In recent weeks, as the Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought has floated novel ways to steamroll Congress, Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) has been making some noise. When Vought reportedly floated a plan to subject NIH grants to review by a committee of political appointees who would ensure they were not “woke,” Collins warned that the White House would be violating the law. Then, on Sep. 25, shortly after the Trump White House sent Congress their illegal pocket rescission notification — a plan to impound congressionally appropriated funds by letting the clock run out on the fiscal year — Collins took to social media and posted a scathing statement.

Senate Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Patty Murray (D-WA) and Senate Budget Committee Ranking Member Jeff Merkley’s (D-OR) attempt to pass a bill blocking the $810 million “pocket rescission” the Trump White House sent over to Congress last week failed Wednesday evening.

Russ Vought Wants to Veto NIH Funding

The White House’s attempts to clamp down on government funding — in direct defiance of Congress, which has largely rolled over — have become sort of cyclical.

First, there was DOGE. Then, there were a series of efforts by Russ Vought to continue DOGE’s work — if not literally, than in spirit. One particular target of his has been the National Institutes of Health, and for a period of months in 2025 Vought blocked the agency’s research grants until a mostly quiet lobbying campaign by Republican senators forced him to relent. But Vought, the White House Office of Management and Budget director, has reared his head periodically over the last year and a half, each time with a new gambit to slash government grant-making and not spend money Congress had directed the White House to spend.

Another such episode unfolded this weekend, documented in three reports from the Washington Post, which broke the news, then Politico and finally the New York Times.

This story involves Vought attempting to again assert control over NIH grantmaking — the Post reported that he was concerned that despite rounds of cuts to research into LGBTQ issues, women’s health, and other supposedly “DEI”-tainted initiatives, the NIH’s work was still overly “woke.” Politico and the Times reported another motivation for meddling in NIH grantmaking: to screw with Harvard, after repeated, failed Trump administration efforts to do so.

Vought and Trump reportedly summoned Jay Bhattacharya, the NIH director, who, while a fellow ideological traveler with Trump and Vought in some respects, is reportedly a defender of research into racial disparities in health outcomes and a friend of Harvard’s president. A big argument ensued, according to the three reports, and Bhattacharya refused to let Vought get more deeply involved with his agency’s work.

But Trump apparently thought Vought made some good points. And, so, now we are on track for a new executive order to put Vought or someone similar in charge of this research funding — to move NIH grantmaking, or at least the power to veto individual line items, from the hands of career scientists to political appointees. The Post reported on Saturday afternoon that the White House was looking into an order establishing a “commission to review the NIH’s grants”; Politico then reported on Saturday evening that Trump had directed Vought to draft such an order, and the Times reported on Sunday that work of drafting the order had already begun — it will, the Times said, “create a new external committee with the power to veto awards in the National Institutes of Health’s vast research portfolio that do not conform to Mr. Trump’s political agenda.”

This sounds a lot like another, broader plan from earlier this year to put political appointees in charge of all grantmaking that was roundly denounced by scientists and politicians of both parties, and then, in August, blocked in the Senate (and later in the House). But, typically for this Congress, not forever. Just until after the midterms.

This new attempt at an executive order would be another direct challenge to Congress, one to which Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), Republican chair of the appropriations committee, should have to respond. We will see if she considers legislation to block it permanently, and not simply until after her reelection.

German Far-Right Continues to Rise

A new round of German elections Sunday again showed the far-right party Alternative für Deutschland gaining ground, winning a plurality in one state for the second time this month.

• In Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, north of Berlin, the party came in first, with 38.3% of the vote. The center-left Social Democrats (SPD) came in second at 35.4%.
• Earlier this month, in another German state, Saxony-Anhalt, AfD almost won an outright majority, with 44% of the vote.
• In Berlin, which also held elections Sunday, AfD’s strength grew to 16.3% — significant in the capital. A left-wing party, Linke, came in first place with 25.3% of the vote.
• Chroniclers of the far-right see the party’s rise as a particularly dark sign, given that it is the first time since the 1940s when the far-right in Germany has shown such strength.
• Terrible numbers for Chancellor’s Friedrich Merz’s party in recent elections also raise the possibility that AfD’s rise could challenge the national government.
• AfD is extreme even by the standards of European far-right parties, stridently opposing immigration and LGBTQ rights while also seeking to revise how German history is remembered. The party shares many connection with Trump world.