Trump Admin Blocks Then Unblocks NIH Research Funds

Temporary Halt in NIH Funding Sparks Concerns

The Trump administration recently faced a significant controversy when it temporarily halted all funding for science research issued by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). This action, which was later reversed, raised concerns among researchers and officials about the stability of federal support for scientific endeavors.

According to internal emails obtained by The Washington Post and confirmed by multiple federal officials, the pause was triggered by a footnote in an Office of Management and Budget (OMB) document. This footnote limited what the NIH could spend its congressionally mandated funds on. According to an email sent to NIH staff by Neil Shapiro, the associate director for budget, the OMB provided the full-year apportionment but included restrictions that allowed only certain expenses.

Shapiro noted that finance officials within the agency interpreted the footnote to permit NIH obligations only for salaries, administrative expenses, and Clinical Center expenses. However, research money, including “research grant, R & D contract, or training awards,” could not be issued during this pause. He added that the limitation was intended to be short-term and temporary.

If the funds had not been unfrozen, the move would have affected approximately $15 billion in federal funds, according to the office of Senator Patty Murray, the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee. Contacted for comment, an OMB spokeswoman, Rachel Cauley, stated that the money would be released. She described the situation as a “programmatic review of NIH funding.”

Andrew Nixon, a spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the NIH, confirmed the pause in a statement early Tuesday evening. He later referred questions to OMB’s statement that the funding had been released.

This incident is part of a broader debate within the Trump administration regarding federal spending and whether the government is moving too quickly to implement cuts. Some political appointees have resisted efforts to curb the NIH’s funding, including OMB’s proposed 40 percent cut to the agency’s budget. NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya noted that he did not see much desire in Congress to implement the proposed cuts.

OMB Director Russell Vought and other senior Trump officials have argued that they have a mandate to rein in spending. Vought claimed that the NIH needs a dramatic overhaul and cited examples of grants he called wasteful. However, Democrats and research advocacy groups criticized these moves, arguing that any pause in NIH research funding would be harmful.

Senator Murray expressed strong opposition to the administration's actions, stating that instead of trying to destroy the NIH, officials should study the Constitution, which makes clear that they do not have the authority to decide how to fund the agency.

Government officials have warned that the administration might try to test a 1974 budget law by refusing to spend congressionally mandated funds, leading to delays or stops in funding. Although the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office has issued rulings that funds have been “impounded,” the White House has denied any withholding of money.

In a letter last week, key Republican senators requested that the White House allow the NIH to spend its money for the current fiscal year. They expressed concern over the slow disbursement rate, which risks undermining critical research and the jobs it supports.

As of May 1, the NIH had received a little more than half of the congressionally appropriated money it is supposed to receive this year. It should have $46 billion but was operating with just $25 billion until recently, according to a person familiar with the situation.

Top NIH leaders and other staff were pulled into meetings to discuss the planned research funding pause, what it meant, and how long it might last. A senior leader at one NIH institute mentioned that their leadership team spent 90 minutes making funding decisions and having other grant-related conversations. They are trying to keep funding high-impact science given the uncertainty of what will happen next.

The senior leader added that the grants people are barely holding it together because they are at the center of this chaos. This situation highlights the challenges faced by the NIH and the broader implications of the administration's approach to federal funding.