As the dust settled after the 2016 presidential election and Donald Trump’s victory, leaders at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) found themselves in a state of uncertainty. With the conservative Project 2025 proposing to break the “NIH monopoly on directing research,” rumors swirled about potential changes that could be imposed by the incoming administration.
One of the key concerns was the possibility of invoking Schedule F to make more agency employees political appointees. There were also discussions about the potential dismissal of the directors of the agency’s 27 institutes in one fell swoop, as well as the relocation of some institutes, causing chaos and disruption.
Michael Lauer, who was in charge of the agency’s external research funding until February, reflected on the various scenarios that were being discussed at the time. The threat of impoundment, where a president intentionally delays or withholds funds appropriated by Congress, was a seldom-seen concern during Lauer’s 17 years at the NIH. However, as Trump indicated his intent to defund federal programs and challenge the constitutionality of a 1974 law, the specter of impoundment loomed large.
Since January, the NIH has experienced a significant shift in its operations, with increased involvement from administration appointees, including members of the U.S. DOGE Service. This has led to the termination of grants that do not align with the administration’s agenda, as well as the implementation of new policies and political reviews aimed at slowing down spending and diminishing the autonomy of career scientists.
The recent executive order signed by Trump, which centralizes grantmaking decisions in the hands of political appointees, further solidified the trend of political intervention in the NIH’s operations. This move, which diverges from decades of established precedent, did not come as a shock to those within the NIH, as they had already been grappling with months of escalating political involvement.
The upheaval within the NIH has raised concerns about the future of scientific research and the agency’s ability to fulfill its mission. As the landscape continues to shift under the current administration, the NIH and its employees face a challenging road ahead in navigating the intersection of politics and science.
