The Biden administration is preparing to hand Russell Vought, director of the Office of Management and Budget, final veto power on all National Institutes of Health grants, marking a significant shift toward political control of the largest biomedical research funder worldwide.
- Russell Vought to have veto power over every NIH grant
- NIH Director Bhattacharya opposed but lost the internal battle
- Political considerations now central to NIH funding decisions
What happened
The US administration is drafting an executive order to give Russell Vought, head of the Office of Management and Budget, veto authority over all NIH grants. This decision follows a contentious internal dispute where NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya opposed the move but ultimately lost. The NIH budget of $47 billion funds extensive biomedical research globally, making this power shift highly significant.
Previously, NIH grant awards were decided primarily based on scientific merit assessed by expert peer reviewers. Under the new plan, a committee including Vought and Bhattacharya must unanimously approve each grant. If they disagree, the grant will be rejected, potentially disrupting the funding distribution and research priorities.
Why it matters
This change threatens to inject political considerations directly into biomedical research funding, a process traditionally insulated through peer review. The NIH plays a critical role in supporting research that advances health, medicine, and biotechnology industries, with its budget far surpassing that of other research funders combined.
Russell Vought has previously targeted what he considers 'woke' or politically undesirable research, including pandemic preparedness and health disparities studies. Past efforts to cut NIH funding and impose political criteria on grants were blocked by Congress and courts, but this new veto power circumvents those obstacles, raising concerns about scientific independence and research integrity.
What to watch next
Observers will be closely watching how this veto power is applied in practice and whether it will lead to sizeable disruptions in NIH’s grant distribution process. The sheer volume of grants—over 64,000 funded annually—means that the committee’s ability to scrutinize each one in detail is questionable, raising questions about operational feasibility and potential delays or denials.
Congress and the scientific community may respond with oversight measures or legal challenges, especially if this directive leads to underutilization of NIH funds or skewed funding away from scientifically meritorious projects. How this policy impacts the pace of biomedical research and innovation in the US and globally will also be monitored closely.