Trump Seeks Political Oversight of NIH Research Grants
 
During a contentious Oval Office meeting last Friday, President Donald Trump heard criticism from White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Russ Vought, who argued that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) was funding research that conflicted with the Administration’s priorities. NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya defended the agency’s grant-making process. According to POLITICO and Washington Post reporting, Trump directed Vought to draft an Executive Order establishing a board—including Vought and Bhattacharya—that would make unanimous decisions on NIH grants.
 
The reported proposal is tied to the Administration’s efforts to cut federal funding to Harvard University. According to officials, Trump asked Bhattacharya on Friday to cut Harvard’s NIH funding, but Bhattacharya refused. Last year, the Administration sought to block $2.6 billion in federal grants to Harvard, alleging that the university had failed to address antisemitism on campus. Harvard sued, arguing that the funding cuts violated its free-speech rights, and a federal judge ordered the funding restored in September 2025.
 
The reported plan follows Congress’s temporary blocking of an earlier OMB proposal to expand political appointees’ control over federal health grants. The scope and implementation of the new proposal remain unclear.
 
 
NSF Outlines Funding Strategy Aligned with White House Priorities
 
On September 10, 2026, the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) released a 10-page memo from Acting Director Brian Stone outlining how the agency will implement the Trump Administration’s “Science: A New Golden Age” vision.
 
The memo describes a shift toward a “portfolio-based” funding approach that combines investigator-driven research with NSF-directed opportunities aligned with national priorities. Plans include four cross-disciplinary Frontier Initiatives focused on artificial intelligence, quantum science, advanced materials, and biological design; larger, longer-term awards for exceptional researchers; and new approaches to workforce development and merit review, including a proposed “golden ticket” allowing individual reviewers to champion promising proposals that might otherwise be overlooked. NSF also plans to establish an Office of Metascience to evaluate “new approaches to funding, merit review, program management, and the adoption of emerging tools” and determine which should be expanded or discontinued.
 
NSF emphasizes continued support for curiosity-driven research alongside investments aligned with national priorities. However, researchers interviewed by Nature and Science have raised concerns that shifting resources toward administration-directed initiatives could constrain support for investigator-led research and the universities, laboratories, field stations, collections, and graduate programs that sustain the scientific enterprise. They have also questioned whether NSF has sufficient funding and staff to implement its expanded priorities.
 
The memo outlines changes to workforce development, stating that talent-development funding opportunities will be distinct and goal-oriented, although they may be coordinated with research-focused activities.  NSF also emphasizes identifying and supporting exceptional STEM talent “through merit-based criteria anchored in demonstrated technical ability and other measures predictive of scientific success.”
 
 
USFWS Narrows Interpretation of Endangered Species Act Protections
 
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has issued internal guidance narrowing how it interprets the Endangered Species Act’s (ESA) prohibition on the “take” of protected wildlife, potentially limiting enforcement against activities that unintentionally kill or injure endangered species.
 
As reported by The New York Times, a September 14 memo, signed by USFWS Director Brian Nesvik, states that prohibited “take” requires an affirmative act intentionally directed at a particular animal or animals. Under this interpretation, incidental deaths resulting from activities such as logging or commercial fishing may not constitute a prohibited take, even when harm to protected species is foreseeable.
 
The guidance follows a July final rule by USFWS and NOAA Fisheries that rescinded the regulatory definition of “harm” under the ESA, effective September 14. The agencies said the rule restores interpretation of the law to its statutory text and reduces regulatory burdens. Conservation groups and other critics argue that eliminating the definition could weaken protections for listed species by removing an established basis for addressing habitat destruction that kills or injures wildlife.
 
Seven former leaders of USFWS and NOAA Fisheries who served under presidents of both parties sent a letter to Interior Secretary Douglas Burgum and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick last month opposing the change. The former officials, who collectively administered the ESA across five administrations, argue that excluding habitat destruction from the definition of “harm” departs from decades of legal interpretation and science-based practice and could undermine protections for species whose survival depends on intact habitat.
 
The September memo goes beyond the rescission of the “harm” definition by applying an intent requirement to the broader statutory prohibition on “take,” which includes actions such as harassing, harming, wounding, or killing protected wildlife. The Center for Biological Diversity criticized the directive, with its government affairs director, Brett Hartl, stating: “Killing endangered wildlife is illegal, whether that’s your purpose or not.”
 
