Fact Check, Part 4: Political Interference at the National Institutes of Health (NIH)
NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya swears to Congress that he's not political while enabling political interference at NIH and speaking at political conventions
“...I’m trying to stay out of politics as much as I possibly can because I think science is what the NIH should be always about.”
—NIH Director Jayanta Bhattacharya weeks before speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC)
Here we go! Onto part 4 of our series featuring current and recent NIH staff (*in our personal capacities*) fact checking NIH Director Jayanta Bhattacharya.
Today, we address how Jay Bhattacharya is allowing fringe politics to override science at our nation’s premier biomedical research institution. During the March 17 House Appropriations Committee hearing, Bhattacharya repeatedly asserted that NIH funding decisions would be based on scientific merit, but ongoing censorship of research grants based on a discriminatory set of keywords, the removal of pay lines (a set score above which grants are typically funded) both as a tool to make funding decisions and to provide transparency in these decisions, and the increased involvement of HHS and the White House in NIH decision-making suggest otherwise.
What Bhattacharya said
In response to Representative DeLauro, asking for assurance that funding decisions will be based on scientific merit:
“[funding decisions will be based on] That alone. Scientific merit and the potential to actually improve the health and wellbeing of the American people.”
In response to Representative Pocan:
“...I’m trying to stay out of politics as much as I possibly can because I think science is what the NIH should be always about.”
In response to Representative Dean:
“...we’re implementing his [Trump’s] executive orders, but I don’t think that’s inconsistent with excellent science.“
What’s actually happening
Under Bhattacharya, NIH continues to experience significant and unprecedented interference from the White House and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). All new notices of funding opportunity now require review by the OMB. This political interference has slowed the publication of NIH notices of funding opportunity (NOFO) almost to a complete halt, going from more than 700 per year on average to 120 in FY25 and 17 as of March 2026. This political NOFO disruption has even interrupted Congressionally-mandated programs, such as the Special Diabetes Program, the Gabriella Miller Kids First Program, and the Brain Initiative, among many others, which have been delayed well past their due dates.
Further, NIH has both moved away from peer review, toward funding assessments that incorporate a broader set of factors. While this is a reasonable approach when we can be assured decisions will be made by scientists using transparent processes, we have no such guarantee as HHS and White House involvement increase. Official NIH policy suggests funding decisions will be made by Institute and Center Directors, but 16 of 27 directorships remain unfilled. Several Institute and Center Directors were fired, including one for speaking up against political interference, leaving the remaining Directors hesitant to oppose political appointees.
NIH has also implemented term-based screening processes that effectively prevent grants using certain keywords from being funded without “renegotiation.” These keywords are in no way associated with the merit of the science nor with the likelihood of improving the health and wellbeing of the American people, unless Bhattacharya is limiting that term to white/European Americans, one of few race groups that has never been listed among the discriminatory grant screening terms. Up until recently, the terms included “African American,” “Hispanic American,” “Asian American,” and other similar racial/ethnic minority identifiers. While these most egregious terms appear to have been removed from the NIH screening, terms like “minority,” “Latinx” and “diverse” remain.
Bhattacharya also refused to condemn partisan language inserted into the NIH hiring processes that requires applicants to identify their commitment to Trump’s Executive orders, which are inherently political, contain scientifically inaccurate information, and do not carry the weight of law. Trump’s executive orders undermine decades of existing science. One Trump Executive Order denies the existence of gender, which is a scientifically valid concept backed by decades of research. This executive order also denies the existence of an estimated 5 million intersex Americans, who were born with a reproductive or sexual anatomy that doesn’t fit the typical definitions of female or male. Trump’s Executive order on DEI undermines existing peer-reviewed evidence on the benefits of diversity, and is being applied much more broadly to undermine the entire field of health equity research. These executive orders don’t just undermine excellent science, they undermine reality. Requiring NIH applicants to commit to such executive orders risks the politicization of rank-and-file NIH staff and should be rejected outright by a person claiming to keep the NIH non-political.
As for Bhattacharya remaining apolitical, during his tenure as NIH Director he has spoken at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in March 2026 and the National Conservatism Conference in September 2025.
What you can do
Stay informed!
Read the full fact check on the 27UNIHTED website.
Follow us here or on bluesky, instagram, linkedin, or facebook for up-to-date content on what’s happening inside NIH.
Look out for the next post in our fact check series on political interference at NIH.
Inform others! Share this post with your colleagues.
Call your members of Congress and urge them to enact protections for NIH, including stopping the discriminatory censorship of grants and applications at NIH
If you’re submitting a grant application or progress report, don’t censor your submission in advance. Since the list of terms is both not shared and continually evolving, attempting to censor in advance will likely cause you to remove more than needed. Instead, submit your work as the science dictates. If needed (and desired), you will be able to work with your program officer to renegotiate.
Need more ideas? Check out our Advocacy Menu.
About this Blog Series
Through this blog series, recent and current NIH staff (in our personal capacities) are fighting for scientific integrity at the NIH, so science can continue to yield future treatments for our fellow Americans. In these blogs, we are highlighting when Bhattacharya flagrantly mischaracterized, obfuscated, or just plain lied about the state of NIH under oath to members of Congress during the March 17 House Appropriations Committee hearing.
In case you missed it, we recently covered NIH’s ability to spend 2026 funds, the harmful consequences of the rapid transition to multiyear funding, and how discriminatory censorship of NIH grants is excluding many Americans from the benefits of science.