Listen to the article
In a significant development highlighting federal spending concerns, Senator James Lankford (R-Okla.) has released his ninth annual “Federal Fumbles” report documenting millions in what he characterizes as wasteful government expenditures, including controversial research funding for transgender animal experiments, beagle testing in China, and studies using aborted fetal tissue.
The comprehensive watchdog report, which has become a yearly tradition for the Oklahoma Republican, identifies numerous instances of what Lankford describes as waste, fraud and abuse across federal agencies, while outlining potential solutions to address these financial concerns.
According to Lankford’s findings, after the first year of President Donald Trump’s second term, the Republican-controlled Congress has made strides in improving government efficiency, resulting in billions in taxpayer savings and restructured spending priorities in Washington. Despite this progress, Lankford emphasized that significant challenges remain.
“Too often, the federal government is gridlocked, unresponsive and inefficient,” Lankford wrote in the report. “We must continue pushing through bureaucratic red tape to make the government work better for you, the taxpayer. We have so much still to do.”
Among the most controversial expenditures highlighted was approximately $240 million allocated to transgender “animal experiments involving mice, rats and monkeys.” The report notes that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant program was eventually terminated by Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
“These NIH-funded studies attempted to model transgender adults and children by subjecting animals to hormone regimens and surgical procedures,” Lankford detailed in the report. The animal welfare implications and scientific necessity of such research have been questioned by various oversight groups.
The report also revealed that in 2024, the Biden administration’s NIH funded $53 million in grants for “research using human fetal tissue obtained from elective abortions,” with 17 of these grants still active until recently. Lankford noted that the NIH canceled these grants after watchdog organization White Coat Waste Project exposed the ongoing funding. The Trump administration subsequently went further by canceling all research involving aborted fetal tissue.
Despite these cancellations, Lankford warned that without congressional legislation on the matter, “another pro-abortion Administration could resume or expand such projects at any time, forcing taxpayers to fund research that is both immoral and scientifically obsolete.”
In another controversial finding, Lankford reported that $124,000 in taxpayer money was sent to China for drug research and experiments involving “up to 300 beagles per week.” While the NIH announced it would not renew this particular contract following public scrutiny, the report reveals that “18 Chinese animal research laboratories, including several with troubling ties to the Chinese Communist Party and the People’s Liberation Army, still hold NIH approval to receive U.S. funding.”
The report comes amid heightened attention to federal spending priorities and national debt concerns, which have become increasingly divisive issues in Congress. Federal research funding has long been a contentious subject, with debates centering on both the scientific merit of certain studies and the ethical implications of taxpayer-funded research.
Government watchdog groups have praised Lankford’s continued efforts to highlight what they consider questionable spending, while research advocates have historically defended the importance of broad scientific inquiry, including controversial or exploratory studies that might not have immediate practical applications.
The findings are likely to fuel ongoing debates about government oversight, research ethics, and federal spending priorities as Congress continues to navigate budget negotiations and government funding deadlines in the coming months.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
18 Comments
While the report raises valid concerns about government spending, the framing of certain research as ‘controversial’ seems overly simplistic. A more objective, fact-based analysis could yield constructive recommendations for improving efficiency without compromising valuable scientific initiatives.
Agreed. Oversight is crucial, but it should be guided by a genuine interest in good governance, not partisan agendas. A balanced, evidence-based approach is more likely to result in meaningful reforms that benefit the public.
Kudos to the Senator for shining a light on questionable government spending. However, characterizing certain research as ‘controversial’ without a deeper dive into its potential merits is concerning. A more balanced, fact-based approach could yield more constructive recommendations.
Well said. Fiscal responsibility is crucial, but it shouldn’t come at the expense of important scientific work. A nuanced review process that separates the wheat from the chaff could lead to more meaningful reforms.
Waste, fraud and abuse in government spending is certainly a valid concern. However, this report seems to take a rather broad-brush approach to labeling certain research as ‘controversial’ or ‘wasteful’. A more rigorous, non-partisan analysis could yield more constructive insights.
I share your skepticism. While oversight is important, politicizing scientific research rarely leads to meaningful reforms. A constructive dialogue focused on efficiency and efficacy would be more productive.
Transparency around federal spending is important, but politicizing research funding can be counterproductive. Perhaps a more measured, fact-based discussion could lead to productive reforms that improve efficiency without compromising important scientific work.
Well said. Thoughtful oversight is valid, but it should be guided by a genuine interest in good governance, not political point-scoring.
Responsible use of taxpayer funds is a laudable goal, but dismissing research as ‘wasteful’ without a deeper understanding of its potential value is concerning. A more nuanced, fact-based review could identify genuine areas for improvement while preserving important scientific work.
Well said. Fiscal responsibility is crucial, but it shouldn’t come at the expense of valuable research. A balanced, evidence-based approach that separates the wheat from the chaff could lead to more constructive reforms.
Interesting report on government spending priorities. While some research may seem unusual, it’s important to carefully evaluate the merits and potential benefits rather than simply dismissing it as ‘wasteful’. Oversight and accountability are crucial for effective use of taxpayer funds.
I agree, a balanced approach is needed. Reasonable people can disagree on where to draw the line, but open dialogue and constructive criticism are preferable to partisan posturing.
While the report raises valid concerns about government waste, the framing of certain research as ‘controversial’ seems overly politicized. A more objective, evidence-based analysis could identify genuine areas for improvement without compromising valuable scientific initiatives.
Agreed. Oversight is important, but it should be driven by a genuine desire to improve efficiency, not partisan agendas. A balanced, fact-based approach is more likely to yield constructive solutions.
Scrutinizing federal spending is a noble goal, but labeling research as ‘wasteful’ without a deeper dive into its potential benefits seems premature. A more nuanced review process that separates the wheat from the chaff could lead to meaningful reforms without compromising important scientific work.
Well said. Taxpayer funds should be used judiciously, but a one-size-fits-all approach to ‘waste’ risks throwing the baby out with the bathwater. A thoughtful, evidence-based assessment is needed to identify areas for improvement.
As a taxpayer, I’m always keen to see government funds used responsibly. However, dismissing research as ‘wasteful’ without a full understanding of its potential value seems hasty. A more nuanced review could identify areas for improvement while preserving valuable programs.
Agreed. Fiscal responsibility is crucial, but so is maintaining an open, evidence-based approach to assessing the merits of various research initiatives. A balanced perspective is needed.