Trump Reportedly Orders Plan for White House Board to Approve NIH Grants; No Order Has Been Issued

A reported draft would put White House officials inside grant approval

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump has directed White House budget chief Russ Vought to develop an executive order creating an administration board with approval power over National Institutes of Health research grants, Reuters reported Sunday, citing Politico's account of the still-unreleased plan.

According to that reporting, the proposed board would include Vought and NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya, and grants would require unanimous approval. If written that way, either official could block an award that had survived the agency's scientific and programmatic review process.

The report describes an instruction to draft an order—not a signed executive order, an operating board or a completed change to grant policy. Reuters said the White House, Department of Health and Human Services, NIH and Office of Management and Budget did not immediately respond to requests for comment. What’s the Scoop With Broach found no public order, membership list, implementation date or grant-by-grant review standard in the sources reviewed Sunday afternoon.

What would change from NIH's published process

NIH's public grants site currently describes a multistep system running from application and submission through review, award and post-award reporting. Applications are evaluated through scientific review, and institutes and centers then make funding decisions using peer-review results, program priorities and available appropriations.

NIH also convenes national advisory councils and boards as the second level of peer review. A current NIH notice explicitly says those councils do not make final funding decisions. The reported White House board would therefore be an additional approval layer above the process NIH publicly documents—not merely a renaming of an existing scientific review panel.

That distinction matters. Vought runs the Office of Management and Budget, not an NIH institute or scientific review group. Giving the budget director a required vote on individual grants would place a central White House official inside decisions that the published system assigns to scientific reviewers, advisory bodies and NIH program officials.

The scope remains unclear

The reported requirement for unanimity would make those unanswered rules especially important. A single board member's refusal could stop funding, but the public reporting does not say whether silence, recusal or a missed deadline would count as a veto.

• Whether the board would review every new and renewed NIH grant or only awards above a dollar threshold.
• Whether it would examine grants before or after scientific peer review and advisory-council consideration.
• What written criteria would govern approval, rejection, delay or reconsideration.
• Whether applicants would receive reasons for a veto and have an administrative appeal.
• How the board would handle conflicts of interest, confidential applications and proprietary research information.
• Whether the administration believes existing statutes permit this structure without congressional action or formal rulemaking.

The proposal arrives amid litigation over grant screening

The reported plan follows a series of Trump administration efforts to freeze, terminate or screen federal research funding. Reuters reported September 16 that scientists filed a proposed class action challenging NIH screening of grants for topics disfavored by the administration, including diversity, gender identity and climate-related work.

That lawsuit alleges unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. The administration has defended its grant changes as efforts to restore rigor and align spending with lawful government priorities. Those positions are competing legal and policy claims; they do not establish what a future executive order would say or whether a court would uphold it.

No lawsuit over the reported board can be ripe until the government actually issues or implements a policy. Any claim that courts have already approved or blocked this specific proposal would be premature.

What researchers and the public should watch next

The decisive document would be a signed executive order published by the White House and, ordinarily, the Federal Register—not an anonymous-source description of a draft. NIH policy notices, grant application guidance and award communications would show whether and how the proposal becomes operational.

Researchers should continue following existing NIH deadlines and official notices unless the agency announces a change. A reported draft does not cancel an application cycle, invalidate an award or establish a new appeal process by itself.

Congressional appropriators, universities and scientific organizations are likely to focus on whether the reported board delays awards, changes statutory responsibilities or creates a political review that is not disclosed to applicants. Those are prospective oversight questions, not confirmed outcomes.

What is confirmed — and what is not

Confirmed through Reuters' account of Politico's reporting: Trump reportedly told Vought to draft an executive order; the contemplated board would include Vought and Bhattacharya; and unanimous approval was described as the decision rule.

Not confirmed in a public government record: a signed order, final board membership, legal memorandum, start date, covered grant universe, veto criteria, appeal procedure, budget impact or any individual award rejected under the proposal.

What’s the Scoop With Broach will update this report if the White House releases the draft or a signed order, NIH changes its published grant process or a named administration official provides an on-record explanation.

About the image

The accompanying image is an authentic 1946 aerial photograph of the NIH historic campus in Bethesda, Maryland. The NIH History Office made the file available, and Wikimedia Commons records it as a United States government work in the public domain.

The historical photograph does not depict Trump, Vought, Bhattacharya, a grant review meeting or the reported 2026 proposal. It is used only as geographic and institutional context for the federal research agency at the center of the report.