatments. Erika Sward, executive director of United for Cures, a coalition of patient advocates, warned that such politicization threatens the availability of future medical advancements for Americans nationwide.
Requests for comment from OMB and NIH officials were not immediately returned, and Rep. Tom Cole (R-Oklahoma), chair of the House Appropriations Committee, also did not respond to inquiries regarding the matter. The debate highlights ongoing tensions between congressional appropriators and the White House over the federal research grant process amid broader discussions about the role of science and politics in government funding decisions.