WASHINGTON—President Donald Trump&#8217;s administration is ending the use of human fetal tissue in federally-funded research, The Daily Wire can first report.
Effective immediately, National Institutes of Health funds will no longer be used for research that involves the fetal tissue of aborted babies. That policy will apply to all NIH grants, cooperative agreements, transaction awards, research and development contracts, and the NIH Intramural Research Program.
The move is a significant win for the pro-life movement, which has long pushed for the United States to respect the dignity of the unborn, whose tissue is bought by researchers after abortions. Under the first Trump administration, the president banned intramural use of aborted fetal tissue, meaning research conducted within United States government facilities.
This time, Trump&#8217;s NIH is going further, stating that it will not fund any research involving tissue from aborted babies. The institute frames the move as a significant milestone in the Trump administration&#8217;s efforts to &#8220;modernize biomedical science and accelerate innovation,&#8221; but it comes just one day before the annual March for Life, a significant nod to the pro-life Americans gathering in Washington who have worked for years to arrive at this moment.
“NIH is pushing American biomedical science into the 21st century,” NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya said Thursday. “This decision is about advancing science by investing in breakthrough technologies more capable of modeling human health and disease. Under President Trump’s leadership, taxpayer-funded research must reflect the best science of today and the values of the American people.”
<div id="attachment_1031609" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/exclusive-trump-admin-ends-funding-for-research-using-aborted-baby-tissue/hhs-secretary-kennedy-holds-news-conference-on-synthetic-dyes-in-food-supply-6" rel="attachment wp-att-1031609"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1031609" class="wp-image-1031609 size-large" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/01/GettyImages-2210917374-864x576.jpg" alt="" width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/01/GettyImages-2210917374-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/01/GettyImages-2210917374-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/01/GettyImages-2210917374-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/01/GettyImages-2210917374.jpg 1024w" sizes=" (max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" /></a>National Institutes of Health Director Jay Bhattacharya (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)</div>
Only 77 projects using human fetal tissue were funded by NIH during the Fiscal Year 2024, declining steadily since 2019, NIH says. Simultaneously, other advances offer alternatives that can &#8220;drive discovery while reducing ethical concerns:&#8221; advances in tissue chips, computational biology, organoids, and other platforms.
In an interview with Daily Wire editor emeritus Ben Shapiro, Bhattacharya noted that the use of human fetal tissue from aborted babies has sparked arguments for years, putting &#8220;a large part of the population&#8221; in an ethical quandary. Given the significant advances in science and the plethora of alternatives, he said, there is no reason to put Americans in a position that might violate their consciences.
&#8220;Now that there is better technology, there&#8217;s no scientific harm to this, we&#8217;re still going to be able to use the science we need &#8230; while at the same time getting rid of this use of aborted fetal tissue which so many people, including me, find morally abhorrent,&#8221; Bhattacharya said.
He also pointed out that tissue can still be used for NIH-funded research if it is not specifically from an abortion.
&#8220;Someone who has had a miscarriage and wants to do a meaningful thing and they donate the tissue from the miscarriage to science, that&#8217;s still allowed,&#8221; he told Shapiro. &#8220;The only ban is on, you have an abortion specifically to terminate the baby, and then the tissue then gets sold, that&#8217;s what&#8217;s being banned.&#8221;
The administration views the move as evidence of its commitment to both scientific excellence and &#8220;responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars,&#8221; ensuring that the United States is still the &#8220;global leader in biomedical innovation&#8221; while at the same time staying true to the values of the American people.
Bhattacharya stressed this point, reminding Shapiro that certain coronavirus vaccines were developed using embryonic stem cells.
&#8220;I heard from so many people during the pandemic, Catholics and others, who had qualms about using this technology because they didn&#8217;t want to be gaining from what their moral system said was the fruit of the poisoned tree,&#8221; he explained, adding, &#8220;I completely sympathize with this.&#8221;
&#8220;In public health and in science, we should seek to produce knowledge and products that are widely available for everybody,&#8221; the NIH leader continued. &#8220;If there are large numbers of people with moral systems that say if you go down this line and use research with aborted human fetal tissue, I&#8217;m not going to participate in it&#8230;well what good was the research?&#8221;
As abortions in the United States became more common, the use of aborted baby bodies for research sparked national controversy. In the early 2000s, then-Senator Rick Santorum introduced the <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/109th-congress/senate-bill/3504">Fetus Farming Prohibition Act of 2006</a>, banning any person or entity involved in interstate commerce from soliciting or knowingly acquiring, receiving, or accepting a donation of human fetal tissue obtained through an abortion.
<div id="attachment_1031611" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/exclusive-trump-admin-ends-funding-for-research-using-aborted-baby-tissue/pro-life-activist-david-daleiden-appears-in-court-over-planned-parenthood-video-sting-2" rel="attachment wp-att-1031611"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1031611" class="wp-image-1031611 size-large" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/01/GettyImages-508396548-864x576.jpg" alt="" width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/01/GettyImages-508396548-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/01/GettyImages-508396548-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/01/GettyImages-508396548-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/01/GettyImages-508396548.jpg 1024w" sizes=" (max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" /></a>David Daleiden (Photo by Eric Kayne/Getty Images)</div>
President George W. Bush signed that bill into law in July 2006. But anxieties over the use of aborted baby bodies continued, and in 2015 and 2016, undercover pro-life activist David Daleiden, the head of the Center for Medical Progress, <a href="https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/08/07/exclusive-kamala-harris-sent-agents-raid-pro-life-journalists-home-met-planned-parenthood-emails-show/">published videos allegedly showing</a> Planned Parenthood officials describing how they extract aborted-baby body parts and joking about compensation.
Daleiden alleged that the videos prove Planned Parenthood was selling the aborted baby body parts for profit. Planned Parenthood said he was lying, sued him, accused him of deceptively editing the videos, and claimed they were only reimbursed for costs (meaning, the expenses incurred in transportation or delivery). After heavy backlash, Planned Parenthood announced in 2015 that they would no longer accept reimbursements for costs.
Daleiden suffered through almost a decade of legal battles, led by the California Attorney General&#8217;s Office headed at the time by Kamala Harris. Xavier Becerra, who would go on to become Joe Biden&#8217;s Health and Human Services secretary, carried on that legal battle against Daleiden after Harris left office.