The memo is an internal agency interpretation, rather than a new regulation published through the Federal Register. Legal experts have questioned whether and how it could be challenged in court, given its status as agency guidance. The Interior Department has rejected the characterization that the directive makes it lawful to kill endangered species, stating that the ESA’s core protections remain in place.
 
 
EPA Proposes Narrower Definition of Federally Protected Waters
 
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have proposed a narrower definition of “waters of the United States” (WOTUS), which determines which waterways and wetlands are subject to federal regulation under the Clean Water Act. The supplemental proposal would generally limit federal jurisdiction to perennial waters that have standing or continuously flowing water throughout the year, with limited exceptions for temporary interruptions caused by events such as drought or low tide.
 
The proposal also would limit federal jurisdiction over wetlands to those with a continuous surface connection to federally protected waters, including wetlands that are effectively indistinguishable from those waters. This approach is narrower than the agencies’ November 2025 proposal, which would have allowed some seasonal waters and wetlands with surface water during a defined “wet season” to qualify for federal jurisdiction.
 
The agencies say the changes would implement the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Sackett v. EPA and provide greater regulatory certainty for landowners, farmers, developers, and other businesses. The supplemental proposal presents additional regulatory alternatives that the agencies will consider alongside the November 2025 proposal when developing a final rule.
 
If adopted, the supplemental approach could leave a large share of U.S. wetlands and streams outside federal Clean Water Act jurisdiction. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) estimates that at least 94% of wetlands in the continental United States could be at risk of losing federal protections and that about 79% of streams, measured by stream miles, could fall outside federal jurisdiction under the perennial-waters approach. These are NRDC estimates based on Geographic Information System (GIS) analysis, not estimates from EPA or the Army Corps of Engineers.
 
EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers are accepting public comments on the supplemental proposal through October 9, 2026. The agencies will consider comments on both the supplemental proposal and the November 2025 proposal before issuing a final rule.
 
 
Forest Service to Close 23 Research Facilities as Part of Reorganization
 
The U.S. Forest Service is closing 23 research and development facilities in more than a dozen states as part of a broader agency reorganization that includes moving its headquarters from Washington, D.C., to Salt Lake City, Utah. The agency says the closures will reduce building and maintenance costs by about $16 million, while research conducted at the affected locations will continue at other facilities.
 
On August 31, Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz announced additional senior leadership assignments under the new structure, including a new leadership team for Research and Development.

In June, AIBS had joined the Ecological Society of America and 26 other scientific and professional organizations in sending a letter to Congress expressing strong concerns about the proposed reorganization, which was announced in March. “Congress has explicitly restricted the use of FY 2026 appropriated funds to conduct agency reorganizations,” the groups wrote. “The proposed changes to USFS reflect a large-scale restructuring that potentially violates appropriations law and warrants close congressional oversight to ensure no legal limits are crossed.”
 
The Forest Service had also considered closing 41 additional science and experimental forest sites, but those sites will remain open following pushback from researchers and other stakeholders. The broader restructuring will, however, relocate some staff. The Forest Service's network of 84 Experimental Forests and Ranges (EFR) provides sites for long-term research on forest and ecosystem management. This research addresses issues including wildfire, climate change, pests, and disease and provides information to help inform forest management decisions. Last year, AIBS had joined the Organization of Biological Field Stations in a letter urging that all EFRs be maintained.
 
 
NIH, DOD Agreement Raises Questions About Research Funding
 
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Department of Defense (DOD) have signed an interagency agreement that provides for the transfer of funds from NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) to DOD on a project-by-project basis to support the development of medical countermeasures against infectious diseases and chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear threats.
 
The agreement does not specify a dollar amount or identify the research projects that could be transferred, raising questions about the scope of the arrangement and congressional oversight.
 
The agreement has drawn criticism from some lawmakers and biomedical researchers, who are concerned that NIH-funded research could come under DOD administration. House and Senate appropriations Democrats have called for the agreement to be terminated, while NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya and House Appropriations Chairman Tom Cole (R-OK) have defended the agreement as a collaboration aligned with NIH’s public health mission, with Cole stating that no NIH funds had been transferred to DOD. DOD has similarly characterized the agreement as a mechanism for strategic collaboration and disputed claims that it was made secretly.
 
 
GAO Calls for USDA Strategy to Address Climate-Related Pests and Diseases
 
A new Government Accountability Office (GAO) report finds that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has taken few actions to strengthen the resilience of farms and forests to climate-related risks from pests and diseases, while staffing and funding for some relevant programs have declined.
 
