Inside the new political screening that’s stalling NIH grants
Skip to main content
Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain<br>the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in<br>Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles<br>and JavaScript.
Advertisement
Bluesky
The US National Institutes of Health has seen grant applications held up by extra layers of scrutiny.Credit: Mark Wilson/Newsmakers/Getty<br>Hundreds of grant applications to the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) are being held up at any given time by unprecedented scrutiny after peer review. Some have been flagged by an algorithm for using terms, such as ‘gender’ and ‘climate change’, that have been deemed not to conform with the priorities of the administration of US President Donald Trump.<br>These new layers of review have delayed delivery of funds to labs and research institutions — and have even resulted in the outright rejection of some applications that had been approved by outside and agency scientists. Before 2025, it was unheard of for grants that had received such approvals to be rejected, says one of six NIH officials who spoke to Nature on condition of anonymity. The extra scrutiny ramped up in early 2026 and is conducted by NIH leaders and officials at the NIH’s parent agency, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).<br>The extra scrutiny has particularly affected researchers waiting for previously approved projects to be renewed. Most applications clear the supplemental review in two weeks, but 10% of the grant-renewal applications that have entered this phase in the 2026 fiscal year have become stuck for more than seven weeks, and some have been held up indefinitely, according to data and internal e-mails that Nature has obtained (see ‘Holding pattern’).<br>Source: US National Institutes of Health data obtained by an agency programme officer.<br>Similar reviews could be coming to other federal agencies. On 29 May, the White House proposed rules that would give political appointees unheard-of control over scientific grant-making.<br>“We’re the test case,” says an NIH programme officer. “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” used in the applications.<br>The Trump administration has criticized the federal grant-making process as opaque and unaccountable. Grants have been used “to promote a ‘woke’ policy agenda that did not reflect the values of the vast majority of the American public”, says the 29 May proposal to overhaul grant-making.<br>In response to Nature's queries about the grant-screening process, an NIH spokesperson said that “there are no ‘banned word’ lists at NIH, and funding decisions are not based on specific words or phrases.” Internal documents suggest that the agency does not ban these words, but projects that use them are much more likely to be scrutinized by programme officers who use the tool and by NIH and HHS officials reviewing the project.<br>Automated check<br>Weeks after Trump took office in January 2025, his administration began terminating thousands of grants on disfavoured topics, such as diversity, equity and inclusion, climate change, misinformation, vaccine hesitancy and what it called ‘gender ideology’. Billionaire Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) directed these terminations, Nature previously reported.<br>As DOGE’s influence in government waned, NIH leaders formalized a screening process by creating an algorithm that checks applications for a list of disfavoured terms (see Supplementary information). As of February, the list included 235 terms, which serve as an “indicator that the grant likely needs, at a minimum, a revision to align its terminology with NIH priorities”, according to one internal document.<br>NIH grant cuts disproportionately hit minority and female scientists
The tool checks every application’s title, abstract and other summary sections for terms including ‘racism’, ‘fossil fuel’, ‘queer’ and ‘sexual minorit’ (referring to all forms of the phrase ‘sexual minority’).<br>This algorithm is applied after applications have passed two rounds of peer review, and after programme officials and the relevant institute director have deemed them worthy of funding and in alignment with institute priorities (see ‘How an NIH grant is processed’).<br>If the application contains one of the 235 disfavoured terms, it is classified as “not clean”. Programme officers are then instructed to renegotiate the language or scope of the proposed project with the applicant, or to scrap it altogether. Officers must also write a ‘decision memo’ that describes the actions taken.<br>Grant limbo<br>After this step, applications enter a phase called Status 19. Historically, the NIH has used this...