Trump Administration Moves to Reclassify Top NIH Officials as Political Appointees, Raising Concerns Over Research Independence
Key Insights
President Trump issued an executive order reclassifying approximately 8,000 civil service positions, including high-level NIH grant review officials, as political appointees.
Biomedical researchers and policy experts warn that removing job protections makes the grants process more susceptible to political influence and risks destabilizing the research enterprise.
HHS has begun reviewing all NIH-approved grants, sometimes requesting substantive changes, including adding genetic influences to a fourth-year depression (search) study where such modifications were likely not feasible.
President Trump issued an executive order on Wednesday that will reclassify thousands of civil service positions as political appointees, a move that includes many high-level officials responsible for overseeing the review and disbursement of research grants at the National Institutes of Health. The White House estimates approximately 8,000 positions across the civil service sector will be affected.
Biomedical researchers and policy experts have sharply criticized the change, warning that stripping federal workers of their job protections will make them easier to fire and render the grants process more susceptible to political whims. Science officials fear the shift risks destabilizing the research enterprise, which requires predictability over long-time horizons.
HHS Review of NIH Grants Already Underway
The executive order comes amid reports that the Department of Health and Human Services (search) is already conducting its own review of all grants approved by the NIH. According to documents and anonymous NIH sources cited by Science, this extra layer of review apparently began in April and applies to both proposed grants and continuing ones up for renewal.
While Science reported that it does not appear common for HHS to actually demand changes and noted it is unaware of "any specific proposal that was not funded as a result," the journal listed several examples of requested modifications. In one notable case, an HHS review recommended adding genetic influences to a project studying factors contributing to depression (search) using many years of observational data from large cohorts. The project was in its fourth year, when such changes were likely not feasible.
Proposed Rule Seeks to Formalize Political Oversight
Last week, the White House Office of Management and Budget (search) proposed a rule stating that "Federal agencies must perform pre-issuance reviews to ensure that federal award proposals selected for funding are consistent with applicable law, federal agency priorities, and the national interest." The proposal further requires that "Federal agencies heads must designate one or more senior appointees" to review "all discretionary awards."
The proposed rule, which is currently open for public comment, also seeks to buttress the administration's ability to terminate grants for "discretionary" reasons. This would give political appointees authority over approving, denying, and terminating both new and already-awarded grants across the federal government.
An HHS spokesperson stated, "NIH takes seriously its responsibility to steward taxpayer dollars and support high-quality scientific research. All grant funding undergoes a rigorous multi-stage review process designed to ensure funded projects meet the highest standards and deliver meaningful results for the American people."