Trump Governance Violated Federal law by Withholding NIH Funding, GAO Finds
Updated August 5, 2025
A recent report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) delivers a damning indictment of the Trump administration’s handling of National Institutes of health (NIH) funding. The GAO concluded that the administration illegally withheld congressionally approved funds by abruptly canceling NIH grants in response to executive orders targeting equity-related activities. This action represents a clear violation of the 1974 Impoundment Control Act, a law designed to prevent presidential overreach in controlling federal spending.
The findings center around the administration’s termination of over 1,800 NIH grants adn a significant $8 billion shortfall in new and continuing awards between February and July. The GAO’s examination confirms what many in the scientific community suspected: the administration deliberately sought to impede the flow of funding to research institutions, leveraging the NIH’s $48 billion biomedical research budget as a tool for political pressure.
A pattern of Illegal Impoundment
The Impoundment Control Act explicitly prohibits presidents from unilaterally blocking funds that Congress has already allocated. The GAO report meticulously details how the Trump administration circumvented this law through a series of actions, including outright grant cancellations and purposeful delays in the grant review process.
“It’s been obvious to everybody that NIH has been and was impounding funds,” explains Samuel Bagenstos, a professor at the University of Michigan Law School and former General Counsel for the Department of Health and Human Services. “They canceled all of these grants, over 1,000 of them, they engaged in these various techniques to prevent new grants from being approved and going forward, and they’re clearly not spending the money that’s been appropriated to them.”
The administration’s actions weren’t limited to cancellations. A temporary pause on all communications from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) – implemented shortly after the administration took office – effectively paralyzed the NIH’s grantmaking operations for over two months. This was achieved by preventing the publication of notices for grant review meetings in the Federal Register, a crucial step in the funding process.
While HHS officials claimed they were working to catch up on delayed reviews, the GAO found this justification insufficient.Publicly available data demonstrates a significant decrease in the number of new awards issued by the NIH in fiscal year 2025 compared to previous years. The GAO’s conclusion is stark: ”HHS has offered no evidence that it did not withhold amounts from obligation or expenditure,and it has not shown that the delay was a permissible programmatic one.”
Legal Challenges and Ongoing Scrutiny
This GAO report adds further weight to existing legal challenges against the administration’s actions. A federal court has already ruled that some of the NIH’s grant terminations were illegal and discriminatory. The administration has appealed this decision to the Supreme Court, setting the stage for a potentially landmark case.
the GAO’s findings,while non-binding,are expected to empower Congress to push back against the administration’s attempts to control NIH funding. Furthermore, the report provides crucial ammunition for plaintiffs in the numerous ongoing lawsuits challenging the president’s tactics. The report’s detailed analysis and clear conclusions strengthen the legal arguments against the administration’s actions and underscore the importance of protecting the integrity of the NIH’s funding process.Evergreen Insights: The Importance of Protecting Scientific Funding
The case surrounding the NIH funding cuts highlights a critical issue: the vulnerability of scientific research to political interference. Independent, peer-reviewed research is the cornerstone of progress in medicine, public health, and countless other fields. Protecting the integrity of the funding process is paramount to ensuring that scientific advancements are driven by evidence, not ideology.
Historically,attempts to politicize scientific funding have had detrimental consequences,slowing down critical research and hindering innovation. Robust oversight, obvious processes, and a commitment to upholding the principles of the Impoundment Control Act are essential safeguards against such interference. The long-term health of the nation – and its ability to address future challenges – depends on a stable and independent scientific enterprise.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
1. What is the impoundment control Act and why is it relevant to the NIH funding cuts?
The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 prevents the President from unilaterally withholding funds that Congress has already approved. The GAO report found the Trump administration violated this act by canceling NIH grants and delaying funding disbursement.
2.How many NIH grants were affected by the administration’s actions?
The administration terminated over 1,800 NIH grants, causing significant disruption to research projects across the country.
**3. What was the financial impact of the NIH funding shortfall identified
