The National Institutes of Health (NIH), the US's premier biomedical research agency, has found itself at the center of a power struggle over institute directorships under the new administration. The agency, which employs 17,500 people, traditionally has few political appointees within its workforce, and its leadership selection process is often seen as non-partisan.
However, the Trump administration has taken steps to increase the number of political appointees at NIH, including placing nine individuals in key positions before the end of 2025. This shift has raised concerns among current and former officials about a new era of politicization within the agency.
NIH's institute directors are responsible for overseeing most of the funding decisions and day-to-day operations of the agency, making them critical to the Trump administration's agenda. Five of these directors were fired or placed on administrative leave in spring 2025, while another was appointed without any official announcement or background information.
The appointment process has been seen as compressed, with some insiders suggesting that the Trump administration is seeking to exert more control over NIH's leadership through appointments rather than search committees involving both career scientists and external experts. This approach has led to speculation about whether the agency will become more responsive to White House wishes while potentially losing its scientific expertise.
Lawmakers have taken notice of these changes, with some pushing for measures to protect NIH from political interference. A bill sponsored by Diana DeGette aimed to cap the number of political appointees at the agency and prevent politicization. Mark Histed, an NIH scientist, highlighted the importance of external search committees in preventing politicization.
The NIH's new leadership dynamics raise questions about its ability to conduct unbiased scientific research and balance competing interests. The Trump administration's actions have created a power struggle within the agency, which could impact the quality and direction of NIH's work for years to come.
However, the Trump administration has taken steps to increase the number of political appointees at NIH, including placing nine individuals in key positions before the end of 2025. This shift has raised concerns among current and former officials about a new era of politicization within the agency.
NIH's institute directors are responsible for overseeing most of the funding decisions and day-to-day operations of the agency, making them critical to the Trump administration's agenda. Five of these directors were fired or placed on administrative leave in spring 2025, while another was appointed without any official announcement or background information.
The appointment process has been seen as compressed, with some insiders suggesting that the Trump administration is seeking to exert more control over NIH's leadership through appointments rather than search committees involving both career scientists and external experts. This approach has led to speculation about whether the agency will become more responsive to White House wishes while potentially losing its scientific expertise.
Lawmakers have taken notice of these changes, with some pushing for measures to protect NIH from political interference. A bill sponsored by Diana DeGette aimed to cap the number of political appointees at the agency and prevent politicization. Mark Histed, an NIH scientist, highlighted the importance of external search committees in preventing politicization.
The NIH's new leadership dynamics raise questions about its ability to conduct unbiased scientific research and balance competing interests. The Trump administration's actions have created a power struggle within the agency, which could impact the quality and direction of NIH's work for years to come.
I'm kinda torn on this one... Like, the idea that NIH is getting more political appointees is super concerning, but at the same time, I feel like it's also kinda necessary? 
We need people with a different perspective in those roles to shake things up and make sure everyone's not getting too cozy. But then again, if we're gonna do that, shouldn't we at least have some sort of process in place to ensure we're still getting the best candidates for the job? 
. But at the same time, maybe they weren't doing their jobs and needed a shake-up? 
The scientists are gonna lose so much of their autonomy if this keeps up. What even is the point of NIH if they can't do their own research without some White House interference? 
I'm all for accountability and stuff, but not when it comes at the expense of science! 
... NIH is like the golden child of US science, but now it's all about who's in charge? 
i mean, five directors fired or demoted? that's some major shakeup 
and it's not just about politics, it's about the science too. are they gonna prioritize research or play ball with the administration? 
I mean, I know politics and stuff is involved but shouldn't science be more important than all that? 
... NIH is like the heartbeat of medical research in the US 
, and now it seems like politics is bleeding into science 
? The idea that there could be a power struggle over who gets to make decisions on funding and operations makes me nervous 
... who's really in charge here? The White House or the scientists themselves? 
I want to see more transparency and less secrecy when it comes to these appointments. Transparency is key 
, especially when it comes to something as important as medical research.
. We need unbiased science now more than ever 
!
, but at the same time, I'm really worried about how this whole thing is gonna affect the agency's scientific credibility 
. I mean, think about it, if the Trump administration is packing more and more political appointees into these key positions, doesn't that just kinda defeat the purpose of having a non-partisan leadership process in the first place? 
.
. They're trying to politicize an agency that's all about science and helping people 
! I mean, what's next? Are they gonna make a scientist decide between their research and their vote? 
It's not right. We need those external search committees to keep the good people at NIH in charge, not just yes-men for the White House 
. And why is everyone so quiet about this?! Where are our lawmakers when it counts? 
. Let's get behind Mark Histed and his fellow scientists on this one! 
plus, who gets to decide what's 'scientific' anyway? shouldn't be some dude from the oval office? 
at least we know how this is gonna play out...
. It sounds like common sense to me – I mean, shouldn't we be protecting our scientific institutions from getting hijacked by politics? But at the same time, I'm worried that if we're not careful, we'll end up losing all the expertise and knowledge that NIH has to offer 