Tensions at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) reached a boiling point last week when dozens of staffers staged a walkout during a town hall hosted by NIH Director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya. The protest—prompted by both controversial remarks and long-standing concerns over job disruptions—highlighted the widening rift between NIH leadership and its workforce under the current administration.

Walkout Sparks After Pandemic Remarks

Roughly 27 minutes into the town hall at NIH’s Maryland headquarters, Dr. Bhattacharya touched on the politically sensitive theory that the COVID-19 pandemic may have stemmed from lab-based research—a theory some suggest could implicate the NIH itself.

“It’s possible the pandemic was caused by research conducted by human beings,” Bhattacharya said, before suggesting the NIH may have helped fund such efforts. At that moment, a large number of staff quietly stood up and walked out of the auditorium.

Rather than react with concern, Bhattacharya appeared unbothered, noting, “It’s nice to have free speech. Welcome, you guys.”

Protest Rooted in Broader Discontent

While the walkout appeared timed to Bhattacharya’s lab leak comments, NIH employees later clarified the protest had been pre-planned to draw attention to worsening working conditions and a lack of communication from leadership. The remarks, they said, merely accelerated their exit.

Researchers cited a climate of fear and confusion due to sweeping personnel changes, budgetary threats—including a proposed 40% cut to NIH funding—and hurdles in conducting day-to-day research, such as delays in obtaining basic materials due to staffing reductions.

“We’ve repeatedly asked for a sit-down meeting with Dr. Bhattacharya,” said Dr. Kaitlyn Hajdarovic, a postdoctoral researcher and union member. “We were hoping this walkout would finally prompt one.”

Silent Dissent Over Research Integrity

Bhattacharya, a former Stanford professor known for his controversial pandemic views, defended his remarks as an effort to promote transparency. However, many researchers took issue not only with the implication that NIH was complicit in creating COVID-19, but also with what they saw as a politically motivated agenda driving science policy decisions.

The White House’s 2026 budget proposal cites NIH’s past funding for the Wuhan Institute of Virology as justification for eliminating foreign subawards—a policy critics say endangers global collaboration and pandemic preparedness.

“Scrapping all foreign subawards on the basis of one theory is dangerous and short-sighted,” said an NIH scientist who requested anonymity.

Clash Over DEI and Scientific Objectivity

The town hall also spotlighted internal division over diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts. Responding to a question about DEI and health disparities, Bhattacharya argued that some NIH-funded research, particularly studies linking structural racism to health outcomes, lacked scientific rigor.

This sparked pushback from the audience. “What do you think redlining is?” asked one staffer after Bhattacharya attempted to separate policy-driven studies from testable scientific hypotheses.

Fallout From NIH Cuts and Staff Discontent

NIH employees have faced months of instability following an April 1 “Reduction in Force” that eliminated 1,200 positions. Bhattacharya, who assumed his role the same day, said he had no input in those decisions and admitted to being troubled by the lack of transparency.

He has made some small changes, including restoring travel authorizations and canceling a much-criticized weekly reporting requirement where staff had to submit five “accomplishments.”

“That was ridiculous,” he said to applause. “You don’t need world-class scientists to tell me five things they did last week.”

Still, NIH researchers say morale remains low. Many feel excluded from critical decision-making and uncertain about the future of their work.

“We’re dealing with constant disruption while trying to research cures for cancer, Alzheimer’s, and diabetes,” said Dr. Matthew Brown, another postdoctoral researcher and union member. “We deserve more than a brief Q&A session. We need real dialogue.”

No Meeting Yet

Despite their visible protest, union leaders say Bhattacharya’s office has yet to reach out to schedule the meeting they’ve requested for months.

As the NIH faces increasing scrutiny over budget cuts and ideological shifts, staff members say their core concern remains unchanged: ensuring scientific research continues to serve the public without political interference.

“Science isn’t supposed to be partisan,” said one NIH researcher. “But we’re watching it become a casualty of politics.