President Trump Announces Plan To Reduce The Cost Of Prescription Drugs

Ahead Of March For Life, Trump Admin Ends Funding For Research Using Aborted Baby Tissue

Abortion

Donald Trump

March For Life

The federal government awards research grants to universities to make scientific breakthroughs, but for every dollar that it has spent on science, up to 70 additional cents is diverted to administrators, a new study found.
That allows the universities to essentially extort the federal government by claiming that the funding is necessary for public health, while gobbling up a large portion for DEI, hiring more deans, and unrelated campus programs.
Current policy provides an overhead rate of a whopping 50 to 70%, paid on top of the actual scientific grant, dramatically ballooning the cost to taxpayers and creating a college industrial complex, watchdog group <a href="https://www.openthebooks.com/assets/1/6/Transparency_Academia_Overhead.pdf">Open the Books</a> said in a new report. The costs are a &#8220;black box&#8221; that is absorbed by taxpayers, but has no public accounting, the group said.
The findings come as the Trump administration seeks to rein in the partisanship of universities and find ways to reduce waste without impacting important scientific research. The Trump administration has proposed reducing the overhead rate to 15%, but the move has been stalled by a court ruling after university groups sued.
The University of Michigan-Ann Arbor, one of four universities that Open the Books examined, had a negotiated overhead rate of 55 to 56%. It received $9.4 billion in federal research funding between 2013 and 2023, up to $2.3 billion of which was siphoned off for &#8220;overhead,&#8221; the report &#8212; first obtained by The Daily Wire &#8212; found. During that time, the university&#8217;s administrative staff, but not professors, swelled, and DEI staff climbed from 27 to 179.
One grant was for $2.5 million to take a curriculum from the left-wing Southern Poverty Law Center and turn it into a middle school anti-racism program about &#8220;white supremacy&#8221; and &#8220;solidarity.&#8221; That project alone brought in a whopping $1,173,910 in additional money for the university thanks to its 56% overhead rate.
Rutgers had an overhead rate as high as 57%. Of $3.8 billion in science grants, as little as $2.4 billion was left for direct costs. Concurrent with the influx of funding, its staff grew by 10,000 &#8212; only a quarter of whom were teachers.
The high overhead rates give universities a financial incentive to apply for grants even if the research is not useful or high-quality. Recent reports found that only 46% of 53 cancer studies could be replicated, and most research in psychology journals did not replicate. That means the conclusions are so dubious that when someone else took the same steps, they didn&#8217;t get the same results.
<a class="c-link c-link--focus-visible c-link--underline" href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=christmas&amp;utm_content=christmassale25" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=christmas&amp;utm_content=christmassale25" data-sk="tooltip_parent">Christmas Sale – Get 40% off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships</a>
A National Association of Scholars report described the perverse incentives: &#8220;While scientists pursue research funding for discovery, institutions want research grants to generate revenue. Because scientists are employees, and administrations are employers, administrations’ interests will always have the upper hand. This is the means whereby academic scientists are reduced to being generators of revenue, not agents of discovery.&#8221;
That group said that in 2023, the federal government gave universities $60 billion in research grants, $22 billion of which went to overhead. If the overhead rate was reduced to 15%, it would have freed up $14 billion, which could be used on actual research or simply to save taxpayer dollars.
The National Science Foundation spent $7.4 billion in research and development grants in fiscal 2024. Although the Department of Health and Human Services, and its arms like the National Institutes of Health, make more awards to colleges, there is additional bloat in NSF funding because of a congressional requirement, Open the Books found.
Congress, through a bill called the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010, required those grants to include what it calls &#8220;broader impacts&#8221; work, requiring scientists to do DEI and public relations work. &#8220;These requirements fundamentally transformed universities and their approach to scientific research,&#8221; the report said.
For example, a $600,000 grant for a chemistry project called “Unravelling the Nature of Elusive Transition Metal-oxyl Complexes” now included a hidden slush fund, under &#8220;broader impacts,&#8221; for &#8220;recruiting Underrepresented Minority (URM) high school students to STEM fields.&#8221; A $1.5 million project to develop a dog-like robot at Rutgers University had a &#8220;broader impacts&#8221; slush fund to &#8220;leverage diversity programs at Rutgers University to recruit and support underrepresented groups.”
University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill received $7.7 billion in science grants over a decade and had an overhead rate of 52-55%. A $510,000 chemistry grant for &#8220;vapor deposition techniques&#8221; was siphoned off for &#8220;promoting LGBTQ+ participation in scientific research and in society as a whole.&#8221;
The DEI programming was concealed under line-items that appeared to be for legitimate scientific research. &#8220;When critics of Trump’s plan to eliminate NSF discuss funding cuts to science, they don’t mention that funds for actual scientific discovery are already being cut into with Congressionally mandated, ideologically motivated, side projects,&#8221; Open The Books said.
Trump has attempted to remove identity-based &#8220;broader activity&#8221; mandates, but some recent grants have included them nonetheless, Open The Books found.
Universities are fighting the 15% overhead cap. But at a minimum, &#8220;universities, which have suffered reputational blows from hard-left campus activism and programmatic activities in recent years, could additionally volunteer to release data on overhead flows and amounts to regain the trust that taxpayer dollars are being put to good use,&#8221; the report said.
It is colleges &#8212; not the Trump administration &#8212; who have been anti-science by diverting limited funds, it concluded, saying &#8220;hijacking grant proposal requirements to further ideological goals&#8221; is &#8220;a secret tax on research and development.&#8221;
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/new-zealand-scrapped-all-social-science-funding-trump-could-too">New Zealand Scrapped All ‘Social Science’ Funding. Trump Could Too.</a>

University of Michigan Ann Arbor

How Universities Divert Federal Science Grants To DEI And Administrative Bloat

Education

Science

U.S.

