My colleague @alexwitze.bsky.social joined @scifri.bsky.social today to break down our reporting on how the White House is withholding funds from science agencies.
One researcher dials in to say her institution is waiting on $20 million in research funding.
Give it a listen ⤵️
"But it was only with the court-ordered release of apportionment documents that it became clear how the Administration abused the apportionment process to impound these funds — and the impact that congressional pressure and media stories had on the Administration’s actions."
For extra reading about this issue, I recommend checking out the @centeronbudget.bsky.social report, "Trump Administration Abused Spending Safeguards to Advance Its Agenda — and Illegally Hid Its Actions"
You know it's bad when the whole case study about weaponizing apportionment is about NIH
Update: On the last day possible, NIH/HHS have extended the terms of all 6 members of the minority-health institute council.
Their terms will now expire on 8/27/26 and can't be extended any further.
Without new voting members, the institute won't be able to fund applications at the 2/12/27 council
The story in question:
It's a pretty funny criticism because
1) the data are sourced from a public database, NIH RePORTER
2) "Deranged activist" Jeremy Berg was an NIH institute director for 7 years
and most importantly
3) Thacker admits the story is totally accurate
Congress rejected massive cuts to US science budgets for 2026, but much of the money still isn’t flowing to researchers.
The culprit? The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is quietly slow-walking the release of funds. 🧵👇
Indeed. New grants are not getting funded, already funded grants are not getting paid, and non-competitive renewals are being held up.
Focusing on the top line budget, instead of looking at what is really happening on “the ground” is deeply misguided.
Thanks to the Nature team for digging into this. Apportionment is one of those inside-baseball issues that I hoped never to need to learn about... But here was are.
What do Congress's top appropriators say?
“This is a drastic departure from historical practice,” @delauro.house.gov told @nature.com.
DeLauro and @murray.senate.gov demanded that OMB release funds, as is required by law.
(The top Republicans, Rep Tom Cole & Sen Susan Collins didn't respond.)
To write this story, @alexwitze.bsky.social, @dangaristo.bsky.social and I spent a week learning the nitty-gritty details of apportionment.
We studied up on the OMB Circular A-11, aka the 'Budget Bible', and how it changed last year to consolidate power under the White House to control spending.
Meanwhile, NASA got its funding, but with a catch.
The OMB quietly slapped unprecedented restrictions on 10 specific science programs — including an Earth-threatening asteroid and a Venus mission — demanding more details before the agency can spend a dime.
The impact is already hitting science agencies hard. The NIH—the world's largest public biomedical research funder—has had to rely on leftover stopgap funds.
New grant awards have slowed to a trickle — exacerbating the effects of a record-long shutdown in October.
(h/t @jeremymberg.bsky.social)
Back to science agencies.
Normally, agencies get a 30-day chunk of their funding right after a budget is signed.
Not anymore. The OMB tweaked the rules, restricting early payments to just essential expenses like salaries to assert more control over the cash.
It's all a part of OMB Director Russ Vought playbook.
He has called this apportionment process an “indispensable statutory tool” to force agencies to adhere to White House priorities — even arguing that the OMB can legally provide less funding than Congress explicitly appropriated.
Why is the White House involved?
Congress might write the checks, but OMB actually has to allow agencies to spend money. This legal step is called "apportionment."
It’s supposed to pace funding so agencies don't overspend, but this past year, it’s been acting as a major chokepoint.
Congress rejected massive cuts to US science budgets for 2026, but much of the money still isn’t flowing to researchers.
The culprit? The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is quietly slow-walking the release of funds. 🧵👇
Several scientists who are linked to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein in files released last month are now facing consequences.
go.nature.com/4qXFkYS
I'm a monthly donor to @51st.news because I care about local news written by and for local DC residents. 🙏
Watching the Olympic curling finals this weekend? Physicists still aren't 100% sure why the big granite stones 'curl' the way they do.
go.nature.com/4rTOAOw
Why do curling stones slide across ice the way they do?
After a century of study, physicists have theories — but they’re still not 100% sure.
Stellar lede from @jennaahart.bsky.social
Read the full story in @nature.com:
www.nature.com/articles/d41...
😑
Although my article never asserts a banned word list, a Senate committee chaired by Bernie Sanders certainly does make that assertion in its report, "Putting Cures Out of Reach: Trump's National Institutes of Health" (see appendix)
www.sanders.senate.gov/wp-content/u...
NIH director Bhattacharya responds to my article on X, calling it misleading. He denies that there is a "banned words list"
The only problem: My article never asserts there's a banned words list at NIH. I report that NIAID staff have been directed to modify "biodefense" and "pandemic preparedness".
BREAKING: NIH director Jay Bhattacharya will take on the additional role of acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, two administration officials told @sherylnyt.bsky.social on Wednesday.
Bhattacharya will also continue to run the NIH, she reports for @nytimes.com.
Bhattacharya will replace Jim O’Neill, who had been serving as deputy health secretary until he left the health department last Friday.
O’Neill will be nominated by Mr. Trump to lead the National Science Foundation, the sources told @sherylnyt.bsky.social
BREAKING: NIH director Jay Bhattacharya will take on the additional role of acting director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, two administration officials told @sherylnyt.bsky.social on Wednesday.
Bhattacharya will also continue to run the NIH, she reports for @nytimes.com.
Instead of pandemic preparedness, NIAID senior adviser John Powers wants the institute to focus on "people preparedness," he said.
"One way for people to be prepared [for pandemics] is to be healthier, eat better and exercise, so you’re less likely to get sick or have a poor outcome.”
Project 2025 says (re: weather & climate) that "emphasis on prediction & management seems designed around the fatal conceit of planning for the unplannable." But it's clear that broader federal bureaucracy is being forcibly dismantled to prevent anticipation or mitigation of foreseeable future harm.
See, if we don't talk about things, and if we stop funding the talking about them, then the things just go away.
