In Brief
Take Action: Continue to Put Pressure on Congress for Permanent OMB Rule Recission
Congress needs to hear continued objections to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) proposed rule that would change who has control over federal grants from the agency of jurisdiction to OMB. It is imperative that science explain the negative implications with making such a change and what that means to new and ongoing federally funded research. Take Action Now!
Sen. Dave McCormick Op-Ed Makes the Case for Stronger NIH & Hosts Science Townhall
On September 23, Sen. Dave McCormick (R-PA) wrote a Washington Post op-ed calling for a major boost to NIH, recommending that Congress double NIH's $48 billion budget within five years. The op ed also highlights the need to “prioritize merit-based science,” referencing a letter the senator sent with five other Senate Republicans, urging the administration to take a different approach to grant terminations. Lastly, he called for more accountability, highlighting proposed NIH reforms that the senator is planning to put forward.
The following day, Sen. McCormick participated a townhall meeting hosted by the American Physical Society (APS) with more than 200 researchers across disciplines. BPS member Scott Showalter of Pennsylvania State University was selected to be one of the researchers to present a question to the Senator and staff. BPS thanks both Scott and APS for making this event a success.
White House Moves to Rescind $810 Million in Federal Funding
The White House has sent Congress an $810 million “pocket rescissions” package that would cancel funding for programs across several federal agencies, including the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The package, transmitted Sept. 25, does not include any rescissions to NIH funding.
The timing of the proposal is significant. Under the pocket rescission process, the Administration can withhold the targeted funds for 45 days while Congress considers whether to reject the proposed cancellations. If Congress does not act within that period, the funds can be permanently rescinded. However, the targeted funding is set to expire at the end of the fiscal year, creating a much shorter window for Congress to intervene.
Congress is currently operating under a continuing resolution that funds the government through December, while the House has adjourned until after the midterm elections. As a result, lawmakers face limited opportunities to act before the funding expires.
The proposal has drawn criticism from some congressional appropriators, who argue that the Administration is attempting to circumvent Congress’s constitutional role in determining federal spending. Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins (R-ME) has also criticized the rescission, while Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) has expressed support.
Republican Senators Urge Administration to Reconsider Mid-Stream NIH Grant Terminations
Six Republican senators are urging the Trump administration to reconsider terminating ongoing, multi-year NIH research grants as the agency works to align its research portfolio with the Administration’s priorities.
In a Sept. 18 letter to OMB Director Russell Vought, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya, Sens. David McCormick (R-PA), Thom Tillis (R-NC), Susan Collins (R-ME), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MS), and Steve Daines (R-MT) expressed concern about ending grants after substantial federal resources have already been invested.
The senators acknowledged the Administration’s efforts to ensure federal research funding supports rigorous, results-oriented science and taxpayer stewardship. At the same time, they urged officials to consider the effects of terminating research that is already underway, particularly multi-year projects that have received significant federal investment.
Rather than ending existing awards, the senators encouraged NIH and HHS to explore ways for researchers to modify ongoing projects to bring them into alignment with current Administration priorities. They said this approach could provide greater stability for researchers while maintaining the federal investment already made in ongoing biomedical research.
The letter comes as NIH continues efforts to reshape its research portfolio and funding policies under the Administration’s priorities, raising questions about how changes will affect grants that were approved under previous priorities and are already in progress.
White House Scraps Leaked Plan for NIH Grants Takeover
A White House proposal to exert more control over science funding foundered in the Senate last week. Following news reports, Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Susan Collins (R-ME) and Ranking Member Patty Murray (D-WA) both opposed a proposed executive order that would have created an oversight council giving Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought a veto over all National Institutes of Health research grants. News of the White House backtracking on the plan, at least for now, soon followed.
Wider OMB efforts to control NIH grants remain blocked until Dec. 11, when the current continuing resolution spending deal ends. That stopgap bill blocked a proposed OMB rule that would revise the Uniform Guidance to give political appointees veto power over federal grants. In a Tuesday letter to Vought and NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya, Collins noted the proposed council’s similarity to the proposed rule change. She called on the White House to offer a legislative proposal to reform NIH, if needed, rather than pursuing an executive order.
Scientific organizations broadly opposed the NIH council, which was reported only by news leaks. A White House spokesperson told FYI last week that the Trump administration “remains committed to the core mission of the NIH” and recent news reports were “baseless speculation.”