A conservative watchdog accused federal bureaucrats of &#8220;hiding&#8221; key data from a government-funded study that would expose the questionable &#8220;science&#8221; behind putting gender-confused kids on puberty blockers. 
The American Accountability Foundation filed a <a href="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/NIH-FOIA-Complaint-to-file.pdf">suit</a> on Wednesday, alleging that the Department of Health and Human Services and the National Institutes of Health are withholding the release of data expected to significantly undermine transgender ideology. The data is from a government-funded study that the author admitted in an interview with The New York Times would hurt the case for placing young children on puberty blockers. 
&#8220;For over a year, HHS has been hiding a bombshell study that confirms what we&#8217;ve known all along: transgender therapy is a failure,” American Accountability Foundation President Tom Jones told The Daily Wire. “The lead researcher herself admitted that the findings challenge the effectiveness of these drugs. HHS bureaucrats are playing woke political games, ignoring science and common sense.”
The American Accountability Foundation first requested the data from the $9.7 million project after the Times <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/23/science/puberty-blockers-olson-kennedy.html">published</a> a story on October 23, 2024, that featured researcher Johanna Olson-Kennedy admitting that she had delayed publishing the effects of puberty blockers on children due to political concerns. Olson-Kennedy told The Times that the data did not show better mental outcomes for children placed on puberty blockers. 
Five days later, the American Accountability Foundation submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to get the data. However, the response came with significant redactions that obscured important data points, the suit filed in the District of Columbia said.  
“Though the NIH sent a response and produced some records in November 2024, NIH’s production appeared incomplete, as it didn’t include Dr. Olson-Kennedy’s data and contained redactions throughout. NIH’s response also appeared incomplete and insufficient because it didn’t justify any of the redactions, nor did it explain how the search was conducted to find responsive records pertaining to the data set,&#8221; the suit said. 
Join us now during our exclusive Deal of the Decade. Get everything for $7 a month. Not as fans. As fighters. Go to <a href="http://dailywire.com/Subscribe" target="_blank" rel="noopener">DailyWire.com/Subscribe</a> to join now.
Jones filed an appeal of the redactions on January 6, 2025, but says that the issue has not yet been resolved. The suit says that HHS and the NIH have violated federal records laws in their handling of the request. 
Specific records that have been redacted include the names of researchers who aided in the project, their background, and information on the compensation they received from the government. 
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignnone size-full wp-image-989261" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/MixCollage-21-Oct-2025-04-52-PM-4977.jpg" alt="" width="2560" height="1440" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/MixCollage-21-Oct-2025-04-52-PM-4977.jpg 2560w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/MixCollage-21-Oct-2025-04-52-PM-4977-300x169.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/MixCollage-21-Oct-2025-04-52-PM-4977-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/MixCollage-21-Oct-2025-04-52-PM-4977-768x432.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/MixCollage-21-Oct-2025-04-52-PM-4977-1536x864.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/MixCollage-21-Oct-2025-04-52-PM-4977-2048x1152.jpg 2048w" sizes=" (max-width: 2560px) 100vw, 2560px" /></div>
Also redacted are demographic information and other data points about the kids who were put on puberty blockers. That data is redacted for “proprietary info,” while some is left out with the reason, “redacted by agreement.”
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="alignnone size-full wp-image-989279" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/MixCollage-21-Oct-2025-05-06-PM-5619-1.jpg" alt="" width="2560" height="1440" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/MixCollage-21-Oct-2025-05-06-PM-5619-1.jpg 2560w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/MixCollage-21-Oct-2025-05-06-PM-5619-1-300x169.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/MixCollage-21-Oct-2025-05-06-PM-5619-1-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/MixCollage-21-Oct-2025-05-06-PM-5619-1-768x432.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/MixCollage-21-Oct-2025-05-06-PM-5619-1-1536x864.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/MixCollage-21-Oct-2025-05-06-PM-5619-1-2048x1152.jpg 2048w" sizes=" (max-width: 2560px) 100vw, 2560px" /></div>
The suit said that the AAF opposed the vague redactions and “objected to the adequacy of NIH’s search. Specifically, AAF requested a copy of the data to which Dr. Olson referred. The FOIA coordinator’s response said nothing about how the search was conducted, whether such data are being withheld, and, if they are being withheld, why they are being withheld.”
HHS Press Secretary Emily Hilliard told The Daily Wire the agency does not comment on pending litigation, but that it was &#8220;committed to protecting children from being harmed by puberty blockers.&#8221;
A <a href="https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.05.14.25327614v1.full-text">preprint version</a> of Olson-Kennedy’s study appears to be available, but it has not yet been peer reviewed. Olson-Kennedy and her co-authors claim in that version that their research shows that “youth demonstrated both stability and improvement in emotional and mental health over 24 months.”
The American Accountability Foundation believes that all the data documenting the study should be made available so it can be independently analyzed.
“We&#8217;re fighting back, suing HHS to force them to follow the law and release this truth,” Jones said. “The American people deserve to know what&#8217;s being hidden by the radical left!&#8221;

Supreme Court Considers Tennessee’s Ban On Treatments For Transgender Minors

‘Woke’ Government Bureaucrats ‘Hiding’ Crucial Data On Blockbuster Trans Study, Watchdog Says

'Woke' Government Bureaucrats Withholding Data On Blockbuster Trans Study, Watchdog Says