GAO recommends that USDA conduct a nationwide assessment of these risks and develop a strategy to address them, including improved monitoring, forecasting, education, and technical assistance. The report notes that USDA’s Climate Hubs have supported research and outbreak forecasting, but the hubs and other programs face staffing losses and planned funding cuts.
 
GAO warns that failing to address these risks could increase federal costs for crop insurance and ad hoc agricultural assistance. The report cites an estimate that climate-related changes in pests and diseases could increase federal crop-insurance costs by $300 million to $2.2 billion annually by 2100.
 
 
New Senate Bipartisan Science and Innovation Caucus Launched
 
Senators Dave McCormick (R-PA) and John Hickenlooper (D-CO) launched the new Senate Bipartisan Science and Innovation Caucus on September 10, 2026 to highlight and elevate scientific research and innovation among U.S. priorities. The caucus plans to work with industry leaders and the research community to develop policies that promote U.S. leadership in science.
 
The caucus plans to host briefings, engage in roundtables and discussions about existing and new policies, and provide a venue for discourse about new legislation to boost scientific research and STEM workforce in the U.S.
 
You can use Research!America’s action alert to encourage your senators to join this effort.
 
 
AIBS Helps AERC Brief Lawmakers on Ecosystem Research and the Bioeconomy
 
On September 17, 2026, AIBS assisted the Association of Ecosystem Research Centers (AERC) in briefing lawmakers about the role of ecosystem research centers in the U.S. bioeconomy. 
 
The bioeconomy depends on a reliable supply of biological resources and essential ecosystem services, including agricultural crops, forestry products, and aquaculture. Healthy, well-managed ecosystems can also help buffer communities against droughts, severe storms, and other climate-related extremes. Ecosystem science provides the knowledge and tools to understand, quantify, and manage these natural assets, including the ecological processes that sustain productive agriculture, healthy watersheds, and resilient communities. Ecosystem research centers play an important role in advancing this science, educating future researchers, and developing solutions to challenges facing the bioeconomy.
 
Speakers at the Capitol Hill briefing highlighted how ecosystem research supports the protection and sustainable use of ecosystem services across agriculture, watershed management, and aquaculture.
 
The briefing program and presentation slides are available at io.aibs.org/aerc.
 
 
Action Alert: Continue to Engage Congress on the OMB Grants Rule
 
The response from the scientific community to the Office of Management and Budget’s proposed Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance has been substantial and AIBS thanks everyone who submitted comments, shared analysis, or urged Congress to act.
 
Congress has now taken an important step. President Trump signed a continuing resolution on September 2 that keeps the government funded through December 11 and includes a provision blocking OMB from issuing or finalizing the proposed grants rule during that period. AIBS thanks the members of Congress who worked to include this provision and those who supported its passage.
 
But this is only a temporary reprieve. AIBS urges the scientific community to continue engaging with your members of Congress and ask them to build on this progress by pursuing a more permanent solution to the concerns raised by the proposed rule. Constituents should also urge Congress to use its oversight authority to ensure that individual federal agencies do not preemptively implement provisions of the proposed guidance before its finalized. For example, the National Science Foundation and the Department of Education have proposed changes to policies governing federal financial assistance that, in some respects, align with provisions of the proposed OMB rule.
 
Write to Congress today through the AIBS Legislative Action Center. Check out our advocacy toolkit and resource page for more information.
 
 
Share Your Ideas About the Future of NSF
 
AIBS is partnering with more than 30 professional societies across the U.S. scientific ecosystem to gather input on the future of the National Science Foundation (NSF) through NSF Forward.
 
NSF Forward is asking all researchers across the ecosystem to make their voices heard by September 21 and answer these two questions:

• What does NSF do well that you would like to ensure is maintained?
• What should NSF stop doing, change or do differently, or start doing?

Share your thoughts.
 
Your input is critical. We need to hear from all perspectives — different disciplines, different roles, different career stages. Recommendations shaped by your ideas are meant to position NSF for durable, bipartisan support, and to reflect the breadth of the research community.
 
To everyone who has already answered, thank you. If you haven't, please do. Either way, forward this to a colleague who may not have seen it.
 
The next 75 years of this agency will be shaped by many hands. There's still time for yours to be among them. For questions regarding the project, please contact NSFforward@aps.org.
 
 
Enter the 16th Annual Faces of Biology Photo Contest
 
Enter the Faces of Biology Photo Contest for a chance to win $250 and to have your photo appear on the cover of the journal BioScience.

