Lankford's 'Federal Fumbles' Report Targets Millions in NIH Grants for Transgender Animal Studies, Fetal Tissue Research

EXCLUSIVE: A Republican senator's latest annual report on government waste has drawn renewed attention to millions in federal grants allocated for biomedical research involving transgender-related animal experiments and aborted fetal tissue, sparking a fresh political battle over scientific funding and ethics.

In the ninth edition of his "Federal Fumbles" report, Senator James Lankford (R-OK) cataloged what he described as egregious examples of misspent taxpayer dollars during the past fiscal year. The document highlights several National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant programs, initiated under the Biden administration, which have since become flashpoints in the ongoing cultural and political wars over science funding.

Among the most costly items cited is an approximate $240 million in NIH grants dedicated to animal studies—involving mice, rats, and monkeys—that aimed to model transgender identity through hormonal and surgical interventions. The program was later terminated by the Department of Government Efficiency under the Trump administration.

"These studies attempted to use animal models to explore transgender biology, a premise that raises serious ethical and scientific questions about both the use of animals and the applicability of such models to human experience," Lankford stated in the report.

The report also scrutinizes $53 million in NIH grants awarded in 2024 for research using human fetal tissue derived from elective abortions. Lankford noted that while the NIH canceled specific grants following public scrutiny led by the watchdog group White Coat Waste Project, he warns that legislative action is necessary to prevent a future administration from restarting such funding. "Without a permanent statutory ban, taxpayers remain at risk of being forced to fund research many find morally objectionable and scientifically outdated," he argued.

Further findings include a $124,000 contract funding drug testing on beagles in China, a practice that ceased after national outcry. However, the report asserts that 18 Chinese animal research labs, some with alleged ties to the Chinese Communist Party and the People's Liberation Army, retain NIH eligibility for U.S. funds.

Lankford framed the report as part of a broader push for efficiency in a divided government. "While we've made progress in cutting waste and reining in spending, the federal bureaucracy too often remains gridlocked and unresponsive," he wrote. "This report is a playbook for accountability."

The release comes amid heightened tensions over government spending packages and cultural policy riders, ensuring its findings will fuel further debate on Capitol Hill.

Reader Reactions:

Michael R. Thompson, Policy Analyst from D.C.: "Senator Lankford is performing a vital oversight function. Regardless of one's views on the underlying science, allocating hundreds of millions to highly speculative animal models while we have a national debt crisis is a textbook example of misplaced priorities. The system needs this kind of scrutiny."

Dr. Anya Sharma, Biomedical Researcher from Chicago: "This report dangerously conflates fiscal oversight with ideological opposition to specific research avenues. Modeling complex human conditions in animals is a standard, if imperfect, scientific tool. Politicizing grant review stifles innovation and tells scientists their work is subject to political winds, not merit."

David P. Lynch, Small Business Owner from Tampa: "This is an absolute disgrace. $240 million on rat experiments to study transgenderism? Millions more on fetal tissue? It's a moral and fiscal scandal. Every bureaucrat who approved this spending should be fired. This is exactly why people hate Washington—it's a black hole for our money, funding grotesque and pointless projects."

Rev. Sarah Chen, Community Advocate from Denver: "As someone who values both fiscal responsibility and compassionate science, I find the targeting of specific research troubling. These grants went through rigorous peer review. The real 'fumble' is allowing short-term political agendas to dictate long-term scientific inquiry, potentially costing us future medical breakthroughs."