Department of Health and Human Services

Puberty blockers

Transgender

Trump Tells Pregnant Women To Avoid Tylenol Over Autism Fear

NIH Chief Jay Bhattacharya On DEI, Tylenol, And The Basis Of Truth In Science

COVID

Health Care

interview

Isabel Brown

Jay Bhattacharya

Tylenol

Vaccines

A week ago, President Donald Trump <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/dariosabaghi/2025/08/11/trump-says-marijuana-rescheduling-will-be-decided-within-weeks/">said</a> that he would soon decide whether to move cannabis from Schedule I to III for purposes of the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (CSA), which would take marijuana out of the category of drugs that cannot be used for any purpose. Doing so would be a huge mistake. Huge.
Congress placed cannabis in Schedule I — the category for drugs that have no legitimate medical use, that are potentially addictive, and have no safe use even under a physician’s supervision — when it passed the CSA 55 years ago. While Congress empowered the U.S. Attorney General, after consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services, to reschedule cannabis, in the ensuing half-century, no Republican or Democratic attorney general has done so, and no court has ruled that they must do so.
In 2023, however, cannabis advocates finally found a friend. Admiral Rachel L. Levine, HHS Assistant Secretary for Health under President Biden, <a href="http://www.jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/article-abstract/2834954">recommended</a> that Attorney General Merrick Garland transfer cannabis into Schedule III. To justify that conclusion, Levine invented a newfangled test that relied heavily on the fact that multiple states have adopted medical cannabis programs. As a matter of law, that rationale is wrong for multiple reasons.
First, Congress could not have been clearer that it is the exclusive responsibility of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), not the states, to decide whether a drug is safe, effective, and uniform. Levine’s rationale effectively and unlawfully transfers decision-making authority from the FDA to the states.
Second, the FDA has never approved the botanical form of cannabis as a safe, effective, and uniformly made drug. The FDA has approved the synthesis of compounds found in the plant by legitimate pharmaceutical companies, but has not approved the interstate distribution of the cannabis plant enjoyed by Cheech and Chong and Harold and Kumar fans.
Third, the FDA could not find that the cannabis plant is safe, effective, and uniformly made.
Start with its safety. The cannabis sold today is <a href="https://www.congress.gov/116/meeting/house/110381/witnesses/HHRG-116-IF14-Wstate-VolkowN-20200115.pdf">far more powerful</a> than the version smoked at Woodstock. At that time, the tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) content — the psychoactive ingredient in cannabis — was 3-6%. Now, some concentrated cannabis products can have a 90% THC content. That difference is like comparing near beer to grain alcohol.
Growing evidence also links cannabis use to a host of <a href="https://www.congress.gov/116/meeting/house/110381/witnesses/HHRG-116-IF14-Wstate-VolkowN-20200115.pdf">adverse physical outcomes</a>, such as oral, head, and neck cancers; cardiovascular disorders; pulmonary disease; and numerous adverse psychological effects, such earlier onset of psychosis; reduced IQ; childhood poisonings; amotivational syndrome; increased school absenteeism; and a reduced likelihood of graduating high school, enrolling in a university, or completing higher degree requirements. Heavy cannabis users and people who begin its use as minors and continue into adulthood are particularly <a href="https://www.congress.gov/116/meeting/house/110381/witnesses/HHRG-116-IF14-Wstate-VolkowN-20200115.pdf">susceptible</a> to these harms.
Plus, botanical cannabis can be adulterated with a host of dangerous, unhealthy, or downright disgusting contaminants. Dr. Nora Volkow, Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, told Congress in 2020 that “individuals across the country are using cannabis strains and extracts that have not undergone the rigorous clinical trials required to show that they are safe and effective for medical use, and are not regulated for consistency or quality.”
As I explained in an <a href="https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2023-08/SR275.pdf">earlier article</a>, among the “hodgepodge” of dangerous contaminants found in the cannabis sold today are E. coli, fungi, mold, toxins, hazardous chemical solvents such as butane and propane, pesticides, heavy metals (such as arsenic, lead, and mercury), and other harmful and disgusting substances such as formaldehyde and insects. The FDA would never allow such contaminants to be present in any drug sold to the public.
Cannabis can also lead to physical dependence in users. Heavy or long-term use can lead a person to develop a tolerance to THC, requiring ever greater quantities of the chemical to experience the same euphoria. As drug policy experts Wayne Hall and Rosalie Pacula have explained, there is a 10% risk of addiction for people who have ever used cannabis, a 20-33% for people who use it more frequently, and a 50% risk — &#8220;<a href="https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2023-08/SR275.pdf">a coin flip</a>” — for people who use it daily. Driving while stoned can, of course, lead to motor vehicle accidents that maim or kill pedestrians or other drivers and their passengers.
Keep in mind that the FDA has <a href="http://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2023-08/SR275.pdf">never</a> given approval for a drug to be smoked. Why? There is no uniform depth or length of any one inhalation, and no uniform number of inhalations that users follow. Moreover, the nation concluded over 60 years ago that smoking burnt carbon products damages a smoker’s health, which explains why major medical institutions such as the American Medical Association, the U.S. National Institutes of Health, and the Royal College of Physicians have <a href="http://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2023-08/SR275.pdf">not</a> recommended smoking as a legitimate drug delivery system.
The raw cannabis plant also is not “effective” for purposes of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Only a handful of controlled studies have examined whether pot can be used as a legitimate treatment for disease or injury; the results are <a href="https://www.law.georgetown.edu/public-policy-journal/wp-content/uploads/sites/23/2019/09/17-2-Larkin-Madras.pdf">inadequate</a> to draw any scientific conclusion.
The most common justification offered is that its psychoactive calming effect makes it a legitimate analgesic alternative for pain. But that argument is medically <a href="https://www.law.georgetown.edu/public-policy-journal/wp-content/uploads/sites/23/2019/09/17-2-Larkin-Madras.pdf">unsound</a>. Cannabis is too weak to substitute for opioids as a treatment for severe pain — indeed, it hinders cessation of opioid use by anyone trying to kick an opioid <a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4127123/pdf/nihms609765.pdf">dependency</a> — and scientific proof that THC is a valid treatment for lower levels of pain is also lacking.
To be sure, smoking a joint can get you “high,” but that is not the test for a medicine’s effectiveness. As Dr. Peter Bach, Director of the Center for Health Policy and Outcomes at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/if-weed-is-medicine-so-is-budweiser-11547770981?gaa_at=eafs&amp;gaa_n=ASWzDAh7LaDEYv_vcqs-izvRtTLHvE4_TMMU_qu3NyDxy9OXughPlX3zaBL-&amp;gaa_ts=689c8e99&amp;gaa_sig=tzI2Ti78lH5zRhqIjd3w0ZVcT308pAa8r1GA3Re1URauoN8dYXnoBs5EqZYAmoitDwKaFsuYPpeZooGzKZ9AwA%3D%3D">explained</a>, “[E]very intoxicant would pass that sort of test because you don’t experience pain as acutely when you are high. If weed is a pain reliever, so is Budweiser.”
Finally, the cannabis plant is not a <a href="http://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2023-08/SR275.pdf">uniformly made product</a>. As Brian Thomas and Mahmoud ElSohly <a href="http://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2023-08/SR275.pdf">explained</a> in their book The Analytical Chemistry of Cannabis, “The number of parameters on which cannabis can vary is enormous,” and differs according to “strain, growing conditions, harvesting methods and handling,” to “storage and processing of the raw material to combining them with a wide variety of foods and other excipients in manufacturing, and to “methods of administration (eating, smoking, ‘vaping,’ applying to mucous membranes)” and so forth.
Botanical cannabis also varies according to potency and the presence of cannabinoids (i.e., biochemically active compounds), which tends to <a href="http://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2023-08/SR275.pdf">offset or moderate</a> the potential adverse effects of high THC consumption, such as anxiety, cognitive impairment, amotivational syndrome, dependence or addiction, and psychosis.
In sum, the Levine recommendation from 2023 is wrong as a matter of law and medically unsound, indeed dangerous. If the President truly wants to Make America Healthy Again, he should reject that recommendation.
* * *
Paul J. Larkin is the John, Barbara &amp; Victoria Rumpel Senior Legal Research Fellow at The Heritage Foundation.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Trump Administration Considers Reclassifying Marijuana As A Less Dangerous Drug

Dude, Rescheduling Cannabis Downwards Would Be A Huge Mistake. Huge.

