On Friday, September 18, 2026, an Oval Office meeting over the National Institutes of Health turned into an argument, and by the weekend the White House budget office was drafting an executive order to change who decides which medical research gets funded. Three newsrooms reported it from their own sources. All of those sources are anonymous, and nothing has been signed.
The Washington Post reported first, citing three people, that budget director Russell Vought “led the criticism, accusing the NIH of funding 'woke' initiatives that went against Trump's goals,” while NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya defended the agency's grant process. Politico went further the next day, citing two administration officials: “Trump directed his budget director, Russ Vought, to draft an executive order to create a board that would decide which grants the National Institutes of Health should fund.” The board “would include Bhattacharya and Vought and would be required to reach unanimous decisions on grant awards,” which would give the budget director a veto over individual awards. The New York Times reported that the budget office has begun drafting, and that the aim is “a new external committee with the power to veto awards” that do not conform to Trump's agenda. The Times also reported that the relationship had deteriorated to the point that “Vought had refused to meet with Bhattacharya.”
One claim rests on Politico alone: “Trump on Friday asked NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya to cut Harvard's funding but Bhattacharya refused, the officials said.” The Post and the Times do not report a Harvard request. Bhattacharya declined to comment to The Harvard Crimson. He is not a simple defender of the old system either; the Times notes he “has also supported eliminating funding for work he regards as low-quality or ideologically driven.”
The context is two earlier defeats. A federal judge ruled in September 2025 that the administration's freeze of more than $2.2 billion in Harvard research funding was unconstitutional retaliation (see Trump Freezes $2.2 Billion in Harvard Grants and Demands a $1 Billion Payment as the Pentagon Cuts Military Ties); the appeal is pending. And Vought's earlier vehicle, a rule putting political appointees over federal grant approvals, was blocked by Congress: the stopgap spending law Trump signed in early September bars the budget office from finalizing it until December 11 (see A Proposed White House Rule Would Put Political Appointees in Charge of Approving Federal Science Grants). Politico describes the executive order as a workaround. No lawyer quoted in the reporting says whether it would be lawful, and this entry does not claim to know.
Nobody has denied the accounts. Politico reported that “The Office of Management and Budget declined to comment” and that the White House referred questions to the health department. An NIH spokesperson said, “There will be no rescissions to NIH grant monies. All NIH grant monies will be spent.” That answers a question about whether money goes out, not who decides where it goes. As of September 21 the order, in the words of Sinclair's National News Desk, “has not been issued or finalized.” NIH's budget is roughly $48 billion a year, appropriated by Congress.
Ashish Jha, the former dean of Brown's School of Public Health, told the Crimson, “It's so egregious what they're proposing.”
Update (September 28, 2026): the order has been shelved, at least for now. On September 22, Sen. Susan Collins, the Republican who chairs the Senate Appropriations Committee, wrote to budget director Russ Vought and NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya: “I urge you not to move forward with this proposal, which would undermine the intent of the CR provision and more important, the Federal government's objective of funding biomedical research projects based on scientific merit and value rather than political ideology.” She added, “If the administration seeks additional reforms of NIH, I urge you to submit a legislative proposal to Congress rather than pursue an executive order.”
The next day Semafor reported, citing three people familiar with the matter, that the administration was “backing off its initial plan,” that the order had “since been pared back after White House officials further discussed and evaluated it,” and that the White House “still may release one on NIH grants that takes a different tack,” possibly after the election. STAT, Roll Call, Politico and The Hill followed. Collins told reporters, “We should not have a politicized process for awarding research and biomedical grants to institutions,” and, “I'm glad that the White House listened to those of us who were making that argument.” She told Semafor that chief of staff “Susie Wiles is also concerned” about the order's effects. The White House did not announce any withdrawal; it told C&EN, “Any reporting about potential policy decisions, unless officially announced by the Administration, should be regarded as baseless speculation.” Sen. Patty Murray: “It shouldn't take public outcry to prevent President Trump and Russ Vought from laying waste to the NIH.”