If you’ve been following the news lately, you’ve probably heard some pretty wild claims about what’s happening at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Some folks are saying it’s the end of American science, while others argue it’s a long-overdue house cleaning. Honestly, the truth is tucked somewhere in a stack of executive orders and budget drafts that are currently turning the research world upside down.
Basically, we aren't just looking at one single "Trump NIH executive order." It’s actually a series of aggressive moves designed to centralize power and shift how billions of dollars in taxpayer money get spent. Whether you're a scientist worried about your lab or just someone wondering if cancer research is about to hit a brick wall, here is the real deal on what’s going down.
The Big Shakeup: Political Oversight and the August Executive Order
The most significant shift came on August 7, 2025, when President Trump signed the Executive Order on Improving Oversight of Federal Grantmaking. Now, on paper, "oversight" sounds like a boring accounting term. In reality? It’s a massive pivot in who decides which experiments get funded.
For decades, the NIH used a system called "peer review." Scientists in the same field would look at a proposal and decide if the math checked out and the idea was sound. The new order changes the game by requiring federal agencies—including the NIH—to appoint a senior political official to review grant awards. This person’s job is to make sure the research aligns with "national interests" and "agency priorities."
🔗 Read more: Why the Just In Program is Changing How We Think About Early Intervention
What does that actually mean? It means a political appointee can look at a grant for, say, climate change impacts on health or specific types of social science, and pull the plug if it doesn't fit the administration's vibe. It’s a shift from purely "is this good science?" to "is this science the government likes?"
The 15% Cap: Why Universities Are Panicking
If you want to understand why university presidents are losing sleep, you have to look at "indirect costs." When the NIH gives a $1 million grant to a researcher at Harvard or a state school, they usually send extra money to the school to cover the lights, the heating, and the administrative staff. This "overhead" rate used to be negotiated and often hit 50% or even 60%.
The Trump administration issued a directive (NOT-OD-25-068) to cap these indirect costs at 15%.
Think about that for a second. If a lab was counting on 50% overhead to keep the building running and suddenly they only get 15%, they’ve got a massive hole in their budget. The administration argues this "overhead" is just bloated bureaucracy and that more money should go to the "bench"—the actual science. Critics, however, say that without that money, universities can't afford the high-tech freezers, security, and specialized labs required for modern medicine.
As of early 2026, this cap has been tied up in the courts. Judges in Massachusetts and elsewhere have issued injunctions, essentially pausing the rule while they decide if the President actually has the legal authority to rewrite these contracts on the fly.
The "MAHA" Factor and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
You can't talk about the NIH right now without talking about Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the "Make America Healthy Again" (MAHA) movement. Shortly after being confirmed as HHS Secretary, Kennedy took the lead on a new commission created by executive order.
This commission isn't just a talking shop. It has been directed to fundamentally rewire NIH priorities toward:
- Chronic disease in children: Investigating why rates of autism, diabetes, and autoimmune issues are skyrocketing.
- Environmental toxins: Looking at things like seed oils, food dyes, and microplastics.
- "Gold Standard" Science: Re-evaluating vaccine safety data and looking for industry conflicts of interest.
There’s a real tension here. On one hand, many people are thrilled to see the government finally take on the "toxic" food supply and corporate influence. On the other hand, mainstream researchers worry that focusing on "root causes" like electromagnetic radiation or specific food additives might pull resources away from traditional biomedical research into things like Alzheimer's or rare genetic disorders.
💡 You might also like: Natural lubricant for sex: Why your kitchen cupboard might be better than the pharmacy
Structural Changes: Consolidating the Institutes
The 2026 budget proposal takes things even further. Currently, the NIH is made up of 27 different institutes and centers. The administration wants to consolidate these down to just eight.
For example, the plan suggests merging the National Institute of Mental Health, the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism into a single National Institute for Behavioral Health.
Some experts, like former NIH officials, say consolidation makes sense—there's a lot of overlap. But others argue that a 40% cut to the overall budget, which is also on the table, will result in a "lost generation" of scientists. If you're a PhD student right now, the prospect of 40% less funding makes a career in research look pretty risky.
Reality Check: What’s Actually Happening on the Ground?
So, has the science stopped? Not exactly. But it’s definitely slowed down.
In early 2025, there was a temporary "pause" on new grants. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) actually found that the administration violated the Impoundment Control Act by withholding that money without telling Congress. Since then, the taps have mostly been turned back on, but with a lot of new strings attached.
One of those strings is the "sex binary" rule. New grants are prohibited from funding anything that rejects the idea of a sex binary in humans. This has caused a lot of confusion in developmental biology and endocrine research, where things aren't always so black and white.
🔗 Read more: Why Metronidazole Gel Bloody Discharge Happens and When to Actually Worry
What You Should Watch For
If you’re trying to navigate this new landscape, here are a few actionable things to keep an eye on:
- Court Rulings on Indirect Costs: If the 15% cap is eventually upheld, expect a massive wave of layoffs at major research universities. This will be the clearest indicator of the long-term impact.
- The 2026 Budget Fight: The President proposes the budget, but Congress holds the purse strings. Moderate Republicans and Democrats in the Senate have already signaled they might block the 40% cuts.
- New Funding Announcements (FOAs): Watch the NIH "Guide for Grants and Contracts." The new topics appearing there will tell you exactly what the "MAHA" priorities look like in practice.
The NIH is a massive tanker. It doesn't turn on a dime. But between the executive orders and the new leadership, the engines are definitely being shifted into a different gear.
Next Steps for You
If you're a researcher or work in healthcare, your first move should be to review your current grant contracts for "termination for convenience" clauses, as the new executive order encourages the government to end grants that no longer fit "national interests." Additionally, monitor the NIH Office of Science Policy website for updated guidance on biosafety and "dual-use" research, as the May 2025 executive order has placed a specific pause on certain types of pathogen studies.