addiction

Congress

Drugs

Federal Government

Marijuana

An Illinois medical school that rakes in millions of taxpayer dollars operates a gender clinic that peddles suspect treatments to minors.
The Southern Illinois University School of Medicine has been <a href="https://taggs.hhs.gov/Detail/RecipDetail?arg_EntityId=PlNjsfJ%2FhuFyRnIQqjoNjQ%3D%3D">issued</a> nearly $3 million in federal funds this year and received another $6.4 million in 2024. The school <a href="https://www.siumed.edu/centers-family-medicine">owns</a> and <a href="https://www.siumed.org/treatment/gender-equity-and-transgender-clinic">operates</a> a the Gender Equity and Transgender Clinic, which offers “gender affirming hormone therapy” and provides referrals for the surgical removal of breasts and other genital surgeries.
“The clinic provides trauma-informed, gender-affirming health care services to transgender and gender-diverse individuals,” the clinic’s <a href="https://www.siumed.org/treatment/gender-equity-and-transgender-clinic#Services_offered">website</a> says. “The team values each individual person and their unique needs and characteristics.”
The website also claims that puberty blockers and cross-sex homes can be reversed, but should be administered to “give a child time to decide what treatments are right for them in addressing their gender presentation moving forward.”
“Puberty blockers are not permanent. When they are stopped, puberty continues normally,” the website says. 
Dr. Jared Ross, a senior fellow with Do No Harm, told The Daily Wire that the claims about puberty blockers being reversible were “absurd.” He said that there was data showing that bone density, especially in the hip and spine, were permanently decreased because of the procedures. 
“Puberty doesn&#8217;t just continue normally,” he said. “There are only so many years of pubertal development. And if you interfere with puberty during that time, you don&#8217;t get to make it up later.  Those are lost years of growth and development.”
The clinic also claims that putting men on estrogen and women on testosterone causes “changes in the body that would reverse upon stopping the treatment.”
Ross said that cross-sex hormones will often cause changes that don’t reverse. For example, men on estrogen will develop breasts and have body fat redistribution while females on testosterone will often have changes to their voice that can’t be undone.
Southern Illinois University School of Medicine takes millions in federal funding every year. This year, the school has taken $1.2 million in National Institutes of Health funding and $2.5 million in Health Resources and Services Administration funding. 
Sample grants <a href="https://taggs.hhs.gov/Detail/RecipDetail?arg_EntityId=PlNjsfJ%2FhuFyRnIQqjoNjQ%3D%3D">awarded</a> from 2025 include $1.6 million to fund its health center as a whole and specific funds to research topics like opioids, behavioral health, and drug abuse. 
Since 2009, the institution has taken at least $3.6 million per year in grant funding. 
<div id="attachment_947763" style="width: 2585px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-947763" class="size-full wp-image-947763" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/Screenshot-2025-07-15-at-10.23.31%E2%80%AFAM.png" alt="" width="2575" height="1072" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/Screenshot-2025-07-15-at-10.23.31%E2%80%AFAM.png 2575w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/Screenshot-2025-07-15-at-10.23.31%E2%80%AFAM-300x125.png 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/Screenshot-2025-07-15-at-10.23.31%E2%80%AFAM-1024x426.png 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/Screenshot-2025-07-15-at-10.23.31%E2%80%AFAM-768x320.png 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/Screenshot-2025-07-15-at-10.23.31%E2%80%AFAM-1536x639.png 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/Screenshot-2025-07-15-at-10.23.31%E2%80%AFAM-2048x853.png 2048w" sizes=" (max-width: 2575px) 100vw, 2575px" />USASpending.gov</div>
The SIU Family Medicine Center, where the gender clinic is housed, is also a Federally Qualified Health Center, a designation that allows it to take money from Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children’s Health Insurance Program. 
In January, President Donald Trump <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-children-from-chemical-and-surgical-mutilation/">directed</a> his cabinet to take “appropriate steps to ensure that institutions receiving Federal research or education grants end the chemical and surgical mutilation of children.” The administration has since pressured hospital officials across the country to stop performing transgender procedures on children. 
Southern Illinois School of Medicine did not respond to requests for comment on how many minor patients it has in the gender clinic or whether it has been impacted by the executive order.
The clinic also promote a series of radical activist organizations, including one group that distributes free “trans needles” on the basis of race. 
The <a href="https://transneedles.org/">organization</a>, Trans Needle Exchange, is a “mail-based service providing free HRT needle supplies for trans folk who cannot access or afford their own.” Currently, the organization only sends needles to transgender-identifying people who are black. 
There are two separate Google request forms on the organizations’ website: one for black people, and one for everyone else. The form for black people says that it is “for BLACK TRANS FOLKS ONLY” and asks what kind of needle supplies are needed. The form also has checkbox where you can mark if you are black. 
<div id="attachment_947775" style="width: 2570px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-947775" class="size-full wp-image-947775" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/MixCollage-16-Jul-2025-11-00-AM-3932-scaled.jpg" alt="" width="2560" height="1280" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/MixCollage-16-Jul-2025-11-00-AM-3932-scaled.jpg 2560w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/MixCollage-16-Jul-2025-11-00-AM-3932-300x150.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/MixCollage-16-Jul-2025-11-00-AM-3932-1024x512.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/MixCollage-16-Jul-2025-11-00-AM-3932-768x384.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/MixCollage-16-Jul-2025-11-00-AM-3932-1536x768.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/MixCollage-16-Jul-2025-11-00-AM-3932-2048x1024.jpg 2048w" sizes=" (max-width: 2560px) 100vw, 2560px" />Trans Needle Exchange</div>
The form for white people currently doesn’t allow anything to be filled out, but says, “we are currently on hiatus and not taking new submissions.”
Point of Pride, another<a href="https://www.pointofpride.org/free-femme-shapewear"> organization</a> promoted by the clinic gives out free “chest binders” devices to compress the female chest to make it more masculine and distributes so-called “femme shapewear.”
A third organization promoted by the clinic is <a href="https://translifeline.org/microgrants/gender-affirming-hair-removal/">Trans Lifeline</a>, which give grants for transgender-identifying people to pay for hair removal — 60% of which are reserved for black people.
The clinic also promotes WPATH, a radical organization that has promoted transgender procedures on kids. A review from the Department of Health and Human Services condemned the reliance of many American health care providers on WPATH.
The gender clinic also notes that it is partnered with the Transgender and Gender Diverse Wellness and Equity Program, operated by the Illinois Department of Human Services and the Public Health Institute of Metropolitan Chicago. 
A previous Daily Wire <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/med-school-caught-rejecting-white-and-asian-applicants-with-better-scores-than-minorities-it-accepts">report</a> revealed that the Southern Illinois University School of Medicine admits black and Hispanic students with lower average MCAT scores and GPAs than the average scores of white and Asian students it rejects despite the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn affirmative action.

A girl holds the Transgender Pride flag during the pride

Taxpayer-Funded Medical School Promotes ‘Reversible’ Puberty Blockers For Kids

Illinois

transgender surgery

After decades of investing in life science breakthroughs, from biotech platforms to diagnostic innovations, I’ve seen what’s possible when bold ideas meet real backing. I’ve also seen what happens when bureaucracy gets in the way. Nearly $52 billion flows through the National Institutes of Health each year — taxpayer money entrusted to one of the world’s most important engines of biomedical progress. It begs a tough question: Is the NIH delivering what it promises? In my opinion, not yet.
Discovery today moves faster than ever, but the NIH struggles to keep pace — not from lack of talent or mission, but because of outdated systems, fragmented structure, and a risk-averse culture. This isn’t a partisan issue. It’s not about dismantling anything. It’s about upgrading an essential institution to work the way science works: fast, open, collaborative, and accountable. Under Dr. Jay Bhattacharya’s leadership, with his courage and clear-eyed vision, we’re closer than ever to meaningful reform.
The NIH’s 27 institutes and centers often function in isolation, duplicating work and missing chances to collaborate. In 2024, $9 billion went to indirect costs like admin overhead — paperwork, not pipettes or Petri dishes. Rep. Cathy McMorris proposed streamlining to 15 centers, a plan that ought to be seriously considered. Merging overlapping fields, say, translational medicine and biomedical imaging, would sharpen focus and accelerate progress. It would help the NIH act like a modern, integrated organization, not a loose confederation of silos. Let scientists spend their time in the lab, not in grant-cycle purgatory.
<div id="attachment_946227" style="width: 879px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-946227" class="size-large wp-image-946227" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/GettyImages-2214721636-869x576.jpg" alt="WASHINGTON, DC - MAY 12: National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Jay Bhattacharya speaks alongside President Donald Trump during a press conference in the Roosevelt Room of the White House on May 12, 2025, in Washington, DC. During the event, President Trump signed an executive order aimed at reducing the cost of prescription drugs and pharmaceuticals by 30% to 80%. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)" width="869" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/GettyImages-2214721636-869x576.jpg 869w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/GettyImages-2214721636-300x199.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/GettyImages-2214721636-768x509.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/07/GettyImages-2214721636.jpg 1024w" sizes=" (max-width: 869px) 100vw, 869px" />Andrew Harnik/Getty Images</div>
Public funding comes with public accountability, and the NIH has work to do. Concerns over inadequate responses to research misconduct, opaque grant reviews, and questionable international ties — like those linked to risky pathogen studies — damage credibility and slow progress. What’s needed isn’t punishment but clarity. Reforms to tighten oversight, simplify peer review, and flag repeat issues will protect the science and the people behind it. The American public is generous in funding medical research. It’s time to be just as generous with the truth.
In my years as a venture capitalist, I’ve learned that real innovation comes from unexpected places — outsiders, first-time founders, scientists chasing questions no one else asks. But the NIH’s grant system favors the safe route, funding incremental research while visionary proposals, like a novel approach to Alzheimer’s, get passed over. Put more generalists and cross-disciplinary thinkers on peer review panels. Train reviewers to recognize high-risk/high-reward ideas. Carve out funding for newcomers applying for the first time. We can’t solve 21st-century problems if we’re afraid to back 21st-century thinkers.
The scientific landscape has changed — AI decodes protein structures, organ-on-chip tech replaces animal testing, wearables guide patient care. Yet the NIH uses tools and timelines built for another era. The new public access policy, requiring funded studies to be shared freely, is a good start. But modernizing how we evaluate, fund, and share research is overdue. AI-driven grant reviews and real-time data platforms could match the global pace of discovery. If we want to compete with China and Europe, we need to move faster.
Despite its massive budget, the NIH sends disproportionate funding to elite institutions. In 2023, half of all grants went to just 10 states. Great science can come from a fresh PhD in Idaho or a tenured lab in Iowa, but without grant caps, geographic diversity, and fair review standards, those ideas never get a shot. America doesn’t have a monopoly on good ideas. Let’s stop acting like it does.
Are all reform proposals perfect? No. They’ll need input from scientists, policymakers, and patients who count on the results. Ignoring the problem, though, is reckless. This isn’t about tearing down the NIH; it’s about retooling it for today’s challenges. I came to this country believing in what it stood for. I’ve backed companies that pushed the limits of healthcare. I believe American science is the best in the world, but it needs a system that doesn’t hold it back. Let’s build an NIH that earns trust, funds bold ideas, and turns the best thinking into real-world cures. It’s time we let science lead. 
* * *
Guy Paul Nohra is co-founder of Alta Partners, a leading Venture Capital firm in life sciences, funding over 150 companies in the healthcare/life sciences sector since 1996 through eight Venture Capital funds.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

