If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. Amid intensifying scrutiny over government involvement in influencing public discourse, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has launched an internal inquiry that could reshape how it funds research with implications for free expression. According to STAT News, agency officials, in preparation for the swearing-in of incoming director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, recently directed staff to identify any existing contracts potentially linked to “any form of censorship at all or directing people to believe one idea over another related to health outcomes.” The request, which carried a deadline of noon Wednesday, signaled a sweeping reassessment of federally funded messaging campaigns. Included in the NIH’s internal email were instructions to flag agreements tied to vaccine promotion or public health narratives emphasizing the “dangers of Covid or not wearing masks.” The directive also advised employees to search for terms such as “media literacy,” “social media,” “social distancing,” and “lockdowns” — all terms frequently associated with the suppression of dissenting viewpoints during the pandemic. This review comes on the heels of similar actions that preceded abrupt funding withdrawals. Earlier in the month, NIH notified researchers that at least 33 grants aimed at combating “vaccine hesitancy” would be canceled, with another nine slated for reduction or revision. President-elect Donald Trump’s selection of Dr. Jay Bhattacharya to lead the National Institutes of Health signals a renewed commitment to transparency, scientific freedom, and reform. A Stanford professor with dual training in medicine and economics, Bhattacharya has long emphasized data-driven decision-making and compassionate public health policy. During the COVID-19 pandemic, he became a national figure for challenging the dominant narrative on lockdowns and mandates, arguing they caused unintended harm. Bhattacharya’s advocacy came at a cost. He was censored on major social media platforms and became a plaintiff in a landmark lawsuit alleging that the federal government colluded with Big Tech to suppress dissenting views on public health. Internal documents revealed that his views were intentionally downranked or hidden, despite being grounded in credible research and expertise. Rather than backing down, he fought back — defending not just his own speech, but the principle that science must remain open to challenge. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post The Censorship Reckoning Inside the NIH appeared first on Reclaim The Net.