NIH Grant Review Overhaul Under the Trump Administration

Beginning in early 2026, US National Institutes of Health (NIH) added a review step for grants that cleared two peer-review rounds. An algorithm scans titles, abstracts and summaries for 235 flagged terms, such as “gender,” “climate change,” “racism,” “fossil fuel,” and “queer.” Applications marked “not clean” are sent to programme officers for language revision, scope adjustment, or rejection, and are logged under Status 19, a code used to notify Congress of district-level funding.

Nature

Scrutiny follows a Trump push to curb funding for topics the administration opposes. 2025 Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by Elon Musk, terminated thousands of grants on diversity, equity, inclusion, climate change, misinformation and “gender ideology.” After DOGE’s influence waned, NIH formalized algorithmic screen, and a May 29 White House proposal seeks to give political appointees authority over grant-making.

Nature

NIH data show applications review within two weeks, yet 10 % of renewal proposals in FY 2026 remain stalled for over seven weeks, with some held indefinitely. Emails indicate problematic grants are repeatedly returned for language changes or dismissed for lacking a clear U.S. benefit, and minority-and female-identified researchers bear a disproportionate share of the delays.

Nature

NIH spokesperson said the agency does not maintain a list of prohibited words and that funding decisions are not based on terminology. May 29 White House proposal would grant political appointees power to limit funding for research topics the administration disapproves of, expanding executive influence over grant-making.

Nature

Critics argue the algorithm politicizes funding and curtails inquiry into issues. Emails from NIH leaders describe “a lot of problematic [National Institute on Aging] grants” and note “significant problems that should have been caught by your staff.” Observers warn practice threatens independence of funded science and marginalizes underrepresented investigators.

Nature

NIH denial of a banned-word list clashes with internal documents enumerating 235 flagged terms and describing the tool as an “indicator that the grant likely needs, at a minimum, a revision to align its terminology with NIH priorities.” The extent of algorithm’s weight in funding decisions remains undocumented.

Nature

• “We’re the test case,” — NIH officer

Nature

• “There were a lot of problematic [National Institute on Aging] grants in the queue this week” — NIH leader

Nature

• “Many of them had significant problems that should have been caught by your staff.” — NIH leader

Nature

• “The new rules would essentially codify the administration’s ability to restrict funding on anything because they don’t like the topics or the words” — White House proposal

Nature

The White House intends to finalize the May proposal, which would codify political-appointee oversight of grant funding across federal agencies. If enacted, the screening mechanism could be extended beyond NIH, potentially reshaping the United States’ research-funding architecture.

Nature