hold on there's just too much going on in Congress lmao...
Limits political appointees in NIH, protects science funding from political interference.
Rep. Diana DeGette and many other representatives.
Introduced in the House, referred to committee.
The 'Follow the Science Act' seeks to significantly reduce political influence over the National Institutes of Health (NIH). It does this by restricting political employees from working at the NIH, participating in its programs, or influencing its funding decisions like grants and contracts. The bill also prevents arbitrary cancellation of NIH funding agreements. Sponsored by Rep. Diana DeGette and over 30 other representatives, the bill has been introduced in the House and sent to the Committee on Energy and Commerce for review.
Introduced Jan 21, 2026
This bill was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives on January 21, 2026. It has been referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce for consideration. For the bill to advance, the committee must review it and potentially vote to send it to the full House for a vote. If it passes the House, it would then move to the Senate.
If passed, this bill would mean fewer political appointees could hold positions at the NIH or directly influence its operations. Importantly, political employees would be barred from deciding which scientific research projects receive grants, contracts, or other funding. This could help ensure that public health research is funded based on scientific merit rather than political considerations. Furthermore, once an NIH funding agreement is in place, it could only be canceled if there's clear evidence of financial mismanagement, research fraud, or other serious issues, not for political reasons.
Supporters Say
Proponents argue this bill protects scientific research and funding from political interference, ensuring integrity in public health decisions.
Critics Say
Critics might suggest that some level of political oversight is necessary for public accountability and setting national priorities within government agencies.
Supporters of the 'Follow the Science Act' would likely highlight its role in safeguarding the integrity of scientific research at the National Institutes of Health. They would argue that by limiting the involvement of political appointees in NIH activities and funding decisions, the bill ensures that research is driven by scientific merit rather than political agendas. Conversely, potential critics might raise concerns about limiting the executive branch's ability to direct and oversee federal agencies, arguing that a degree of political input is essential for aligning agency activities with broader public policy goals and accountability.