Writedit

We’ll get the bill text after the hearing - just glad they are aware for now … looking forward to reading the text

Big highlight was Senator Baldwin calling out the NIH MYF “policy”

Senator Baldwin raised concern about the NIH MYF “policy” as discussion begins on Senate Labor, HHS, & Ed appropriations bill - bipartisan push back in the bill. They got the message.

Several ICs are, & some started earlier either as planned or to help spend their FY25 appropriation in time (vs achieve 50%), but they haven't updated their financial plan to reflect the rationale. NIAID MYF awards seem to be all (or mainly) in July, suggesting adoption of FY26 CJ "policy" language.

Exactly. IC staff have no desire to enable this (esp. with no written guidance), but NIH leadership does. NCI is leaderless, so not surprised they were first to formally adopt the FY26 CJ language for FY25. NINDS could be next (Aug 7 Council mtg) - or NIAID (based on leadership)

Well, not "any" language, of course, but guidance on how appropriations are to be spent.

Congress can slip any language they want into a CR, so if the Senate especially is alarmed by all this, they could and might.

Yes, they can add language stopping altogether or lengthening the transition period to (ie, <<<50% of RPGs) a requirement for MYF. Senate Appropriations Committee considers Labor-HHS-Ed Thurs morning, so contacting Senators about MYF “policy” harms is important (& House Reps, too)

“In addition, NIH has recently implemented a new policy requiring that at least one-half of the remaining funds for competing research project grants (RPGs) in FY 2025 be used to upfront fund RPG competing awards. …”

A Quiet Policy Shift That Could Devastate American Science Why NIH’s sudden move to multi-year grant funding should alarm every principal investigator and university

More about the “policy” that isn’t a policy. Most ICs haven’t updated their funding policy websites, but NCI describes the “recently implemented” MYF requirement in their July 23rd update to explain the lack of payline (but essentially 4th percentile)

I didn’t see anything obvious in CFR other than multiyear awards cannot exceed 5 y (not a CFR expert though) … but Congress should have questions about an unpublished “policy” with such significant impact

OMB was very intentional in adding this to the CJ (ditto for pretending 15% F&A rate is established). Probably similar to paylines: ICs do not need to set/publish these, so JB/HHS/DOGE can get away with enforcing (as part of award approval?) as if established policy despite never being communicated

Yes - not commonly used in the past, but more so in recent years, either as RF1 or simply a multi-year budget period for traditional activity codes (R01, R21, R03, etc).

Nothing in the Federal Register, NIH Grants Policy Statement, NIH Policy Manual, or the NIH Guide. As far as I can tell, there is no FY25 "multi-year funding policy". Another question for your Rep & Senators when you reach out per Don's great advice.

The NIH has not written down nor disseminated a policy of any type regarding a requirement for multi-year funding of half of all RPGs. This sprang into existence when the FY26 Congressional Justification documents were released (see p 5 plus each IC CJ): officeofbudget.od.nih.gov/pdfs/FY26/br...

"That new policy is the 'multi-year funding' policy." But there is no FY25 "policy"-just FY26 CJ: "The FY 2026 request will continue the FY 2025 NIH policy of allocating half of the budget for competing RPGs for awards that fully fund their outyear commitments as part of the initial grant awards."

Heard from #AHRQ that the entire grants staff has been let go! They are unable to issue funds for grants already funded, let alone fund new grants. This is outrageous and will make Americans poorer and sicker. Why? A brief thread about just some recent AHRQ-funded research: #MedSky #HealthPolicy

The NIH budget is on a fast track to disaster An NIH insider explains what Republicans are likely to do next, and what we can do

donmoynihan.substack.com/p/the-nih-bu...

Exclusive: NIH to dismiss dozens of grant reviewers to align with Trump priorities The move would undo years of work, leaving advisory councils understaffed, and without the full expertise needed for reviews.

The NIH is broken … www.nature.com/articles/d41...

I assume Duke is appealing each cancellation, which could restore inappropriately flagged (by word search) awards. Those canceled due to PI background (vs application content) could get at least a 1-y reprieve based on recent court ruling re: DEI.

An extra 15 days to comment on the administration’s effort to “allow agencies to quickly remove employees from critical positions” (& replace with those aligned with administration priorities) - comments now due by 6/7/25

Just a reminder - last day to submit a comment to keep political appointees from making NIH funding decisions n’at

Comment here: www.federalregister.gov/documents/20...

NCI lowered paylines by 2 points (to 7th/13th percentile) for May Council: “Considering the significant budget reductions proposed for FY 2026 … NCI’s funding strategy for FY2025 is to support current research activities, while reducing future-year budget requirements.”

Mainly the speed, flexibility, & programatic control. Also a way to award big chunks of money quickly, though this opportunity is for FY26 (ie, doesn’t help NHLBI quickly spend its FY25 appropriation). That’s from my outsider perspective - probably other internal pros & cons, too.

Not unprecedented & I would expect more. All of Us Research Program issued funding opps for OTAs outside the Guide, with applications emailed as PDFs. Gives program lots of flexibility. Review is black box, & OTAs are issued as blocks of funding with bureaucratic, milestone-driven oversight.

Interesting. NHLBI is issuing its own funding opportunities outside the NIH Guide to Grants & Contracts.
(full funding opportunity announcement: nhlbi-ai.org/sites/defaul... )

Here is a specific thing you can do to fight Trump's politicization of public services Plus: what I wrote in Science about the revised Schedule F

New from me: Everything feels overwhelming. But here is a tangible thing you can do: write a comment to oppose Trump's plan to convert 50,000 career civil servants into political appointees. Deadline is May 23. Please share!
donmoynihan.substack.com/p/here-is-a-...

ICs have always cut budgets during a CR- up to 25%. You can check your IC’s fiscal policy for the standard budget cuts (set amount or range). Often cuts are restored once the final appropriation is in hand, but not always or completely. Illegal award freezes are unrelated to this longstanding policy

The NCE is only relevant at the end of the final budget period for the award. Your RPPR will be scrutinized prior to issuing noncompeting (Type 5) award, as will your Type 2 application for a competitive renewal award. This policy adds a new layer of review