Eight of the top 10 officials at the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases have now been pushed out since President Donald Trump took office
By Max Kozlov & Nature magazine
The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases has seen changes in nearly all of its senior leadership positions since early 2025.
Grandbrothers/Getty Images
Three senior officials at the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) have been given the choice to either accept reassignment outside the institute or resign, sources at the NIAID have told Nature.
The three officials are the latest high-ranking NIAID scientists to lose their positions since President Donald Trump began his second term as president in January 2025. Last year, senior officials at the US National Institutes of Health (NIH), which oversees the NIAID, ousted Jeanne Marrazzo, successor to Anthony Fauci as NIAID director.
With the new departures, scientists in most of the senior positions at the NIAID will have been required to vacate their jobs, including officials in eight of the ten top leadership slots. All but one of the eight scientists worked under Fauci, who was director of the NIAID for 38 years before he stepped down in 2022. Fauci has been criticized by Trump and other Republican politicians over public-health measures used during the COVID-19 pandemic. And in the past month, the Trump administration has pursued charges against scientists in Fauci’s orbit who were involved with COVID-19 research.
If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
The reassignment of career scientists, such as the three who have just lost their positions, is highly unusual for the NIH. Career scientists are typically not replaced when presidential administrations change, and the forced reassignments worry some scientists, who fear a growing political influence over science at the institute, which has a yearly budget of US$6.6 billion.
Betty Diamond, an immunologist at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research in Manhasset, New York, says the lack of stability in leadership at the NIAID is concerning. “When you’ve spent years to put in place certain kinds of programmes and earn the trust and admiration of the scientific community, disruption for the sake of disruption is not useful,” she says.
The reassignments were confirmed by several staff members at the NIAID, who requested anonymity when they spoke with Nature, out of fear of reprisal. Andrew Nixon, a spokesperson for the NIH’s parent agency, the Department of Health and Human Services, says that the NIH does not comment on personnel matters, but that it “remains committed to maintaining strong scientific leadership across its institutes and centers”. NIH director Jayanta Bhattacharya has said that the agency needs reform and must move away from ‘politicized’ science.
The officials who are being forced out now are Daniel Rotrosen, who has been the top scientist for the institute’s Division of Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation for nearly 30 years; Kelly Poe, director of the Division of Extramural Activities, which manages the grant-related activities and policies of the institute; and Andrea Wurster, Poe’s deputy. All three also worked under Fauci.
Rotrosen was offered a reassignment in the NIH’s office for programme coordination and strategic initiatives, and Poe and Wurster were offered reassignments to the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD). They were not given reasons for their reassignments, staff members told Nature.
Jennifer Troyer, who previously oversaw extramural operations at the National Human Genome Research Institute but resigned in December over concerns about political interference in scientific review at the NIH, says these reassignments are “major demotions”. The NIAID’s budget is more than ten times that of the NIMHD, which the Trump administration has tried to shutter twice but which has so far been protected by Congress.
At a meeting on 30 January, Bhattacharya and other top agency officials outlined a new vision for the NIAID that reorients the agency towards research on infectious diseases affecting the United States today, rather than research on how to prepare for the next pandemic. Bhattacharya’s vision also emphasizes basic immunology and calls for a move away from research into HIV/AIDS and biodefence. Those subjects and pandemic preparedness, Bhattacharya said, were Fauci’s legacy. Among those fired or reassigned last year were the division chiefs who oversaw research into HIV/AIDS and into infectious diseases and microbiology.
NIH officials who spoke to Nature worry that this could portend changes in the type of science that the institute funds, driven more by politics than by scientific merit. “Division directors are typically very stable positions and there for a long time,” one senior NIH official told Nature. “They had a vision and a lot of independence, so if you’re looking for a change [in scientific priorities], you’d probably go for that role.”
Seven of the ten positions in the NIAID leadership will now lack a person serving in a permanent capacity. This mirrors a broader trend at the NIH: 16 of the NIH’s 27 institutes and centres currently lack permanent directors after the previous leaders resigned, retired or were effectively terminated by the Trump administration. Fourteen of the 16 left or were ousted after Trump took office.
The removals also come as some scientists involved with COVID-19 research face action from the Trump administration. On 28 April, the US Department of Justice indicted David Morens, a former adviser to Fauci, for allegedly concealing federal records in connection with COVID-19 grants. And on 7 May, the US Department of Health and Human Services proposed a ban on federal funds to long-time coronavirus researcher Ralph Baric at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, for allegedly “deceptive” communications with NIAID officials, Science reported.
Trump and other Republican politicians say that public-health measures used during the pandemic led to a loss of public trust in the country’s health agencies. During the pandemic, Fauci offered recommendations on how to prevent the spread of the virus, but neither he nor the NIAID set policy for public-health programmes.
Fauci declined to comment for this story.
This article is reproduced with permission and was first published on May 15, 2026.
If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.
I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.
If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.
In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.
There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.
此内容由惯性聚合(RSS阅读器)自动聚合整理，仅供阅读参考。 原文来自 — 版权归原作者所有。