Jay Bhattacharya

Under Bhattacharya's leadership, the NIH terminated or redirected numerous grants associated with DEI, gender, certain approaches to health disparities or categories deemed 'ideological'. This direction was strongly criticised as politicising science, particularly because Bhattacharya had himself previously published research on racial health disparities.

State of the evidence

Documented

Thousands of grants were terminated or threatened under directives targeting, among other areas, DEI and gender. A federal judge found certain directives and terminations arbitrary and unlawful; the Supreme Court subsequently allowed the administration to maintain certain grant terminations on procedural or jurisdictional grounds while leaving a separate issue concerning the legality of the directives unresolved.

State of the evidence

Documented

NIH employees published the 'Bethesda Declaration', inspired by Bhattacharya's Great Barrington Declaration, denouncing grant terminations, job cuts, disruption of trials, reduced international collaboration and what they described as a culture of fear. The movement attracted hundreds of signatories, including named and anonymous employees, and some dissenters maintained in 2026 that the problems persisted.

State of the evidence

Documented

Attribution

Directly implicated

The NIH under Bhattacharya announced that it would no longer fund research using human fetal tissue obtained from elective abortions. Scientists warned that certain fetal tissue models retain unique uses in immunology, development and infectious diseases, and that alternatives do not always replace the materials concerned.

State of the evidence

Documented

Attribution

Directly implicated

At the beginning of fiscal year 2026, the pace of new competitive NIH grants was far below historical averages: an analysis cited by STAT estimated a 74% decline in the number of new awards and a 62% decline in their value compared with the corresponding period in 2021–2024. Legislators and researchers feared that the agency might not commit its entire budget and that early-career researchers would be particularly affected.

State of the evidence

Documented

Bhattacharya, already NIH director, was temporarily appointed to lead the CDC as well. This unusual dual role prompted criticism from employees and experts who believed that NIH governance and funding problems already required full-time attention and that combining the positions could weaken both agencies.

State of the evidence

Documented

Attribution

Directly implicated

In 2026, Bhattacharya continued promoting reforms to funding mechanisms and reproducibility. Current and former employees nevertheless challenged several of his public statements, particularly concerning the absence of lists of problematic terms, while internal instructions required expressions such as 'health equity' or 'structural racism' to be identified. The NIH also proposed reducing the visibility of detailed peer review scores at certain decision-making stages.

State of the evidence

Documented

Attribution

Directly implicated

Together with Marty Makary and Mehmet Oz, Bhattacharya submitted a memorandum to the acting CDC director recommending an overhaul of the federal childhood vaccination schedule. The new schedule reduced from 18 to 11 the number of diseases for which immunisation was universally recommended and reclassified several vaccines into high-risk or shared decision-making categories. The American Academy of Pediatrics denounced a 'dangerous and unnecessary' decision taken without an ACIP vote or new body of scientific evidence justifying the changes.

State of the evidence

Documented

Attribution

Directly implicated

While serving as acting CDC director, Bhattacharya delayed and then prevented publication in MMWR of a study that had passed internal scientific and editorial reviews and concluded that 2025–2026 vaccination substantially reduced COVID-19-related emergency department visits and hospitalisations. Current and former CDC officials, as well as a senator, denounced unusual political intervention. The study was eventually published in June 2026 in a medical journal, and its findings remained broadly consistent.

State of the evidence

Documented

Attribution

Directly implicated

Shortly after his confirmation as head of the NIH, teams were instructed to identify grants related to combating misinformation or censorship. The initiative prompted concern about a possible ideological purge of research into health communication and the information environment.

State of the evidence

Documented

Attribution

Direct responsibility

Bhattacharya announced that the NIH would no longer permit new foreign subawards embedded within main grants, pending implementation of a new structure of linked international projects. Researchers warned of delays, administrative complexity and risks to global collaborations and clinical trials.

State of the evidence

Documented

Attribution

Directly implicated

Bhattacharya was the lead author of a widely publicised Santa Clara serology study concluding that COVID infections substantially exceeded diagnosed cases. Statisticians and epidemiologists criticised recruitment through Facebook, potential volunteer bias, weighting and test sensitivity and specificity. Private funding for the research also raised questions in public debate.

State of the evidence

Documented

Attribution

Directly implicated

In litigation concerning exemptions from school mask mandates in Tennessee, Bhattacharya testified for the Governor. Federal Judge Waverly Crenshaw described his testimony as 'troubling and problematic', considered that he had overinterpreted the randomised Bangladesh study, identified contradictions and noted that he was expressing paediatric opinions outside his field of expertise. The judge stated that, at that stage, he was not prepared to trust his opinion.

State of the evidence

Documented

Attribution

Protagonist is a witness

Bhattacharya co-authored the Great Barrington Declaration, which proposed lifting many general restrictions and concentrating protection on vulnerable people while allowing low-risk individuals to resume normal life. Numerous health officials and epidemiologists challenged the feasibility of targeted protection and warned of the number of infections and deaths such an approach might cause before vaccines became available.

State of the evidence

Documented

Attribution

Directly implicated