NIH Leaves 15 of 27 Institutes Under Acting Directors, Deepening HHS Leadership Gaps
Updated
Updated · STAT · May 20
NIH Leaves 15 of 27 Institutes Under Acting Directors, Deepening HHS Leadership Gaps
3 articles · Updated · STAT · May 20
Fifteen of NIH’s 27 institutes have been run by acting directors for months, leaving much of the agency below Director Jay Bhattacharya without permanent leadership.
That vacancy is limiting long-term planning at institutes that steer disease-specific research and is complicating efforts to reassure scientists facing sharp shifts in federal funding priorities.
Patient advocacy group United for Cures said permanent institute directors are needed to keep taxpayer money focused on the most important science and to avoid delays in new treatments and cures.
The NIH shortfall mirrors wider instability across HHS, where the CDC and FDA also lack permanent chiefs, Trump’s surgeon general nominee is still unconfirmed, and the department’s top spokesperson resigned last week.
As the US steps back from global health leadership, who will fill the void in preventing the next pandemic?
Amid a healthcare worker shortage, why are new loan rules making it harder for nurses and PAs to get trained?
With the FDA reversing warnings on hormone therapy, is decades of medical advice on menopause now considered wrong?
2026 NIH and CDC Leadership Crisis: Political Overhaul, Staff Exodus, and the Collapse of Public Trust in U.S. Science
Overview
As of May 2026, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) are facing an unprecedented leadership vacuum. The lack of strong, permanent leaders is harming the progress of lifesaving medical research, as experienced directors are essential for moving forward and avoiding delays in new treatments. This instability is clear, with key figures like Jeffery Taubenberger still listed as acting director at NIAID and also holding another role in HHS, while others, such as Alison Cernich, have recently left for positions outside the NIH. These changes raise serious concerns about the future of public health leadership and research.