The White House has abandoned plans to issue an executive order that would have placed federal health and biomedical research funding under increased political oversight, according to multiple sources familiar with the discussions. The move marks a significant retreat from an initiative that aimed to establish a commission with authority to block government grants deemed inconsistent with President Donald Trump’s political agenda.
The proposed directive was reportedly discussed in a White House meeting last Friday, with expectations that the order might be signed imminently. However, mounting opposition from both Republican and Democratic members of Congress led the administration to reconsider its approach. Sources familiar with the situation, speaking on condition of anonymity, indicated that while the White House paused the plan, officials have not entirely abandoned efforts to exert greater control over federal research expenditures.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH), the nation’s largest biomedical research agency, is at the center of the debate. With an annual budget of approximately $48 billion, the NIH allocates substantial funding for research in areas such as cancer and infectious diseases. Traditionally, these grants have been awarded based on rigorous scientific peer review. Under the Trump administration, however, political appointees have increased involvement in grant decisions, seeking to curtail funding perceived as aligned with “woke” initiatives and to pressure institutions like Harvard University over accusations of antisemitism and liberal bias.
Since the president’s return to office, over 5,700 NIH grants totaling about $15 billion have been frozen or reduced, though around 4,500 have been reinstated, often following legal challenges. Researchers have reported significant disruptions stemming from these actions. NIH Director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya has issued new grant guidelines reflecting the administration’s opposition to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, coauthoring an opinion piece last year outlining efforts to eliminate DEI initiatives at the agency.
Despite these steps, President Trump and his budget director, Russell T. Vought, voiced dissatisfaction with the NIH’s compliance during a contentious meeting last week. Vought criticized Bhattacharya for continuing to approve projects contrary to presidential directives, including those banning federal support for DEI-related efforts.
The revelations of internal conflict sparked bipartisan backlash on Capitol Hill. Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine), who sits on the Senate Appropriations Committee, warned that the creation of such a commission would undermine congressional intent and harm scientific integrity. Senator Patty Murray (D-Washington), the committee’s ranking Democrat, accused the administration of seeking to appoint “lackeys” whose role would be to advance the president’s personal vendettas.
By midweek, sources indicated that officials from the Office of Management and Budget and the NIH were attempting to negotiate a compromise to align research funding with the president’s priorities while minimizing political interference in grant decisions. The White House reportedly delayed any executive action after considering congressional pushback and ongoing internal disagreements.
It remains uncertain whether the administration will pursue similar measures in the future. Since resuming office, President Trump has repeatedly sought to block or revoke billions in congressionally authorized research funds, provoking disputes in Congress and the courts. His efforts to expand political criteria for other federal grants, including funds for state and local governments, were previously thwarted by congressional votes.
Trump’s DEI-related restrictions have also impacted NIH research on health disparities, an area in which Bhattacharya himself has conducted federally funded work. The ongoing tensions highlight the complex intersection of science funding, political priorities, and governance within the federal research apparatus.