NIH Director Nominee Bhattacharya Outlines Priorities

President Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the National Institutes of Health, Jay Bhattacharya, faced probing questions about his plans for the world’s largest public funder of biomedical research during a Senate hearing Wednesday.

Bhattacharya largely sidestepped queries about whether he would reinstate laid-off employees at the agency or reverse course on the Trump administration’s planned cuts to indirect research costs, instead pledging more generally to review the actions and follow the law.

Bhattacharya outlined a vision for NIH that aligns with the Make America Healthy Again agenda of his boss, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., by focusing NIH research on chronic disease to improve American health.

Describing his goals for the agency, Bhattacharya said he wanted to establish a “culture of respect” for free speech and scientific dissent within the agency, expressing a desire to support research that is not necessarily aligned with prevailing scientific theories. Bhattacharya said, for example, that NIH research into the cause of Alzheimer’s disease could have progressed faster had it not been constrained by a “single dominant narrative” about the cause of the disease.

Bhattacharya said he would work to ensure NIH science is “replicable, reproducible and generalizable” to address what he described as a “replicability crisis” in biomedical science. He also pledged to prioritize innovative research over incremental advances, and to vigorously regulate “risky research that has the possibility of causing a pandemic.”

Senate Health Committee Chair Bill Cassidy (R-LA) said in his opening statement that NIH is facing serious challenges — including a loss of trust in public health and scientific institutions since the COVID-19 pandemic — and urged the agency to embrace greater transparency.

“If confirmed as NIH director, you’ll be tasked with leading an agency that desperately needs reform,” Cassidy told Bhattacharya.

Meanwhile, Ranking Member Bernie Sanders (I-VT) said the next NIH director should be “prepared to take on the greed of the pharmaceutical industry” but doubted that President Donald Trump would give that authority to the next NIH director.

“Over the past several weeks, it has become abundantly clear that it really does not matter who the president nominates to be director of the NIH — and I don’t mean to be disrespectful in saying that,” Sanders added. “The real person in charge of all these federal agencies is Mr. Elon Musk, and that will continue to be the case no matter who the Senate confirms to these positions.”

Praise and criticism for NIH

Bhattacharya, a health economist at Stanford University, said he respected the scientists at NIH and valued his experiences as a grant recipient and reviewer for the agency. He described NIH as “the crown jewel of American biomedical sciences” with a mission that is “vital to our country, and indeed the world.”

Bhattacharya also criticized the agency’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, however, stating his desire to increase public trust in NIH science through better communication and increased transparency.

Bhattacharya gained national attention in 2020 for co-authoring The Great Barrington Declaration — a blueprint for responding to the COVID-19 pandemic that proposed protecting the most vulnerable populations but advised against restricting the activity of healthy individuals. The proposal was welcomed by the Trump administration but criticized by public health leaders, including then-NIH Director Francis Collins, who argued the declaration’s claims regarding herd immunity were dangerous and not grounded in science. Bhattacharya has since claimed his views were censored by the Biden administration, participating as a plaintiff in a free speech lawsuit that was eventually rejected by the Supreme Court.

“I love the NIH, but post-pandemic, American biomedical sciences are at a crossroads,” Bhattacharya told the committee, citing a 2024 Pew study which found that just 26% of U.S. adults have a “great deal” of confidence in scientists to act in the best interests of the public.

Senators probe stance on research cuts and freezes

Amid a backdrop of mass layoffs, grant freezes, and ongoing legal battles concerning proposed cuts to research overhead indirect costs, Bhattacharya was pressed by senators on whether he intends to stop disruptions to the work of NIH caused by the Trump administration. In response, Bhattacharya said he had played no role in decisions regarding personnel or funding at NIH up to this point and would review their impact.

“If confirmed as NIH director, I fully commit to making sure that all the scientists at the NIH and the scientists that the NIH supports have the resources they need to meet the mission of the NIH, which is to do research to make America healthy,” Bhattacharya said.

Both Democrats and Republicans on the committee expressed concern over the Trump administration’s attempts to cap the reimbursement rate for indirect costs, also known as facilities and administrative costs, at a flat rate of 15%, a huge cut from current levels.

“I am strongly opposed to the administration’s ill-conceived and completely arbitrary proposal to impose a 15% cap on indirect costs for NIH grants,” said Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), who is also chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee. “Research labs and universities across the state of Maine have contacted me to describe the devastating impact that this cap would have on life-saving and life-enhancing biomedical research,” she added.

Collins also said that the cap breaks the law because Congress has explicitly prohibited NIH from changing the indirect cost formula ever since the first Trump administration attempted to do so in 2017. Bhattacharya declined to commit to reverse course on pursuing a one-size-fits-all cap, promising simply that he would follow the law and consult with agency counsel on the issue.

Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-NH) pushed Bhattacharya to answer whether he would follow the president’s directives even if it meant breaking the law, to which Bhattacharya responded, “I don’t believe the president will ever ask me to break the law.” Hassan expressed disappointment at his answer, saying it “strains credulity” given recent events.

Hassan also asked Bhattacharya if he would commit to reversing funding freezes that have delayed clinical trials of potentially life-saving medicines, referencing a resident in her state whose participation in a colon cancer trial had been disrupted. Bhattacharya again responded that he would “absolutely commit to following the law” and ensure that “every single study that is advancing our knowledge about health, including colon cancer, goes forward.”

Vaccine views

Committee Chair Cassidy, a medical doctor and proponent of vaccines, quizzed Bhattacharya on whether he believes there is a link between the measles vaccine and autism. While Bhattacharya said he does not “generally believe” there is a link, he expressed interest in investigating what is causing rising autism rates among children — something that HHS Secretary Kennedy has called for.

Cassidy replied that he did not see the value in proving once more that the measles vaccine is not associated with autism when it has been exhaustively studied. Bhattacharya then said that while he personally is convinced based on the literature that there is no connection, “there are people who might disagree with me.”

Frustrated with the response, Cassidy said, “I mean, there’s people who disagree the world is round. … People still think Elvis is alive. So if you say, ‘Someone disagrees with me, therefore I’m going to put precious, limited taxpayer dollars to this and not to addressing issues of obesity, heart disease, cancer’ — we’ve lost.”