The White House is drafting a possible executive order that could create an outside body to review National Institutes of Health grant awards, according to news reporting. The proposal has not been issued, and no official text has been published, leaving its authority, membership and practical effect unresolved.
If adopted, the plan could add an external review layer to a biomedical-research funding system that currently relies on outside scientific reviewers, advisory councils and NIH officials. Any effect on grant decisions, award timing or research priorities would depend on terms that have not been made public.
A reported proposal, not an operative order
A New York Times report republished by The Philadelphia Inquirer said White House and Office of Management and Budget officials were preparing an order for an external committee that could veto NIH grants judged inconsistent with the president’s agenda. The account, citing people familiar with the effort, said the proposal was discussed at a contentious White House meeting.
The reported committee’s final structure, membership, decision rules and authority have not been confirmed in a published executive order. The reporting supports that an NIH-focused policy is under discussion, not that the White House has settled its terms or put it into effect.
An NIH spokesman told the Times that there would be no rescissions of NIH grant money and that all NIH grant money would be spent. That statement addresses whether appropriated funds would be withheld, not whether a new review system could alter which applicants receive awards or when awards are made.
How NIH grant decisions work now
NIH’s documented process already includes multiple stages, though outside scientific reviewers do not themselves make the final award decision. At the first level, scientific review groups—composed primarily of nonfederal scientists with relevant expertise—assess applications for scientific and technical merit. Reviewers consider factors including the importance of the research question, the proposed approach and the qualifications of the research team.
Applications that move forward are then considered by a national advisory council or board for the relevant NIH institute or center. Those councils advise the institute or center director, who makes the final funding decision.
An external panel with approval or veto authority would not simply duplicate those steps. Depending on its final design, it could add review after scientific scoring and council consideration or require NIH leaders to obtain clearance before awards are issued. Whether it would examine all grants, particular research areas or only grants above a financial threshold is unknown.
The proposal and the 2025 oversight order
The reported plan follows President Donald Trump’s Executive Order 14332, signed Aug. 7, 2025. That order requires federal agencies to designate senior appointees to review funding opportunity announcements and discretionary grants for consistency with agency priorities and the national interest, subject to applicable law.
The 2025 order is already operative, but it is distinct from the reported NIH-specific proposal. It says peer-review recommendations may inform decisions but are advisory rather than binding on senior appointees, while requiring scientific research grants to receive review by at least one subject-matter expert.
The reported NIH proposal could go further by creating a centralized body able to reject awards after the normal NIH review process. Its legal basis, relationship to NIH directors and compatibility with statutory requirements would depend on language that has not been made public.
What remains unknown about NIH grants
It is not yet clear whether a proposed body would review pending applications, future grant opportunities or awards already recommended for funding. Nor is it known how any additional review would affect award timing or the criteria applicants must satisfy.
Bhattacharya has publicly described NIH’s aim as aligning funding with agency priorities while supporting work across biomedical research topics. In an NIH statement on a unified strategy, he said the agency would use consistently applied principles in funding decisions and empower NIH institutes, centers and offices in carrying out the mission.
Reports have said Bhattacharya opposed a broader effort by Vought to give political appointees final authority over federal spending, including scientific and health research. That account rests on unnamed people close to Bhattacharya, and neither official has publicly released a detailed account of the reported disagreement.
NIH’s published framework remains its two-level scientific and advisory review process, with institute and center directors making final funding decisions. Whether a new order would change that arrangement cannot be determined until, or unless, one is issued.