As a first step toward an upcoming effort to tighten scrutiny over grants, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced Thursday (May 1) it will prohibit all subawards to foreign institutions, citing concerns over transparency and national security. The agency said a broader overhaul of NIH’s foreign grant program is in the works, and it also hinted that subawards of domestic grants may face similar scrutiny.
Under the forthcoming overhaul, foreign collaborators will receive direct, standalone awards that are linked to the primary domestic grant, allowing NIH to track expenditures separately while still assessing scientific progress collectively. The new structure is expected to roll out by Sept. 30, just ahead of the fiscal 2026 funding cycle.
The agency also signaled plans to extend the new subaward policy to domestic subrecipients in the future to maintain consistency with its America first agenda.
NIH said further guidance on the new award mechanism will be released in the coming months.
Global health researchers and advocacy groups warn that the move will severely disrupt vaccine development, global research partnerships, and life-saving services abroad.
The decision to cut subgrantee funding is likely linked to Republicans’ criticism of the funds grantee EcoHealth Alliance awarded to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which some GOP lawmakers have pegged as the origin of the COVID-19 virus in the “lab leak” theory recently endorsed by the White House. Under that framework, NIH and its employees have come under fire from Republicans for what they say is inadequate oversight of grant funds, especially those that may be passed along to Chinese researchers or institutions.
NIH’s decision, effective immediately, halts new, renewed and continued awards that include foreign subcontracts, and signals a major restructuring of how the agency funds international collaborations.
“This will end critical partnerships, including those for the development of innovative vaccine technologies, research related to new vaccines for HIV, hepatitis E, and TB, clinical trial networks, and vaccine research and researchers throughout the world,” Nina Schwalbe, a public health researcher and founder of the public health think tank Spark Street Advisors, told Inside Health Policy. “A major victim of this policy decision is vaccine research and development.”
According to the Trump administration, the new policy stems from persistent noncompliance with federal subaward reporting rules, particularly those under the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA), which requires disclosure of subcontracts over $30,000.
NIH said in the press release that the lack of accurate reporting has raised red flags -- especially for foreign subawards where national security is at stake.
"NIH must ensure it can transparently and reliably report on each dollar spent," the agency wrote in a press release. “This lack of transparency is particularly concerning in the case of foreign subawards, in which the United States government has a need to maintain national security.”
Until then, NIH will not approve any new foreign subawards or additions to existing grants. Notices of Funding Opportunities (NOFOs) that previously permitted foreign components are now superseded.
Schwalbe emphasized that the policy will disproportionately harm low- and middle-income countries, many of which have historically relied on U.S. scientific partnerships to build research infrastructure and improve public health outcomes.
“Smaller, less well-resourced countries that have relied on the U.S. for partnership and research capacity development will be left even further behind,” she said.
The policy applies prospectively across the board -- to all domestic and foreign recipients -- but does not affect current grants already in place. NIH also clarified that funds for foreign consultants or vendors of unique equipment are exempt from the ban.
In cases where projects cannot proceed without a foreign subaward, NIH will consider bilateral terminations, weighing issues like patient safety and animal welfare. For viable projects, awardees may rebudget funds to keep the work in the United States, either through the prime institution or a domestic partner.
Brian O'Shaughnessy, chair of the Bayh-Dole Coalition, an advocacy organization formed in 2021 which supports the Bayh-Dole Act, also criticized NIH’s decision.
“This sounds like an overreaction -- trying to do surgery with a hatchet rather than a scalpel,” O'Shaughnessy said in an interview with IHP. “There is a great deal of technological knowledge outside the borders of America, and to some extent, we would be foolish to cut that off altogether.”
O'Shaughnessy also emphasized that many of NIH’s most productive partnerships are with trusted institutions in countries like Sweden, Belgium, and Ireland. “We shouldn’t cut that off just because they’re not within the U.S.,” he said. “Sometimes the best minds for a particular area of research simply aren’t here.”
The Trump administration is also being challenged on its dismantling of global public heath funding through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Among the plaintiffs suing over the withholding of funds are the Global Health Council (Case No. 1:25-cv-00402), the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition (Case No. 1:25-cv-00400), and the Personal Services Contractor Association (Case No. 1:25-cv-00469), all in D.C.
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts in March put a pause on an order in the AIDS Vaccine Coalition Case requiring USAID to pay its overdue contract obligations, allowing the Trump administration to keep most foreign aid funding frozen. The full court is likely to consider the matter soon.
The administration has indicated it wants to cancel 90% of USAID contracts. -- Maaisha Osman (mosman@iwpnews.com)