Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins, a Maine Republican, urged the Trump administration on September 22 not to move forward with a reported plan that would give a board including political appointees final say over grants from the National Institutes of Health, joining Democrats who have criticized the idea. No executive order had been issued as of September 23.
The proposal would add a layer above the system that decides which medical research gets federal money, including studies of cancer, Alzheimer's disease, and rare conditions. NIH, with a budget of about $47 billion, is the largest funder of biomedical research at U.S. colleges and universities.
For patients, the stakes are indirect but real. Many clinical trials and treatment advances begin with NIH grants, and changes in how awards are chosen could affect which questions researchers pursue.
A Reported Board Above the Peer Review System
The plan surfaced after an Oval Office meeting on September 18. The Washington Post reported that Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought accused NIH of funding "woke" initiatives at odds with the president's agenda, while NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya defended the agency's grant-making process. Politico reported that the proposed board would include Vought and Bhattacharya and that its decisions would have to be unanimous, according to a summary of the coverage by Inside Higher Ed.
Politico also reported that the order could give the administration another way to cut funding for Harvard University. A federal judge ruled in September 2025 that the administration illegally froze Harvard's grant funding and restored more than $2 billion. The administration appealed, and oral arguments are scheduled for next month. The White House has not released a draft order.
An NIH spokesperson told The Washington Post there would be no "rescissions" of grant funding.
Collins, Murray, and a Rare Bipartisan Front
In a letter to Vought and Bhattacharya, Collins wrote that a political review board would undermine "the federal government's objective of funding biomedical research projects based on scientific merit," The Hill reported. She noted that the stopgap funding law passed this month blocked a similar proposal that would have given political appointees broader authority over research grants. Collins has also opposed a 15% cap on indirect research costs.
Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, vice chair of the Appropriations Committee and its top Democrat, joined Collins in speaking out against the reported plan on September 21, The Hill reported. In a statement that day, Collins said any attempt to politicize NIH grantmaking by executive order or guidance "is contrary to congressional intent."
Collins also said a political review of awards already chosen through merit review would undermine the principle that the government funds research based on scientific need and merit, Semafor reported.
Accountability Is the Administration's Case
The administration has framed its broader grant changes as protecting taxpayers and making sure federal money supports the president's priorities. An August 2025 executive order on federal grantmaking directed agencies to make sure discretionary awards advance those priorities, and OMB later proposed revising federal grant rules to add political review of awards.
Vought has argued that NIH continues to fund work the administration opposes, including initiatives tied to equity, and news reports say he told Congress in June that political officials should be able to stop funding for projects that conflict with administration policy.
Supporters of tighter oversight argue that elected leaders should be able to set priorities for taxpayer-funded science, while peer reviewers judge technical quality.
That OMB rule is on hold. Under the stopgap funding law, OMB cannot finalize it until mid-December at the earliest, according to Inside Higher Ed.
Peer Review Today and What Comes Next
Under current rules, NIH uses a two-level review system required by federal law, according to the NIH Grants Policy Statement. First, panels of outside scientists score each application for scientific and technical merit. Then an advisory council at the funding institute reviews it, and institute leaders make final funding decisions. Collins's letter cited this congressionally mandated peer review process.
A new board would add another layer above that process, and critics argue it would shift the final word from scientists to appointees.
Several questions remain open. It is not known whether the order will be signed, what legal authority it would rely on, or whether it could survive challenges, since Congress has already acted against a similar rule. The administration also faces ongoing litigation over earlier grant terminations.
Based on current reports, the proposal concerns how future awards are approved. Researchers preparing new applications, which often take months to write, will be watching closely for whether an added approval layer takes effect.
For researchers, patients enrolled in NIH-funded trials, and families waiting on new treatments, the next signals will come from the White House, from congressional appropriators writing the next funding bill, and from any legal challenges.
Key Questions Answered
What is being proposed? According to news reports, a board including OMB Director Russell Vought and NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya would need to unanimously approve NIH grants.
Has the executive order been signed? No. As of September 23, the order had been reported as being drafted but had not been issued.
Who is pushing back? Republican Sen. Susan Collins, who chairs the Appropriations Committee, and Democrats including Sen. Patty Murray, the committee's vice chair.
How are NIH grants chosen now? Outside scientists score applications for merit, then an institute advisory council reviews them before institute leaders make final funding decisions.
What is the administration's rationale? Officials say more oversight protects taxpayer dollars and makes sure funded work aligns with the president's policy priorities.
Will existing grants be cut? An NIH spokesperson told The Washington Post there would be no rescissions of grant funding.
Published by Medicaldaily.com
