Inside the Political Screening Stalling US NIH Grants

The US National Institutes of Health (NIH) is currently experiencing an unprecedented level of scrutiny on hundreds of grant applications, even after they have successfully passed peer review. This new layer of political screening, which began to ramp up in early 2026, involves an algorithm flagging terms such as 'gender' and 'climate change' — words deemed not to conform with the priorities of the administration of US President Donald Trump. This marks a significant departure from previous norms, as it was virtually unheard of for grants that had received initial approvals from external and agency scientists to be rejected before 2025. These additional layers of review have led to considerable delays in the delivery of vital funds to research laboratories and institutions across the nation. More alarmingly, some applications that had already secured approval from scientific experts within and outside the NIH have been outright rejected. The intensified scrutiny is conducted by NIH leaders and officials at its parent agency, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). This process has particularly impacted researchers awaiting the renewal of previously approved projects; data obtained by Nature indicates that 10% of grant-renewal applications entering this phase in fiscal year 2026 have been stuck for over seven weeks, with some facing indefinite holds. The implications of this new screening process extend beyond the NIH, as similar reviews could soon be implemented across other federal agencies. On May 29, the White House proposed new rules that would grant political appointees unprecedented control over scientific grant-making. An NIH programme officer, speaking anonymously, described the NIH's situation as a "test case," warning that the proposed rules would "essentially codify the administration’s ability to restrict funding on anything because they don’t like the topics or the words" used in applications. The Trump administration has publicly criticized the federal grant-making process, labeling it as opaque and unaccountable. The administration argues that grants have been used "to promote a ‘woke’ policy agenda that did not reflect the values of the vast majority of the American public," according to the May 29 proposal. In response to queries from Nature, an NIH spokesperson stated that "there are no ‘banned word’ lists at NIH, and funding decisions are not based on specific words or phrases." However, internal documents suggest that while words are not officially banned, projects utilizing these flagged terms are significantly more likely to undergo intense scrutiny by programme officers and high-ranking officials at NIH and HHS. Providing historical context, shortly after Trump took office in January 2025, his administration initiated the termination of thousands of grants on disfavored topics, including diversity, equity and inclusion, climate change, misinformation, vaccine hesitancy, and what it termed ‘gender ideology.’ These terminations were reportedly directed by billionaire Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). As DOGE’s influence waned, NIH leaders formalized a screening process by developing an algorithm that checks applications against a list of disfavored terms. As of February, this list included 235 terms, serving as an "indicator that the grant likely needs, at a minimum, a revision to align its terminology with NIH priorities," as per an internal document. This shift in policy has been noted to disproportionately affect minority and female scientists.