The National Institutes of Health is thumbing its nose at President Donald Trump’s order to curb dangerous virus-tinkering experiments. Three anonymous government sources reveal the NIH is forging ahead with creating novel pandemic pathogens, despite a May 2025 executive order demanding a crackdown on gain-of-function research, as the Daily Caller reports. This defiance raises alarms about biosafety and accountability in federal science.

The NIH’s push to continue these high-risk experiments ignores Trump’s directive to finalize a stricter gain-of-function policy by Sept. 2. An interagency group is scrambling to meet this deadline amid internal clashes and resignations.

The agency’s stance seems to echo pre-COVID policies that permitted questionable research, often outsourced to places like Wuhan, China.

Trump’s executive order, signed in May, aimed to halt dangerous gain-of-function studies within 120 days. An earlier draft sought an outright ban but was softened, though why remains murky. Critics argue this dilution undermines the order’s intent, leaving room for the NIH to exploit loopholes.

Internal conflicts stall policy reform

Biosafety advocates are battling NIH, Pentagon, and Department of Homeland Security officials over the new policy. Gerry Parker, former director of the White House Office of Pandemic Preparedness, led the policy draft but resigned in July for personal reasons. His exit, reported by STAT News, leaves the effort in limbo, with the NIH clinging to outdated protocols.

The NIH’s policy shop, unchanged since the Biden era, resists stricter oversight. A consultant hired by NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya was sidelined as an “extremist” for pushing tougher rules, per one source. This marginalization suggests the agency prioritizes research freedom over public safety.

Ed Hammond, a biosafety watchdog who monitored Anthony Fauci’s biodefense work, was fired from the NIH on Aug. 21.

He announced his dismissal on X, signaling internal purges of dissenters. Such moves hint at an agency doubling down on risky practices rather than reforming them.

Leadership raises eyebrows

Bhattacharya called gain-of-function research a “crisis” during his March confirmation hearing but has since taken a hands-off approach.

In April, he appointed Jeffrey Taubenberger, a Fauci ally with a history of defending such research, to lead the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Taubenberger’s promotion, despite his ties to controversial Wuhan projects, fuels skepticism about reform.

“Director Bhattacharya has full confidence in Dr. Taubenberger to lead reforms at NIAID,” an NIH statement claimed. Confidence is nice, but Taubenberger’s track record -- reviving the 1918 Spanish flu genome -- hardly screams caution. That flu killed 50 million globally, per the Cleveland Clinic, yet its blueprint now circulates worldwide, thanks to U.S.-funded research.

“Past associations do not dictate future inclinations,” Bhattacharya tweeted on Aug. 24, defending Taubenberger. This optimism feels hollow when Taubenberger’s National Institute underreported dangerous projects to the White House, as revealed in a July 21 NIH post on X. Omitting a MERS-related project by virologist Ralph Baric, linked to Wuhan, doesn’t inspire trust.

Risky research persists

The NIH’s pre-COVID framework, still in place, uses a “green light, yellow light, red light” system to assess research risks. “Red light” projects face higher scrutiny, but the NIH decides what qualifies without external audits, per two sources. This self-policing allowed coronavirus experiments to be offshored to Wuhan with minimal oversight.

Contractor Alex Washburne, a former Sandia scientist, champions continuing gain-of-function work to keep pace with nations like China. In June, he shared plans with the Daily Caller News Foundation to pursue dual-use phage research, which could apply to other viruses. His February 2025 Substack post prioritized opposing Trump over controlling pandemic pathogens, a stance he partly retracted by deleting posts.

“The conduct of this research does not protect us against pandemics,” Bhattacharya said at the executive order’s signing. He’s right -- engineering deadly viruses seems more like playing Russian roulette than safeguarding public health. Yet the NIH’s actions suggest it’s more interested in global science races than domestic safety.

Global risks, local consequences

Simon Wain-Hobson, a virology professor, warned the Daily Caller News Foundation that Taubenberger’s 1918 flu research has spread globally, including to Russia and Iran. “The information as to how to make the Spanish flu virus has leaked across the globe,” he said. This isn’t just a lab issue -- it’s a geopolitical gamble with taxpayer money.

“They don’t need to play around with the virus just to see how deadly it is,” Wain-Hobson added. Macabre indeed, yet the NIH seems unfazed, even as three intelligence agencies pin COVID-19’s origin on a lab leak. The agency’s refusal to pivot suggests a bureaucracy more loyal to its own inertia than to public welfare.

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. hailed the executive order as “the end of gain-of-function research funding.” His enthusiasm is admirable, but the NIH’s defiance tells a different story. With a North Carolina commission probing Wuhan-linked research, the public deserves answers, not more viral experiments.