The competition recognizes scientists who use imagery to communicate aspects of biological research to the public and policymakers. This year the competition is sponsored by the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology in addition to the American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS).
 
The theme of the contest is "Faces of Biology." Photographs entered into the contest must depict a person, such as a scientist, researcher, collections curator, technician, or student, engaging in biological research. The depicted research may occur outside, in a lab, with a natural history collection, on a computer, in a classroom, or elsewhere. Help communicate science through imagery.
 
The First, Second and Third Place Winners will:

• have their photos printed inside BioScience,
• receive a one year online subscription to BioScience, and
• receive the AIBS Member Society or Organization (MSO) discounted rate for one professional development workshop registration within 365 days of the announcement for the winning photos.

The First Place Winner will also have their photo featured on the cover of BioScience and will receive $250.
 
Submissions must be received by 11:59:59 p.m. Eastern Time on September 30, 2026. Enter today.
 

Short Takes

• The National Science Foundation (NSF) has removed language from its scientific integrity policy that explicitly prohibited political interference in scientific activities and the use of scientific information, instead referring only to “inappropriate influence.” The Department of Commerce—which oversees the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)—made a similar change in August.
• NSF’s National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES) is seeking public comment on plans to reinstate and integrate three workforce surveys—the National Training, Education, and Workforce Survey (NTEWS), National Survey of College Graduates (NSCG), and Survey of Doctorate Recipients (SDR)—into a consolidated 2027 NTEWS. The survey will provide national estimates of the education, training, and employment of U.S. adults ages 18-75, with a focus on science and engineering occupations and degrees, the skilled technical workforce, and U.S.-trained doctoral scientists and engineers. NSF expects to contact approximately 341,000 individuals, with data collection beginning in May 2027, and estimates a median survey completion time of 35 minutes. Comments are due October 27, 2026.
• House Science Committee Republicans have asked the Department of Energy, NIH, and NSF for information on how the agencies are addressing biosecurity and research-security risks associated with biotechnology, including dual-use technologies, artificial intelligence, and foreign actors. The September 9 letters also ask the agencies about implementation of recommendations from the 2025 National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology report. The requests were followed by a September 16 House Science subcommittee hearing examining biotechnology innovation and biosecurity, including the implications of advances in AI and biotechnology.
• President Donald Trump has directed the U.S. Department of the Interior to determine within 90 days whether gray wolves and Mexican wolves meet the criteria for downlisting or delisting under the Endangered Species Act. The September 4 Executive Order also directs federal agencies to consider changes that would allow greater use of lethal removal of wolves in response to threats to livestock or human safety.
• Six former senior leaders of the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) have criticized proposed changes to the Fifth National Climate Assessment. The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy is planning to add warnings to the Assessment about its use of the high-emissions RCP8.5 climate scenario, which the Administration says is unlikely and should not be used for policymaking. The former USGCRP leaders say the report clearly presents RCP8.5 as one of several possible scenarios and that high-end scenarios remain important for assessing potential climate risks.
• According to Science Insider, NIH is preparing to launch a new research center to study people who report persistent health problems following vaccination, including COVID-19 vaccination, while also funding outside researchers to investigate potential vaccine-related adverse effects. The planned research has drawn support from some scientists but also concerns about political influence over the research agenda and the need for rigorous study designs that can distinguish vaccine-related effects from other causes.

From the Federal Register

The following items appeared in the Federal Register from September 7 to 18, 2026.
 
Commerce

• Hydrographic Services Review Panel Meeting, September 28, and 29, 2026
• Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting
• Request for Information (RFI) on Future Needs for Medical Metrology and Standards for Medical Imaging, Devices, Diagnostics and Therapy

Environmental Protection Agency

• Partial Repeal of the Carbon Pollution Standards for Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric Generating Units; Final Rule
• Updated Definition of “Waters of the United States”

Health and Human Services

• Draft NIH Biosafety Policy for Research Involving Biohazards
• Reorganization of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases
• Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting; Establishment of a Public Docket; Request for Comments--2027 Southern Hemisphere Influenza Virus Vaccines

Interior

• Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to the Office of Management and Budget for Review and Approval; Regional Climate Adaptation Science Centers (CASCs)
• Call for Nominations to the National Geospatial Advisory Committee
• Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Review Committee; Notice of Public Meeting

National Science Foundation

• Advisory Committee for Integrative Activities; Committee Reestablishment
• Agency Information Collection Activities: Comment Request