At NIH, a power struggle over institute directorships deepens

With each new presidential administration comes the task of appointing around 4,000 individuals across the expansive federal government. These political appointments are crucial for realizing the president's policies and ensuring governmental responsiveness to elected officials. While some positions, such as the secretary of state, are widely recognized, others, like the deputy assistant secretary for textiles and consumer goods, remain largely under the radar. Historically, scientific agencies, including NASA and the National Institutes of Health (NIH), have maintained a smaller number of political appointees compared to other government sectors. This has allowed for the filling of high-level roles—those wielding authority over substantial funding and research direction—often without direct involvement from the White House or Congress. This structure stems from a long-standing belief that scientists should lead research funding and operations with minimal political interference. Since the early 2000s, NIH, recognized as the leading biomedical research institution in the U.S., has typically had only a handful of political appointees among its approximately 17,500 employees as of November 2025, following significant workforce reductions. Decisions regarding the leadership of NIH's 27 institutes and centers have historically been influenced by staff scientists and external experts, distancing these choices from direct political oversight. However, under the current Trump administration, there are growing concerns about the future of this system. The introduction of political appointees into traditionally civil servant roles and changes in hiring practices have prompted fears of increased politicization within NIH. For decades, the agency has benefitted from bipartisan support, but recent scrutiny from conservative lawmakers over its spending practices has raised alarms. A 2014 survey indicated that federal executives perceive NIH as a progressive institution, reflecting a broader trend of American scientists becoming more liberal compared to the general populace since the early 2000s.