US National Institutes of Health faces paralysis, research grants at risk of freeze

WASHINGTON – More than half of the institutes within the National Institutes of Health are on track to lose all their voting members this year, a vacancy crisis that could soon freeze the government’s ability to award new research grants.

Federal law requires these advisory councils to review and approve grant applications before funding is disbursed. Without active voting members, these institutes may be legally barred from issuing new financial awards.

The membership drain is the result of terms expiring without replacements being named. At 12 institutes and one center, the terms of the final remaining voting members are set to expire by the end of 2026. Last year, the Trump administration dismissed dozens of scientists who had been prepared to fill these roles.

The vacancies follow a series of efforts by the Trump administration to block or delay NIH funding. While the administration has faced criticism for the delays, a spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services said the agency does not "anticipate any disruption" and is "actively appointing new council members."

However, an analysis shows that public council rosters have not been updated since last September, contradicting claims of progress in the appointment process.

The current impasse at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is increasingly being viewed not as a case of administrative backlog, but as a deliberate strategy by the Trump administration to paralyze federal scientific research from within. By systematically withholding key board appointments, the administration has effectively engineered a legal freeze on grant allocations—a maneuver that avoids both the need for new legislation and direct friction with congressional appropriators.

This is, in essence, a "procedural shutdown." By leveraging administrative inaction, the executive branch is hollowing out a specific agency without the political fallout of a formal budget battle.

The systemic implications are both immediate and long-term. Even a temporary suspension in funding cycles threatens to derail critical longitudinal research into infectious diseases, gerontology, and mental health. The resulting instability risks a significant "brain drain" as laboratories lose essential staff and early-career scientists are deterred from entering the field. Ultimately, this threatens to erode the United States' decades-long global hegemony in biomedical innovation.

Furthermore, a stark disconnect has emerged between the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the reality on the ground. While HHS officials offer public assurances of continuity, the months-long vacancy in critical leadership and advisory roles suggests a lack of transparency regarding the administration’s true policy objectives.

This trend signals a broader shift under the "Trump 2.0" agenda: the encroachment of political interests into independent scientific institutions. By undermining expert-led, merit-based peer review processes, the administration is setting a dangerous precedent. This shift not only risks devaluing the role of scientific integrity in policymaking but could also compromise public health outcomes for years to come.

Disruptions in NIH funding could create a significant ripple effect within the Vietnamese-American community. A substantial number of our professionals work in healthcare, pharmaceuticals, and biomedical research at universities and institutes across the country. If these major federal grants are frozen, institutions may be forced to implement budget cuts, layoffs, or scale back critical projects. Such a shift would directly threaten the job security and career stability of Vietnamese-Americans leading the way in science and medicine.