HHS Secretary Kennedy Holds News Conference On Synthetic Dyes In Food Supply

Paperwork And Petri Dishes: It’s Time To Reform The NIH And Let Science Lead

Paperwork And Petri Dishes: It's Time To Reform The NIH And Let Science Lead

Health

Medical

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

What are the origins of &#8220;Trump Derangement Syndrome&#8221;? House Republicans would like scientists to find out.
Rep. Warren Davidson (R-OH) introduced a bill directing the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to conduct or support research to &#8220;advance the understanding&#8221; of the phenomenon characterized by &#8220;intense emotional or cognitive reactions&#8221; to President Donald Trump.
The bill, titled the &#8220;Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) Research Act of 2025,&#8221; says &#8220;early documented references&#8221; emerged during Trump&#8217;s 2016 presidential campaign, including &#8220;certain media coverage amplifying polarized responses&#8221; to his rhetoric.
<a class="c-link" href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=memorial&amp;utm_content=editorialmemorialday" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=memorial&amp;utm_content=editorialmemorialday" data-sk="tooltip_parent">Memorial Day Sale – Get 40% Off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships</a>
However, the bill notes that its &#8220;precise origins remain understudied.&#8221; One of the research objectives listed in the legislation is to &#8220;identify the initial emergence or earliest documented cases (commonly referred to as &#8216;patient zero&#8217; or index cases) of TDS, including historical and social analyses to trace the onset of TDS.&#8221;
Known for his bombastic personality and commentary, Trump has long been a polarizing figure with a large number of supporters and critics. But some people have taken anti-Trump stances to such extremes as <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-derangement-syndrome-on-steroids-msnbc-contributor-trump-crime-cult-wanted-people-to-die" target="_blank" rel="noopener">warning</a> there is a &#8220;Trump crime cult&#8221; wanting &#8220;people to die&#8221; and, in Congress, offering perpetual impeachment proposals.
“It’s a day that ends in ‘-Y’, which means liberal Democrats are again trying to impeach [the president] for delivering the will of the people,” Sen. Markwayne Mullin (R-OK) recently said in response to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/democrat-unveils-7-articles-of-impeachment-against-trump" target="_blank" rel="noopener">yet another</a> impeachment bid. “TDS is strong. MAGA is stronger.”
There&#8217;s also the issue of violence. Last year, the situation took a dark turn when two assassination attempts were made against Trump as he campaigned for a second term in the White House.
Davidson&#8217;s bill also calls for an inquiry into psychological or behavioral impacts of TDS, contributing factors ranging from media exposure to political polarization, as well as potential interventions, coping mechanisms, and strategies to mitigate the effects of TDS.
&#8220;TDS has divided families, the country, and led to nationwide violence—including two assassination attempts on President Trump. The TDS Research Act would require the NIH to study this toxic state of mind, so we can understand the root cause and identify solutions,&#8221; Davidson said in a <a href="https://davidson.house.gov/2025/5/rep-warren-davidson-introduces-the-trump-derangement-syndrome-tds-research-act-of-2025" target="_blank" rel="noopener">statement</a>.
He added: &#8220;Instead of funding ludicrous studies such as giving methamphetamine to cats or teaching monkeys to gamble for their drinking water, the NIH should use that funding to research issues that are relevant to the real world.&#8221;
Rep. Barry Moore (R-AL) is an early co-sponsor of the bill.
&#8220;Trump Derangement Syndrome has become an epidemic on the Left,” Moore said. “Some individuals who suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome have participated in nationwide political and social unrest, even trying to assassinate President Trump twice. Rep. Davidson’s common-sense bill will use already appropriated funds on an NIH study that can make a difference.&#8221;
Davidson&#8217;s bill orders the NIH director to collaborate with the heads of other federal agencies, academic institutions, and other organizations. After two years, the NIH director must report to Congress on the progress of the research, any findings on the initial emergence or long-term effects of TDS, and recommendations for more research or public health actions.
The legislation, if passed into law, would use existing NIH resources and not require additional spending, according to Davidson&#8217;s office.

President Donald Trump

GOP Bill Tasks NIH With Finding ‘Patient Zero’ Of ‘Trump Derangement Syndrome’

Politics

Trump Derangement Syndrome

U.S. House of Representatives

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya was confirmed Tuesday night by the Senate in a party-line vote to lead the National Institutes of Health.
The Senate voted 53-47 to confirm Bhattacharya with all Republicans supporting his nomination and every Democrat voting against confirming the Stanford School of Medicine medical professor. Bhattacharya has promised to bring more accountability to the NIH, which oversees tens of billions of dollars in federal grant dollars. 
“The mission of the NIH is to address the health needs the American people have and to expand life expectancy of the American people. And we have not achieved that. It’s flatlined,” Bhattacharya <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/jay-bhattacharya-promises-to-bring-accountability-to-nih-after-covid-failure" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> during his confirmation hearing earlier this month before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee.
Bhattacharya widely rose to prominence during the COVID pandemic, when he was a sharp critic of the government-imposed lockdowns and was one of the first to express concerns about the safety and efficacy of vaccine mandates. During COVID, he was an advisor to Florida, aiding Governor Ron DeSantis in the reopening of the Sunshine State. 
“Science should be an engine for freedom. Knowledge and freedom … it shouldn’t be pushing mandates for vaccines like the COVID vaccines,” Bhattacharya said during his confirmation hearing. “The role of the scientist should not be to say that you can’t send your kid to school for two years.”
In his nomination announcement, President Donald Trump <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-nominates-dr-jay-bhattacharya-to-lead-nih" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> that Bhattacharya would work alongside Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to “Make America Healthy Again” and “restore the NIH to a Gold Standard of Medical Research as they examine the underlying causes of, and solutions to, America’s biggest Health challenges, including our Crisis of Chronic Illness and Disease.”
Bhattacharya also promised during his confirmation hearing that he would support experiments that take different approaches to an issue, saying that much of the established scientific community has failed to provide satisfactory answers. 
On Tuesday, the Senate <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/trump-names-marty-makary-to-lead-food-and-drug-administration" target="_blank" rel="noopener">also voted</a> 56-44 to confirm Dr. Marty Makary to head up the Food and Drug Administration. Democrat Senators Dick Durbin (IL), Maggie Hassan (NH), and Jeanne Shaheen (NH) joined Republicans in voting for Makary. 
When he nominated Makary, Trump said that he would work with RFK Jr. to “properly evaluate harmful chemicals poisoning our Nation’s food supply and drugs and biologics being given to our Nation’s youth, so that we can finally address the Childhood Chronic Disease Epidemic.”

