Cancelling existing grants and blocking new ones from being given is illegal
U.S. Government Accountability Office
HHS also issued a memorandum directing its agencies to cease
the publication of grant review meeting notices in the Federal Register,
a key step in NIH's grant review process. As a result, NIH reduced its awarding
of new grants.
NIH's actions to carry out these executive directives,
coupled with publicly available data showing a decline in NIH's obligations and
expenditures, establishes that NIH intended to withhold budget authority from
obligation and expenditure without regard to the process provided for by the
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (ICA).
Unless Congress has enacted a law providing otherwise,
executive branch officials must take care to ensure that they prudently
obligate appropriations during their period of availability.
The ICA allows the President to withhold funds from obligation, but only under strictly limited circumstances and only in a manner consistent with that Act. The ICA was enacted to ensure that legislation passed by Congress and signed by the President is faithfully executed.1
GAO's institutional role is to support Congress, including
in Congress's exercise of its constitutional power of the purse. GAO's role is
procedural—to protect congressional prerogatives and help ensure compliance
with the ICA and appropriations law—and is not to be interpreted as taking a
position on the underlying policies.
Based on publicly available evidence and the lack of any
special message pertaining to NIH funds, GAO concludes that NIH violated the
ICA by withholding funds from obligation and expenditure.
In its response to GAO, HHS indicated that it had lifted the
pause relating to the publication of Federal Register notice
submissions and resumed scheduling meetings. However, HHS's response did not
include information regarding current obligations of NIH funds for FY 2025.
Furthermore, HHS showed no sufficient justification for the pause that it
instituted.
GAO is aware of ongoing litigation involving the termination
of NIH grants in which HHS has taken the position that it was authorized to
terminate the grants. GAO will continue to monitor this and any other
litigation related to the delay in the obligation and disbursement of NIH
funds. If a court makes relevant findings of fact relating to NIH funds, we
will update this decision as necessary.
[1]See S. Rep. No. 93-688, at 75
(1974) (explaining that the objective of the ICA was to assure that “the
practice of reserving funds does not become a vehicle for furthering
Administration policies and priorities at the expense of those decided by
Congress”).
Downloads
