Russell Vought may gain effective veto over NIH grants under reported plan
Reports say the White House is drafting an order requiring unanimous approval of NIH grants by a panel including Russell Vought.
By James Whitfield · Staff Writer
2 min read
The White House is reportedly drafting an executive order that could give Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought an effective veto over National Institutes of Health grants. The reported plan has not been publicly issued, and its text, legal basis and timetable remain unknown.
Under accounts from Ars Technica, The Guardian and The Hill, NIH awards would be reviewed by a committee including Vought and NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya. The panel would reportedly have to agree unanimously before an award could proceed, meaning either member could block it.
Would Russell Vought control every NIH grant?
The reporting does not establish that Vought would be the sole decision-maker on every award. It describes a proposed shared approval process in which unanimous agreement is required; that rule would give Vought the practical ability to stop a grant, alongside Bhattacharya’s own ability to withhold approval.
It also remains unclear whether the requirement would cover every NIH award or particular types of grants. The reported order has not been released, so its final membership, procedures and scope cannot yet be verified.
How the reported plan emerged
The Washington Post first reported on an Oval Office discussion in which administration officials debated increased political oversight of NIH funding, according to Ars Technica and The Hill. The Guardian, citing people who spoke with The Washington Post, said Vought and other officials proposed a committee that could reject biomedical research awards viewed as conflicting with President Donald Trump’s goals.
Bhattacharya defended NIH’s existing grant-making process during the discussion, according to reporting summarized by Ars Technica and The Guardian. The accounts describe a disagreement within the administration, not a completed policy change.
How NIH grants have traditionally been chosen
NIH has traditionally ranked grant applications using scientific-merit scores from expert peer reviewers, Ars Technica reported. Peer review is a process in which specialists assess research proposals, including their scientific quality, before an agency makes funding decisions.
A separate political-appointment review layer would therefore alter the reported route from expert assessment to final award approval. The available reporting does not say how the proposed committee would handle the volume of NIH grant decisions or how it would act after a grant was rejected.
The Guardian reported that the White House and the Department of Health and Human Services did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Until an order is released or officials confirm its terms, the proposal remains a reported draft rather than an implemented NIH grant policy.
This story draws on original reporting from Ars Technica.