In the first quarter of President Trump’s second term, NIH grant holders began facing demands to remove politically charged language from proposals. Now, the Department of Health and Human Services adds a second review layer, often requesting substantive design changes that can cripple long‑term studies. This move signals a shift from peer review to political oversight.

NIH staffers say the new scrutiny arrives after a computational tool flags words such as “gender,” “equity,” and “diversity.” Flagged grants are sent to HHS counselors, who may demand extra analyses or new variables. In a fourth‑year depression study, HHS insisted on adding genetic factors—a change infeasible at that stage.

The extra layer also delays grant decisions amid staff shortages and a backlog from last year’s shutdown. NIH’s own spokesperson calls HHS requests routine, yet insiders label them unprecedented. The practice raises concerns that scientific agendas could be reshaped by political priorities rather than peer assessment, a trend toward politicization of federally funded research.

With no clear tally of affected grants, the practice remains opaque, but its existence signals a broader trend toward politicization of federally funded research. Scientists confront a system where computational screening and political appointees can force costly protocol changes, undermining research integrity.