2026-09-22 · contested story
White House move to seize control of NIH grant decisions upsets senators and scientists
In September 2026, the White House began drafting an executive order that would create a committee — potentially including OMB Director Russell Vought and NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya — with power to review, and possibly veto, grants issued by the National Institutes of Health, the nation's largest biomedical research funder with a budget of roughly $47-48 billion. The move followed a contentious Oval Office meeting where, according to Politico, Trump asked Bhattacharya to cut Harvard's funding and the NIH director refused. The proposal drew immediate bipartisan rebuke, including from Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Vice Chair Patty Murray (D-Wash.). This controversy is closely tied to a parallel July 2026 story in which the Trump administration admitted in court filings that it terminated roughly $7.5 billion in Energy Department clean-energy grants 'based solely' on whether recipient states voted Democratic in 2024.
How each side frames it
left
"giving political appointees power over research grants would “upend” U.S. science"
"It’s extremely obvious that Russell Vought is not going to stop trying to dismantle the American scientific ecosystem and the American higher education system"
"I don’t think peer review at the NIH is broken. So what are we fixing, unless it’s imposing a political agenda?"
"Whether lifesaving medical research gets funded or not should be determined by experts at the NIH—not a panel of lackeys chosen by Donald Trump and Russ Vought"
"Trump Goons Make Bombshell Admission About Enemies List"
center
"A DOE stipulation filed in federal court states the October 2025 grant terminations were based solely on the political identity of the recipient's state."
"Energy Secretary Chris Wright has repeatedly said in Capitol Hill testimony that while the timing of the announcement may have been political, the actual selection was not."
"There is no contradiction, and any suggestion of a contradiction is a misrepresentation of the court filing"
"DOE had initially identified 624 grants for possible termination, but only 284 were ultimately canceled, while roughly 340 grants in Republican-leaning states remained in place."
"Any attempt to "politicize grantmaking" at NIH, whether through an executive order or guidance is "contrary to congressional intent," Collins said"
right
"Traditionally, the NIH selects projects based on expert review of their scientific merit. But Trump has sought through a series of recent directives in his second term to bring that process under political review, arguing in part that the government has been funding “woke” liberal priorities."
"In a stunning admission, the Trump administration acknowledged in a court filing last week that it whittled down a list of more than 600 clean energy project grants"
"A spokesperson for the Department of Energy told the New York Times that “there is no contradiction” between Wright’s testimony to Congress and the court filing."
"I hoped Trump learned his lesson and would have cancelled ALL the green new bull💩 grants. It doesn’t matter what state, red or blue, the whole thing is nothing but a money grab of taxpayers money."
What each side left out
The right left out — covered by the Scientific American & The Philadelphia Inquirer
- Scientist and advocacy warnings that the order would 'upend' science and undermine peer review
- The ACLU class-action lawsuit alleging unconstitutional censorship of researchers
The right left out — covered by the PBS NewsHour & The Washington Post
- Bipartisan Senate opposition including Collins and Murray rejecting the NIH proposal
The left left out — covered by the Politico & The Independent
- The administration's substantive defense that peer review reflects entrenched career-bureaucrat bias favoring progressive academics
- The Harris-era point that Biden's climate law steered investment to red districts (irony noted only by The Independent)
The center left out — covered by the Scientific American
- The philosophical/scientific stakes about peer review as the 'gold standard' and its potential chilling effect on independent research
The left left out — covered by the Politico & The Philadelphia Inquirer
- That Bhattacharya, the Trump-appointed NIH director, actively resisted Vought and refused to cut Harvard funding, complicating a simple partisan narrative
What's actually true?
[verified] The White House has begun drafting an executive order that would create an external committee with power to veto NIH grants that do not conform to Trump's political agenda.
[verified] Trump asked NIH Director Bhattacharya to cut Harvard's funding in the Oval Office meeting, and Bhattacharya refused.
[verified] Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Vice Chair Patty Murray (D-Wash.) both rejected the White House proposal to control NIH grants.
[verified] Congress temporarily blocked, through a stopgap funding bill expiring in mid-December, the earlier OMB rule giving political appointees power over federal grants.
[verified] The Department of Energy admitted in a July 15 court filing that inclusion of 284 grants in the October 2025 termination tranche was 'based solely on the political identity of the grant recipient's state.'
[verified] DOE identified 624 grants for possible termination but OMB canceled only 284, all but one in blue states, while ~340 grants in Republican-leaning states were left in place.
[verified] Energy Secretary Chris Wright repeatedly testified to Congress that politics played no role in the grant terminations, calling the accusation 'bullshit.'
[contested] The DOE spokesperson maintains there is no contradiction, saying Wright's testimony referred to the initial apolitical review while the political consideration referred to the timing of the announcement.
The narrative clash
Whether the energy grant terminations were politically motivated
Left: the 284 terminated grants had a recipient location and/or at least one place of performance in a state that awarded its electoral votes to Kamala Harris in the 2024 election and has two Democratic-caucusing senators
Right: There is no contradiction, and any suggestion of a contradiction is a misrepresentation of the court filing
Whether Secretary Wright's congressional testimony was truthful
Left: Secretary Wright swore up and down for months that these project terminations had absolutely nothing to do with politics, and now his lawyers are declaring that, in fact, politics was the only consideration
Right: the acknowledgment of political considerations “was referring to the timing of the announcement, not of the decisions themselves”
26 sources analyzed
The Washington Post The Philadelphia Inquirer The Post and Courier Bentham's Bulldog Politico PBS NewsHour NBC News Scientific American The Damage Report House.gov The Independent Modern Ghana WPRI.com AOL.com The New Republic The Daily Beast The Guardian New Mexico Political Report Common Dreams Baton Rouge Business Report The Preamble | Sharon McMahon Quiver Quantitative New York Post Mediaite Yahoo rawstory.com