NIH Director Nominee Jayanta Bhattacharya

Senate Confirms COVID Lockdown Opponent Dr. Jay Bhattacharya To Lead NIH

COVID-19

Lockdowns

Senate

Stanford University

Trump Administration

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya promised on Wednesday to bring sunlight to the National Institutes of Health if confirmed as the agency’s director. 
Speaking before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, Bhattacharya rebuked the NIH for its behavior during the COVID-19 pandemic, which he said did great damage to trust in scientists and academic institutions. Bhattacharya, an outspoken critic of the COVID lockdowns, was one of the first to express concerns about the safety and efficacy of vaccine mandates. 
A professor at the Stanford School of Medicine, Bhattacharya promised to bring greater transparency to the American people about the NIH&#8217;s research, which he said had failed in its fundamental mission.
&#8220;The mission of the NIH is to address the health needs the American people have and to expand life expectancy of the American people. And we have not achieved that. It&#8217;s flatlined,&#8221; he said.
This failure, paired with a massive loss in &#8220;trust in the public health establishment&#8221; during COVID, made clear the need for the NIH to reestablish trust with the American people, Bhattacharya said. 
Bhattacharya rose to prominence for his opposition to COVID lockdowns and later his concerns that COVID vaccines posed some health risks, specifically for young men. 
&#8220;Science should be an engine for freedom. Knowledge and freedom &#8230; it shouldn&#8217;t be pushing mandates for vaccines like the COVID vaccines,&#8221; he said. &#8220;The role of the scientist should not be to say that you can&#8217;t send your kid to school for two years.&#8221;
Reflecting on his experience during the COVID pandemic, Bhattacharya said that he was &#8220;tremendously proud&#8221; to advise Florida&#8217;s response to the pandemic, which sent kids back to schools way earlier than California with little to no negative impact.
Bhattacharya condemned the censorship that was pushed by the Biden administration against critics of the vaccine mandates at the time. He said during the pandemic there was a problem of &#8220;censorship and restriction&#8221; of science&#8221; and that the &#8220;root problem was that people who had alternative ideas were suppressed.&#8221;
Bhattacharya said that he himself was the victim of pressure campaigns by the Biden administration and that the Freedom of Information Act requests he filed during the pandemic were returned fully redacted.
&#8220;You can&#8217;t have trust unless you are transparent,&#8221; Bhattacharya said, saying that that Americans should be able to &#8220;see all of the activities of the NIH openly.&#8221;
Other topics discussed during the hearing included proposed cuts to NIH funding of universities and research institutions, as well as vaccines and autism. Moderate Senator Susan Collins (R-ME) pushed Bhattacharya to disavow Trump&#8217;s cap on funding for indirect funding, which he said he would evaluate if confirmed.
Bhattacharya would help allocate tens of billions of dollars in funding if confirmed by the Senate.

