The agency’s move came just weeks after Sen. Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa) sent a letter in late February to the NIH demanding to know why the agency awarded the massive contract to an untested nonprofit with close ties to the University of California, a system that, according to the senator, not only has a history of spending around 40 percent of its federal research funding on administrative costs, but also has a dubious record of leaving its laboratories open to national security breaches by the Chinese Communist Party.
“It’s outrageous Biden’s NIH shoved a nearly $90 billion contract out the door just days before President Trump returned to office,” Grassley told the Free Beacon. “Even worse, the money would have flowed to an organization that can’t clearly protect itself from adversaries like China. I’m very glad HHS heeded my calls to reverse course and is now re-evaluating its initial proposal. I urge the department to ensure efficient use of taxpayer dollars as it works to defeat cancer and save lives.”
The Alliance for Advancing Biomedical Research is a nonprofit organization based in Oakland, California, established in 2022 to operate exclusively for the benefit of the University of California system, according to its tax filings. Despite its recent formation and apparent lack of financial activity—having neither raised nor spent any funds prior to the grant—the Alliance was awarded an unprecedented $89 billion contract to manage the Frederick National Laboratory for Cancer Research at Fort Detrick, Maryland. This facility, a federally funded research and development center (FFRDC) under the National Cancer Institute (NCI), has been a cornerstone of U.S. biomedical research, supporting critical work in cancer, infectious diseases, and other health priorities.The contract, awarded on January 17, 2025, just days before the end of the Biden administration, replaced Leidos Biomedical Research, a subsidiary of Leidos, which had managed the lab since 1995. Leidos, formerly SAIC-Frederick, had secured the contract through competitive bidding and renewals, with NIH obligating approximately $6 billion in task orders to the company since 2008. The decision to award the contract to the Alliance, a relatively unknown entity with no apparent operational history, raised immediate red flags, prompting investigations by the NIH and criticism from lawmakers like Senator Chuck Grassley.
Kamala Harris, as Vice President during the Biden administration, was a prominent figure in advancing Democratic priorities, including healthcare and scientific innovation. While there is no direct evidence explicitly linking Harris to the decision-making process behind the Alliance’s grant, her role in the administration and her ties to California—where the Alliance is based—have fueled speculation about her influence. Harris’s political career, rooted in California as a former senator and attorney general, places her within the state’s powerful political and academic networks, including the University of California system, which the Alliance serves.
Kamala Harris has been actively involved in the Biden administration's Cancer Moonshot Initiative, which aims to reduce the cancer death rate by 50% in the next 25 years. She has been a "driving force" behind this initiative, emphasizing increased funding for research, health equity, and technological innovation. Had she won election
Harris had been widely expected to ensure continuity for the Cancer Moonshot. The effort was first launched in 2016, during the Obama-Biden administration, to increase resources and collaboration to advance cancer research, and was “reignited” in 2022 under the Biden-Harris administration with the goal of halving the death rate from cancer over the next 25 years(The Cancer Letter, Feb. 4, 2022; Jan. 16, 2016; To The Moon).
“Vice President Harris, first as a U.S. senator and most recently in her current role, has been a staunch supporter of access to care and has supported robust and sustained increases in funding for cancer research,” Lisa A. Lacasse, president of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, said to The Cancer Letter. “As the vice president knows well, everyone has been touched by this disease. Her mother was a cancer researcher before she lost her life to colon cancer.”
But the timing of the grant, awarded in the final days of the Biden administration, aligns with a pattern of last-minute funding decisions that have drawn scrutiny. For instance, the Biden administration announced nearly $6 billion in aid to Ukraine and extended a $10 billion Iran sanctions waiver in late 2024, actions perceived as efforts to secure policy priorities before the transition to the Trump administration. Similarly, the $89 billion NIH grant to the Alliance could be seen as an attempt to channel significant federal resources to a Democratic-aligned entity, potentially insulating biomedical research funding from anticipated cuts under the incoming Republican administration.Harris’s broader involvement in healthcare policy provides additional context. During her vice presidency, she championed initiatives like women’s health research, which saw nearly $1 billion in investments under the Biden administration. Her public statements emphasized the importance of biomedical innovation, aligning with the stated mission of the Alliance. While these efforts were broadly supported, the lack of transparency surrounding the Alliance’s selection and the scale of the grant have led critics to question whether political favoritism, possibly tied to Harris’s California connections, played a role.
