Bipartisan lawmakers resist proposed political review of NIH grants

Reports of a White House effort to place political appointees over the National Institutes of Health’s grant decisions have prompted opposition from senior lawmakers in both parties, according to reporting by livepress.us.

The proposed system could be created through an executive order or through approval requirements involving the Office of Management and Budget. Either approach would add a political screening stage before federal biomedical research funds are released. Researchers, universities and congressional appropriators warn that such a change could weaken the independence of the country’s main public biomedical research agency.

The plans were reported after an earlier account by The Washington Post described an executive-branch effort to examine individual grants for compatibility with President Donald Trump’s priorities. Studies considered inconsistent with those priorities could face additional review or be denied funding.

That would alter a process that has traditionally relied on scientific assessment rather than presidential or administrative preference. Grant applications are evaluated by panels of outside experts, who consider factors including the quality of the science, the originality of the proposal, the strength of its methods and its possible effect on public health.

Lawmakers challenge executive oversight

Sen. Susan Collins, a Maine Republican who chairs the Senate Appropriations Committee, and Sen. Patty Murray, a Washington Democrat who serves as its ranking member, have both objected to the reported plans. Their concerns focus on whether the executive branch can redirect or screen awards that have already passed the established merit review.

Collins has argued that Congress intended federal grants to be distributed according to medical and scientific priorities, not the political objectives of whichever administration is in office. Congressional opponents say political review could conflict with the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution and the Impoundment Control Act.

Murray said the administration was trying to make medical research a tool of political retaliation. She argued that the relevant test should be whether research is sound and could benefit patients, rather than whether it serves the president personally.

The dispute follows other attempts by the administration to increase control over federally financed research. During the previous year, executive officials moved to stop or cancel more than 1,800 grants across federal science agencies. Projects involving diversity, equity and inclusion, health disparities and some social-science fields were among those affected. Administration officials said some funding was later restored after agencies supplied additional justification, while universities said the interruptions still caused lasting losses in staff and research momentum.

Earlier fight over grant rules

The administration also proposed major reductions to the NIH budget and sought to establish a system described as forward funding. Under that arrangement, multi-year awards would have been financed in full from a single year’s appropriation. Universities said the approach would effectively limit reimbursement for administrative and overhead costs. Congress rejected the proposal during spending negotiations.

Another point of conflict emerged in the summer of 2026, when OMB issued a proposed update to the Uniform Guidance rules. The draft would have enabled political appointees to review discretionary grants throughout the federal government and would have broadened the authority to end awards “for convenience,” without a finding of scientific misconduct or failure.

Collins led a bipartisan congressional letter calling for the proposal to be withdrawn. Lawmakers then included language in a temporary spending measure that blocked implementation of the rule. The continuing resolution funds the federal government through mid-December 2026.

With that administrative route blocked, reports published on September 21 said White House lawyers were preparing an executive order that would establish political review of NIH grants directly. Such an order would avoid the rulemaking process that had drawn congressional resistance.

Why NIH researchers are concerned

The NIH receives about $48 billion a year and is the world’s largest public source of biomedical research funding. More than four-fifths of its money is awarded competitively to more than 300,000 researchers working at 2,500 universities, medical schools and research institutions across all 50 states.

Applications normally move through several stages. Independent scientific study sections first examine the proposals and assign scores. Institute advisory councils then review the results before institute directors make final funding decisions. The proposed arrangement would place a second layer of executive-branch scrutiny across that sequence.

Researchers are especially concerned about the possible use of expanded cancellation powers. A multi-year laboratory project or clinical trial could be ended without evidence that the researchers had acted improperly or that the work was scientifically deficient. For studies requiring extensive clinical infrastructure and many millions of dollars, an unexpected termination could disrupt both institutions and patients.

Organizations representing universities, hospitals and scientific societies have joined the congressional criticism. United for Cures, a biomedical research coalition, said political intervention could destabilize medical research nationwide and urged lawmakers from both parties to reject the proposal.

The White House had not immediately responded to requests for comment, livepress.us reported.