The White House has begun drafting a new executive order that could further cement President Trump\u2019s ability to control billions of dollars in scientific grants and expand the administration\u2019s pressure campaign against elite universities.<\/p>\n
Discussed at a highly contentious meeting at the White House on Friday, the order aims to create a new external committee with the power to veto awards in the National Institutes of Health\u2019s vast research portfolio that do not conform to Mr. Trump\u2019s political agenda, according to people with knowledge of the effort.<\/p>\n
During the meeting, Mr. Trump repeatedly complained about his administration\u2019s failure to bring Harvard University in particular to heel. The administration has been unable to hammer out a deal with the nation\u2019s oldest and wealthiest university, a central plank of his broader push against \u201cwoke\u201d ideology in higher education.<\/p>\n
The White House has also lost a pair of lawsuits to Harvard, including one ruling that blocked cuts to the university\u2019s existing federal research grants. The government has said it plans to appeal.<\/p>\n
Inside the White House, some of Mr. Trump\u2019s top lieutenants have expressed frustration about a perceived slowdown in the administration\u2019s attempt to force conservative cultural changes on academia.<\/p>\n
The meeting, in the Oval Office, was called in part to discuss why the N.I.H. hadn\u2019t done enough to push the administration\u2019s agenda on academia in general and Ivy League schools in particular, said two administration officials familiar with the planning.<\/p>\n
The meeting was first reported by The Washington Post. Officials at the Office of Management and Budget, which is drafting the executive order, declined to comment. A spokesman for the N.I.H., Joshua Pradko, declined to discuss details of the meeting.<\/p>\n
\u201cN.I.H. remains committed to its mission of funding biomedical research to benefit the health of the American people,\u201d Mr. Pradko said in a text message.<\/p>\n
Referring to reports that Russell T. Vought, director of the O.M.B., wants to rescind N.I.H. funding, Mr. Pradko added, \u201cThere will be no rescissions to N.I.H. grant monies. All N.I.H. grant monies will be spent.\u201d<\/p>\n
If the order moves forward, it would mark the latest attempt by the Trump administration to usurp the scientific autonomy of the N.I.H., a $48 billion agency that distributes a majority of its budget to labs across the country for research into areas such as heart disease, cancer and infectious diseases.<\/p>\n
Traditionally, the N.I.H. selects projects based on expert review of their scientific merit. But Mr. Trump has sought through a series of recent directives in his second term to bring that process under political review, arguing in part that the government has been funding \u201cwoke\u201d liberal priorities.<\/p>\n
Friday\u2019s meeting brought to a head months of conflict between two of the attendees: Mr. Vought of the O.M.B., who wants to impose greater political control over N.I.H. grant approvals, and Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, the N.I.H. director, who is resisting those efforts, according to two people close to Dr. Bhattacharya.<\/p>\n
Their relationship has grown so contentious that Mr. Vought had refused to meet with Dr. Bhattacharya, the people said. During the session on Friday, Mr. Vought accused the N.I.H. director of funding projects that were in conflict with administration priorities.<\/p>\n
One of Mr. Trump\u2019s executive orders, issued on his first day back in office, ended all administration programs involving \u201cdiversity, equity and inclusion.\u201d It has had far-reaching effects on N.I.H. studies, including those investigating \u201chealth disparities\u201d \u2014 why populations defined by factors like race or socioeconomic status, may be prone to certain diseases or to suffer worse outcomes.<\/p>\n
As a Stanford University economist, Dr. Bhattacharya conducted research on health disparities and has been trying to find a way to preserve N.I.H. funding for such work. In 2011, for instance, he and colleagues reported<\/a> on \u201cpersistent racial disparities in survival after heart transplantation.\u201d<\/p>\n The study, funded by the N.I.H., found that Black heart-transplant patients were at higher risk of death than similar white patients were.<\/p>\n But as N.I.H. director, Dr. Bhattacharya has also supported eliminating funding for work he regards as low-quality or ideologically driven. In a brief conversation with reporters early in his tenure, Dr. Bhattacharya said the cancellations were targeting \u201cpoliticized expressions of devotion to a particular ideology\u201d as opposed to \u201cgood science.\u201d<\/p>\n The Harvard confrontation has placed Dr. Bhattacharya in an awkward position. Dr. Alan M. Garber, president of Harvard University, is his mentor and longtime friend. Both are physicians and health economists; they have authored academic papers together and remain close, according to The Harvard Crimson<\/a>.<\/p>\n On Friday, Mr. Vought also sought access to funds for the current fiscal year that have not yet been spent. He did not succeed. The fundamental disagreement, however, appears to reflect a philosophical difference: Mr. Vought wants to cut federal spending for research; Dr. Bhattacharya does not.<\/p>\n Nor does Congress, which overruled Mr. Trump\u2019s proposal to cut biomedical research spending last year.<\/p>\n Moreover, Dr. Bhattacharya opposes Mr. Vought\u2019s push to give political appointees the final say over all federal spending, not just health and scientific research.<\/p>\n