The Alliance’s explicit purpose of benefiting the University of California (UC) system is a critical piece of the puzzle. The UC system is a major recipient of NIH funding and a powerhouse in biomedical research, with institutions like UC San Francisco and UC San Diego leading in medical innovation. The decision to award the Fort Detrick contract to a UC-affiliated nonprofit, rather than a seasoned contractor like Leidos, suggests a strategic move to consolidate research funding within a trusted academic network.
This move could reflect an effort to safeguard biomedical research from the Trump administration’s stated goal of reducing NIH funding, which saw a $2.3 billion drop in new grants in early 2025. By channeling an $89 billion, 25-year contract to a UC-aligned entity, the Biden administration may have aimed to lock in long-term funding for a progressive-leaning institution, potentially bypassing future budgetary constraints. Harris, as a California native and UC alumna (having earned her law degree from UC Hastings), would naturally be associated with such a decision, even if her direct involvement remains unconfirmed.
Leidos Biomedical Research’s loss of the Fort Detrick contract is a significant shift in the management of a critical research facility. Having operated the lab for nearly three decades, Leidos had a proven track record, supporting the NCI, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and other NIH components. The company expressed disappointment and filed a protest with the Government Accountability Office (GAO), citing concerns about the acquisition process and the selection of a “significantly higher-cost bidder” at a time when fiscal responsibility is a priority.
The decision to award the contract to the Alliance, despite its lack of operational history, has raised questions about the fairness and rigor of the NIH’s selection process. Leidos’s concerns, echoed by Senator Grassley, point to potential irregularities, including the possibility that political considerations outweighed merit-based criteria. The fact that the Alliance is based in California, while the lab is in Maryland, further complicates the narrative, as it suggests a disconnect between the nonprofit’s operational capacity and the demands of managing a high-security biosafety laboratory.
The NIH’s decision to investigate the $89 billion grant, prompted by concerns about the Alliance’s qualifications and the timing of the award, underscores the gravity of the situation. Senator Grassley, a longtime advocate for government transparency, has highlighted the anomaly of a “seemingly dormant” nonprofit receiving such a massive contract. The investigation will likely examine the Alliance’s financial and operational readiness, the rationale for bypassing Leidos, and any potential political influences, including those tied to Harris or other Biden administration officials.
The broader political context adds fuel to the controversy. The Trump administration’s emphasis on rooting out waste and abuse in federal spending, particularly at the NIH, has intensified scrutiny of large-scale grants. For example, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by figures like Lee Zeldin, has targeted Biden-era initiatives, such as a $2 billion EPA grant linked to Stacey Abrams, for alleged mismanagement. The Alliance’s grant, with its unprecedented scale and questionable recipient, fits into this narrative of last-minute spending by the outgoing administration.
The controversy surrounding the Alliance’s grant has significant implications for biomedical research and public trust in federal institutions. The Frederick National Laboratory is a linchpin of U.S. efforts to combat cancer and infectious diseases, and any disruption in its management could hinder scientific progress. The temporary shutdown of the Fort Detrick lab in May 2025, due to safety concerns under Leidos’s management, already raised questions about operational stability. Transferring control to an untested nonprofit risks further uncertainty, particularly if the Alliance lacks the expertise to oversee a high-security facility.
Moreover, the perception of political favoritism undermines confidence in the NIH, the world’s largest public funder of biomedical research. At a time when public trust in institutions is fragile, allegations of cronyism—whether substantiated or not—could erode support for federal research funding. Harris, as a prominent Democratic figure, may face reputational risks if the investigation uncovers ties to the decision, even if her involvement was indirect.
The $89 billion NIH grant to the Alliance for Advancing Biomedical Research represents a contentious chapter in the Biden administration’s legacy, with potential links to Kamala Harris rooted in her California ties and healthcare advocacy. While no direct evidence confirms her involvement, the timing, scale, and recipient of the grant raise legitimate questions about political motivations and transparency. The ongoing NIH investigation, coupled with Leidos’s protest and congressional oversight, will be critical in determining whether the award was a strategic move to secure biomedical research or an example of mismanagement. As the controversy unfolds, it underscores the delicate balance between advancing scientific innovation and maintaining public trust in federal decision-making.
