The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is facing a power struggle over institute directorships, with the Trump administration seeking to exert more control over key leadership positions. The agency has traditionally relied on a process that involves search committees consisting of both NIH career scientists and external experts, but sources close to the agency say this practice is being abandoned in favor of a compressed timeline and fewer external members.
The changes come as some senior officials at NIH were put on administrative leave or abruptly departed after Trump's inauguration, including Lawrence Tabak, who had spent more than a decade as principal deputy director. The administration has also grown the number of political appointees at the agency, with nine current holdovers as of late June, up from four the year before.
Five institute directors, including the head of NIAID, were fired or placed on administrative leave in the spring of 2025, and their positions have since been removed. The directorship of another agency, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, was filled by a close personal friend of Vice President JD Vance without any apparent search process.
The move has prompted speculation among NIH insiders that the Trump administration is seeking to exert more political control over the hiring of directorships, and some lawmakers are taking notice. A bill sponsored by Diana DeGette, a Democratic representative from Colorado, aims to "Protect NIH From Political Interference" by capping the number of political appointees at the agency.
Critics argue that the changes undermine the traditional process for selecting institute directors, which has been successful in bringing fresh ideas and perspectives to the agency. Mark Histed, an NIH scientist, said that external members on search committees are crucial for preventing politicization and ensuring that the agency remains responsive to the scientific community.
The NIH's role in biomedical research is significant, and any changes to its leadership structure could have far-reaching consequences. The agency has historically enjoyed strong bipartisan support, but conservative lawmakers have periodically raised questions about some of its spending and perceived liberal leanings. The Trump administration's actions may be seen as an attempt to exert more control over the agency and shape its research agenda in line with Republican priorities.
As the power struggle over institute directorships at NIH continues, it remains to be seen whether the agency will be able to maintain its independence and continue to deliver high-quality research and services to the public.
The changes come as some senior officials at NIH were put on administrative leave or abruptly departed after Trump's inauguration, including Lawrence Tabak, who had spent more than a decade as principal deputy director. The administration has also grown the number of political appointees at the agency, with nine current holdovers as of late June, up from four the year before.
Five institute directors, including the head of NIAID, were fired or placed on administrative leave in the spring of 2025, and their positions have since been removed. The directorship of another agency, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, was filled by a close personal friend of Vice President JD Vance without any apparent search process.
The move has prompted speculation among NIH insiders that the Trump administration is seeking to exert more political control over the hiring of directorships, and some lawmakers are taking notice. A bill sponsored by Diana DeGette, a Democratic representative from Colorado, aims to "Protect NIH From Political Interference" by capping the number of political appointees at the agency.
Critics argue that the changes undermine the traditional process for selecting institute directors, which has been successful in bringing fresh ideas and perspectives to the agency. Mark Histed, an NIH scientist, said that external members on search committees are crucial for preventing politicization and ensuring that the agency remains responsive to the scientific community.
The NIH's role in biomedical research is significant, and any changes to its leadership structure could have far-reaching consequences. The agency has historically enjoyed strong bipartisan support, but conservative lawmakers have periodically raised questions about some of its spending and perceived liberal leanings. The Trump administration's actions may be seen as an attempt to exert more control over the agency and shape its research agenda in line with Republican priorities.
As the power struggle over institute directorships at NIH continues, it remains to be seen whether the agency will be able to maintain its independence and continue to deliver high-quality research and services to the public.
. It's like they're trying to control every aspect of what's being researched and who's leading these important institutes. I mean, isn't science supposed to be all about objectivity and finding answers based on evidence? 
This whole thing feels so... political. And what about all the talented scientists who got let go or left under Trump? It's like they're just trying to replace them with cronies from the administration. 
Not a good look for the agency at all. I'm all for accountability, but this feels like more like control and manipulation. 
Can't we just focus on finding cures and improving people's lives without all the drama? 
. I mean, what's next? Are they gonna start appointing their buddies to lead these institutes without any expertise in science whatsoever? It just doesn't sit right with me 
.
.
. Do we really want our top scientists being dictated by politics and not science? 
Not me, that's for sure 
.
.
and I'm still trying to figure out how to use the camera 
and then I looked it up 
. So they're trying to change who directs the place? Isn't that kinda weird? Like, don't they have some sort of system for picking people for those jobs? And what's going on with all these scientists getting fired or taken off administrative leave? Is everything okay at NIH? 
That bill by Diana DeGette seems like a good idea - let's keep those politicos out of our labs! 
And now Mark Histed is talking about external members on search committees? Totally necessary to keep it real! 
So here's hoping NIH can shake this off and get back to its roots - helping humanity with some real science. 
. And now they're just filling these leadership spots with friends and cronies instead of letting the experts do their job 
. First, you got these senior officials getting let go or quitting after Trump took office, then you got this crazy compressed timeline for finding new leaders, and now they're just letting anyone with a connection to VP Vance take over? It's like they're trying to pack the agency with Trumpies 
. And what's up with all these political appointees? It sounds like the administration is trying to get more control over the NIH's research agenda, but isn't that the point of having an independent agency in the first place? 
And don't even get me started on the lack of transparency around all this. It's like they're hiding something from us, and I'm not buying it 
It just feels like politics is getting in the way of science. I mean, come on, we can't have our researchers being picked based on who's connected to Trump rather than their qualifications and track record. 
. Now it's all about political appointees and cronyism - not exactly what you want from a scientific agency 
. The fact that they're filling directorships without a search process is just crazy talk 
. And that bill by Diana DeGette? Absolutely needed 
. Time to protect NIH's independence and ensure the agency stays focused on science, not politics 
.
it's gonna revolutionize food production, you know? but anyway back to NIH... i'm worried that if they start appointing more people who aren't scientists, the agency is gonna lose its credibility. did you know that the world's biggest seed company just announced a major investment in vertical farming? 
i mean i get it that there's a power struggle going on but this feels like a super bad idea to me 
what if they just pick someone because of who their friend is and not because of qualifications? 
that would be so unfair to all the scientists who are working hard over there 
but now it's being manipulated by politics 
. you can't trust someone to run a sacred place like NIH when they've got an axe to grind or a personal stake in the outcome. what's next? using the NSF to fund research that supports your favorite ideology? 
but now it feels like they're trying to play both sides against each other... all these changes are just so sudden and weird 
what's next? are we gonna see a bunch of political appointees in charge of funding grants or something?