The White House is preparing an executive order that would give the administration final authority over the awarding of scientific grants by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), a move that represents a significant expansion of presidential control over federal research funding. The proposal was discussed during a tense meeting at the White House last Friday, where officials debated ways to ensure grant awards align with the administration’s priorities.

According to individuals familiar with the meeting, the order would establish an external committee empowered to veto NIH funding decisions deemed inconsistent with the administration’s political agenda. President Donald Trump voiced frustration during the session about the administration’s inability to secure compliance from prominent academic institutions, notably Harvard University, which has been resistant to the administration’s broader campaign against what it describes as “woke” ideology in higher education.

The administration has faced legal setbacks in its efforts to reduce federal research funding to Harvard, including two recent court rulings blocking cuts to the university’s existing NIH grants. Officials indicated an intention to appeal these decisions.

Within the White House, some senior officials have expressed discontent over what they perceive as insufficient progress in reshaping academic research along conservative lines. One of the meeting’s focal points was NIH’s handling of grant approvals, particularly in relation to Ivy League universities.

The executive order, under development by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), would mark the latest attempt by the administration to exert political oversight over NIH, a $48 billion agency that allocates most of its budget to scientific research nationwide. Historically, NIH relies on expert peer review to evaluate grant applications for scientific merit, but the administration seeks to inject greater political scrutiny into the process, citing concerns about funding priorities that allegedly promote liberal or ideological agendas.

Central to the dispute is a longstanding conflict between Russell T. Vought, the OMB director, and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, NIH director. Mr. Vought advocates for increased political control over grant approvals, while Dr. Bhattacharya has resisted such efforts. The relationship has grown strained, with Mr. Vought reportedly refusing direct meetings with Dr. Bhattacharya. During the recent White House session, Mr. Vought accused Dr. Bhattacharya of approving projects at odds with the administration’s directives.

One of President Trump’s executive orders issued early in his second term terminated federal programs focused on “diversity, equity, and inclusion,” affecting NIH-funded studies on health disparities such as racial and socioeconomic factors influencing disease outcomes. This has placed Dr. Bhattacharya, a former Stanford University economist who conducted research on health disparities, in a difficult position. While he has sought ways to preserve funding for scientifically valid studies in this area, he has also supported ending grants he views as ideologically driven or lacking in quality.

The dispute extends beyond scientific concerns to budgetary issues. Mr. Vought has pushed to reduce overall federal spending on research, including attempts to rescind unspent funds in the current fiscal year—efforts that were unsuccessful. In contrast, Dr. Bhattacharya opposes such cuts and resists political appointees having the final say over grant funding decisions.

Congress has thus far rejected the administration’s attempts to reduce biomedical research funding, overriding President Trump’s proposed cuts last year. Additionally, a new rule proposed by the administration would have overseen political review across all federal grant-making, aiming to eliminate government support for what it termed “gender ideology and other radical doctrines.” This proposal faced widespread condemnation from the scientific community and bipartisan opposition in Congress, which blocked its implementation.

The administration’s actions have led to legal challenges, including a recent class-action lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of scientists. The suit alleges that NIH is unconstitutionally censoring research by screening grants for alignment with political priorities, violating scientists’ First Amendment rights. The plaintiffs study topics ranging from health disparities to Alzheimer’s disease and workplace sexual harassment, asserting that the government cannot use funding power to suppress disfavored viewpoints within biomedical research.

NIH spokesperson Joshua Pradko declined to comment on the specifics of the White House meeting but affirmed the agency’s commitment to funding biomedical research and noted that no NIH grant monies would be rescinded. The outcome of the proposed executive order and ongoing legal battles will be closely watched by the scientific community and higher education institutions nationwide.