Jay Bhattacharya’s first day as the new leader of the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) marked a major shakeup for the organization. Four leading figures of the NIH’s 27 institutes and centers, including the nation’s foremost expert on infectious diseases, were dismissed from their roles. This dramatic change occurred alongside significant reductions in NIH research funding.

The heads of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD), and the National Institute of Nursing Research (NINR) were all placed on administrative leave late on March 31. Collectively, these leaders managed a budget of $9 billion at the NIH.

Some of the ousted directors were given the option to transfer to the Indian Health Service, a branch of the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) which delivers healthcare to Native Americans across the country. “HHS proposes to reassign you as part of a broader effort to strengthen the Department and more effectively promote the health of the American people,” stated an email obtained by Nature. The email continued to highlight the need for high-quality service for this underserved group and offered reassignments in regions including Alaska, Montana, and Oklahoma.

Supporting Science Journalism

If you find value in this article, please consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. Your subscription helps ensure the continuation of significant stories about the research and ideas that shape our world.

Such widespread reassignments at the NIH, the largest public financier of biomedical research globally, are unprecedented. While the NIH director and the head of the National Cancer Institute are politically appointed by the US president, the other 26 directors typically retain their positions through changes in administration. For instance, NIMHD’s director Eliseo Pérez-Stable had served nearly a decade under three different US presidents. However, Donald Trump’s approach in his second term deviates from traditional presidential practices.

“This will be remembered as one of the bleakest days in the recent history of science,” remarked Michael Osterholm, an epidemiologist specializing in infectious diseases from the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis. He warned that these dismissals represent significant losses for the research community.

When approached for comments, the NIH referred inquiries to the HHS. The NIH’s chief communications officer, Renate Myles, who was also placed on administrative leave, was unavailable for comment. A staff member, who chose to remain anonymous, confirmed this but was not authorized to speak to the media. The HHS had not responded to inquiries from Nature at the time of publication.

Centralizing Authority

This removal of directors followed an announcement from HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr that his department, which includes the NIH, would be cutting its staff by about 20,000 employees, or roughly one-quarter of its total workforce. The cuts have primarily affected administrative personnel, but have also impacted scientists involved in critical research such as HIV prevention.

These layoffs signify a change in the long-standing semi-autonomous nature of the NIH’s institutes and centers. Staff members in legislative, communications, IT, and other administrative roles within each institute were issued termination notices starting April 1. This restructuring aims to consolidate control under the NIH director. “After these reductions in force, it will take months to restore administrative functions,” an NIH official stated anonymously.

In an initial email to staff on April 1, Bhattacharya emphasized, “These workforce reductions will significantly impact essential NIH administrative operations and will necessitate a completely new approach to how we manage them.”

Furthermore, Bhattacharya expressed his desire for the NIH to prioritize reproducibility and rigor, transparency, and academic freedom, despite the agency recently abolishing its scientific integrity policy that aimed to shield government science from political interference on March 28.

Over the past month, the NIH has also terminated over 700 research grants. These grants covered a wide range of studies, including transgender populations, gender identity, diversity, equity, and inclusion in science, COVID-19, vaccine skepticism, and environmental justice.

A significant portion of these canceled grants were originally allocated by the NIAID, NICHD, NIMHD, and NINR. These institutes often fund research that conflicts with Trump’s political views, which likely influenced the decision to target these directors.

The NIAID, previously managed by infectious-disease specialist Jeanne Marrazzo and before her, Anthony Fauci, has been particularly criticized by Trump and other Republican leaders for supposed mismanagement of grants for high-risk pathogen research and SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus studies. A bill proposed in February by conservative lawmakers suggests breaking up the NIAID into three separate entities.

Monica Bertagnolli, the former NIH director under Trump’s predecessor Joe Biden, condemned the treatment of these directors as “utterly inexcusable,” noting the loss of research productivity and life-saving programs as a result of their dismissal.

This article is reproduced with permission and was first published on April 1, 2025.