NIH Director Nominee Jayanta Bhattacharya Testifies In Senate Hearing

Jay Bhattacharya Promises To Bring Accountability To NIH After COVID Failure

bill Cassidy

COVID-19 Vaccine

Pandemic

spending

House Freedom Caucus COVID Roundtable

Jay Bhattacharya, Trump’s Pick To Lead The NIH, Faces The Senate: Live Updates

Hearings

Just a couple of years ago, if you can believe it, leading scientists from all over the country held a symposium in Washington along with federal officials from the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. According to a senior director at the NIH, the point of the symposium was to address a &#8220;defining issue&#8221; of the current era. So the A-team was going to tackle one of the most difficult and pressing matters in the entire field of scientific and medical research.
Hearing that, you might conclude that these scientists were going to discuss, say, a cure for cancer, or a major breakthrough in gene-editing. Or if nothing else, they might talk about the development of the 50th COVID booster or something like that. Surely, at a minimum, they would discuss a topic that had some kind of relevance to the fields of &#8220;health&#8221; or &#8220;science&#8221; or &#8220;technology.&#8221; Those would all seem to be safe assumptions.
And yet — at the risk of spoiling the symposium for you, in case you were hoping to catch a re-run — that didn&#8217;t happen. In fact, that didn&#8217;t even come close to happening. Instead, here&#8217;s what they came up with, at this symposium full of leading medical and scientific experts in Washington. The first speaker in this clip is a professor at Notre Dame, and the second one is from the National Institutes of Health. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="001 LGBTQ+ in STEM" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/RgQkhlXLRQk?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
For a second, try to ignore the fact that these people are making up fake complaints about the plight of LGBTQ people in STEM. Pretend they&#8217;re not talking like dime-a-dozen panelists on MSNBC, instead of actual scientists. That&#8217;s actually not the worst part of this footage. The worst part is that, already, you can tell that everyone at this symposium is saying the same thing. There&#8217;s no debate whatsoever. This whole event was an extended struggle session in which only one point of view was allowed. And that point of view is that, for some reason, gay people are being forced out of math classes.
It should go without saying that this is a complete bastardization of everything scientists should be doing. They&#8217;re supposed to be asking questions, using the scientific method and finding evidence to support every single one of their conclusions. This is supposed to come naturally to them. It&#8217;s their job. Instead, they spent the entire event explaining why it&#8217;s important to think the exact same way about this particular issue, even though every sane person knows that their theory makes absolutely no sense. 
For example, as the symposium goes on, one researcher with a nonprofit attempts to articulate why it&#8217;s so important to hold struggle sessions like this. And then a senior official at the National Science Foundation offers his take. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="002 No Divisions In Science" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/IvZsIFEu5vM?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Every speaker is somehow more unbelievable than the last one. The first guy&#8217;s trying desperately to explain why they&#8217;re holding this symposium at all. And the best he can come up with is, &#8220;When we don&#8217;t ask these questions, we live under the myths that these matters don&#8217;t matter.&#8221; This is the kind of word salad that you have to produce when you know that, in fact, these matters do not matter, and that all of these concerns are completely made-up.
And then the official from the National Science Foundation comes in, and pretty much makes that point as explicitly as he can. He says that, &#8220;We shouldn&#8217;t have to wait on the data,&#8221; because &#8220;we know we&#8217;ve got an issue.&#8221; So like Nike, we should &#8220;just do it.&#8221; In other words, who cares about facts and data when you have a narrative to push? All he knows is that we need DEI and affirmative action in science and medicine. He doesn&#8217;t care if there&#8217;s no reason whatsoever to justify any of this. He just knows it needs to happen.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/mws-ep-1534-member-exclusive" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show</a></h3>
For a very long time, the National Science Foundation — along with the NIH and many other federal agencies — has operated like this. They rake in billions of dollars&#8217; worth of tax revenue with the promise of funding scientific advancements that benefit America. And then they&#8217;ve squandered it to advance a political agenda. To be clear, I&#8217;m not cherry-picking soundbites here, or taking anything out of context. This is something we can quantify. The Senate Commerce Committee just released a report documenting precisely how much money the National Science Foundation, or NSF, has wasted in recent years. Again, this is an agency of the federal government we&#8217;re talking about here.
As The Daily Wire <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/27-of-national-science-foundation-grants-went-to-dei-projects-study-finds?topStoryPosition=undefined" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reports</a>: 
<blockquote>The Senate committee found that one in 10 grants awarded [by the National Science Foundation] between January 2021 and April 2024 had to do with oppression, social or environmental justice, gender, or race.</blockquote>
In other words, one in 10 grants have been completely fraudulent. There&#8217;s no reason we should&#8217;ve been funding any of it. But the Biden administration made sure that we did. They kickstarted a lot of this fraudulent spending. The Senate report found that in 2021 — the first year of the Biden administration — less than 1% of grants from the NSF were focused on DEI initiatives. But by 2024, after three years of the Biden administration, more than a quarter of new grants to the NSF pushed &#8220;far-left perspectives.&#8221;
The Daily Wire has a searchable <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/27-of-national-science-foundation-grants-went-to-dei-projects-study-finds?topStoryPosition=undefined" target="_blank" rel="noopener">database</a> of these grants right now on the website. You can page through around 3,000 grants from the National Science Foundation that involve DEI. For example, in 2022, NSF gave Columbia University more than $4 million so that they could study ways to &#8220;decolonize geoscience.&#8221; Meanwhile, a professor at Northwestern received a million dollars in 2023 so that he could put together &#8220;Storywork for Racial Equity in STEM,&#8221; featuring insights from Karl Marx. Over at the University of Pittsburgh, a professor received a million dollars to argue that artificial intelligence should not be neutral because that, “only serves the capitalist, racist, heteronormative, patriarchal, etc society.” Another study funded by the NSF, to the tune of $500,000, determined that the concept of &#8220;peer review&#8221; was racist: “The accepted values and practices in science can serve as roadblocks and barriers to the inclusion and advancement of minoritized scholars.&#8221;
Again, there are thousands of grants like this. We&#8217;re not talking about one or two examples. This was systemic fraud. And the only way to deal with systemic fraud like this is to clean house at the National Science Foundation, which is exactly what the Trump administration is now doing. 
Just because it feels appropriate, I&#8217;ll share some reporting on this development from POLITICO, which is yet another organization that&#8217;s just had its federal funding <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/04/science-funding-agency-layoffs-threat-00202426" target="_blank" rel="noopener">cut dramatically</a>: 
<blockquote>One of the United States’ leading funders of science and engineering research is planning to lay off between a quarter and a half of its staff in the next two months, a top National Science Foundation official said Tuesday. The comments by Assistant Director Susan Margulies came at an all-hands meeting of the NSF’s Engineering Directorate. &#8230; &#8216;A large-scale reduction, in response to the President’s workforce executive orders, is already happening,&#8217; a spokesperson for the Office of Personnel Management said.&#8217;</blockquote>
As significant as this development is, it&#8217;s important to keep in mind that NSF is just one small part of the much larger fraud that&#8217;s been taking place in the government, when it comes to research funding. The National Institutes of Health is a far bigger offender, in terms of financial waste. DOGE just found that the NIH had a contract worth more than $180 million for administrative expenses that didn&#8217;t involve healthcare in any way. That included a contract to build a Tony Fauci exhibit at the NIH museum, for example.
The Trump administration has also found that the NIH spends vast amounts of its research budget on so-called &#8220;indirect costs.&#8221; Last year, roughly $9 billion of the $35 billion that NIH spent on research ultimately went to these &#8220;indirect costs&#8221;, which is a fancy way of saying &#8220;administrative overhead&#8221; for universities and research institutions. For some institutions, these indirect costs amounted to more than 60% of their total grant funding. In other words, in a million-dollar grant to conduct cancer research, more than $600,000 might be going to non-research expenses, like office supplies and things like that. Of course, in almost every case, there&#8217;s no reason for this. There&#8217;s no reason for Harvard or Yale to rake in huge amounts of money for non-scientific purposes, when the grant is supposedly a scientific grant. It&#8217;s a pure grift in every sense. So now the Trump administration is ending this practice. They&#8217;re capping these administrative payouts to around 15% of the total grant.
What you may not know is that this isn&#8217;t the first time Donald Trump has tried to do this. As the New York Times <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/10/us/politics/nih-trump-lawsuit-medical-research.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reports</a>: 
<blockquote>In 2017, during Mr. Trump’s first term, a similar proposal would have reduced the overhead payments to 10 percent of the award amount. &#8230; The effort faltered. Congress then acted to &#8216;ward off&#8217; a future effort and passed a budget bill that prohibited changing the fees from the levels that had been negotiated between federal officials and each research institution.</blockquote>
In other words, Trump tried to cut waste at the NIH during his first administration but Congress shut him down. They actually passed an appropriations bill that prevented him from cutting the administrative funding. And now, citing that appropriations law, a new lawsuit is trying to stop Trump from cutting the NIH funding again.
And so far, the plan is working. The other day, a federal judge <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna191529" target="_blank" rel="noopener">halted</a> the NIH cuts with a preliminary injunction. This has been happening constantly, as you may have noticed. Individual federal judges have also blocked the Treasury secretary&#8217;s access to internal files, prevented DOGE&#8217;s buyout offer for federal workers from going through, and attempted to block the closure of USAID. It&#8217;s clear that this will be a theme of the second Trump presidency, as it was in the first one. Judges are going to do everything they can to overturn what voters want, which is for the executive branch to determine how the executive branch operates.
But already there are signs — most notably from J.D. Vance — that the administration recognizes that these judges are breaking the law, and that their rulings may not be respected. In particular, <a href="https://x.com/JDVance/status/1888607143030391287" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Vance wrote</a>: 
<blockquote>If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal. If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that&#8217;s also illegal. Judges aren&#8217;t allowed to control the executive&#8217;s legitimate power.</blockquote>
This is an approach that obviously shouldn&#8217;t be necessary. If we had judges who respected the separation of powers, there wouldn&#8217;t be an issue. But increasingly, unelected judges are telling the executive branch how to spend money and who to employ. That&#8217;s not just unconstitutional, it&#8217;s also unsustainable. There is zero popular political support for continuing these expenditures to corrupt agencies like NSF and the NIH.
That&#8217;s because — between these revelations at the NSF, everything that happened with COVID, and the embrace of gender theory — mainstream science has completely discredited itself. Now when the public celebrates as scientists lose their funding and their jobs, they’ll blame us for being anti-science. But our problem with them is precisely the opposite.  The people we have been paying huge sums of money to — we&#8217;re talking about billions of dollars — have been spending it on political propaganda and social engineering. They&#8217;ve been doing it for decades, on the assumption that no one would ever notice or do anything about it. But now, very abruptly, that has changed. Everyone can see that many of the so-called scientists in the federal government were the ones who were actually &#8220;anti-science.&#8221; And now that they&#8217;re losing their jobs and their infinite supply of taxpayer money, the work of serious people — of actual scientists — can finally begin.

Menu

NIH