The embedded lists in this article may contain items that are not encyclopedic. Please help out by removing such elements and incorporating appropriate items into the main body of the article. (August 2011)

Coordinates: 39°00′02″N 77°06′09″W / 39.000443°N 77.102394°W / 39.000443; -77.102394

National Institutes of Health
National Institutes of Health logo
Aerial photo of the NIH Mark O. Hatfield Clinical Research Center, Bethesda, Maryland
Agency overview
Formed	1887 (1887)
Preceding agency	Hygienic Laboratory
Headquarters	Bethesda, Maryland
Annual budget	US$30.9bn (as of 2010[update])[1]
Agency executive	Francis S. Collins, Director
Parent agency	Department of Health & Human Services
Child agencies	National Cancer Institute National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute National Library of Medicine
Website
www.nih.gov

Clinical Center – Building 10

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is an agency of the United States Department of Health and Human Services and is the primary agency of the United States government responsible for biomedical and health-related research. Its science and engineering counterpart is the National Science Foundation. It comprises 27 separate institutes, centers, and offices which includes the Office of the Director. Francis S. Collins is the current Director.

As of 2003, the NIH was responsible for 28%—about US$26.4 billion—of the total biomedical research funding spent annually in the U.S., with most of the rest coming from industry.^[2]

The NIH's research is divided into two parts: the NIH Extramural Research Program is responsible for the funding of biomedical research outside the NIH, while the NIH Intramural Research Program (IRP) is the internal research program of the NIH, known for its synergistic approach to biomedical science.^[3] With 1,200 principal investigators and more than 4,000 postdoctoral fellows in basic, translational, and clinical research, the IRP is the largest biomedical research institution on earth.^[4] The unique funding environment of the IRP facilitates opportunities to conduct both long-term and high-impact science that would otherwise be difficult to undertake. With rigorous external reviews ensuring that only the most innovative research secures funding,^[5] the IRP is responsible for many scientific accomplishments, including the discovery of fluoride to prevent tooth decay, the use of lithium to manage bipolar disorder, and the creation of vaccines against hepatitis, Haemophilus influenzae (HIB), and human papillomavirus.^[6] Intramural research is primarily conducted at the main campus in Bethesda, Maryland, and the surrounding communities. The National Institute on Aging and the National Institute on Drug Abuse are located in Baltimore, Maryland, and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences is located in the Research Triangle region of North Carolina. The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) maintains its Rocky Mountain Labs in Hamilton, Montana,^[7] with an emphasis on virology.

The goal of NIH research is to acquire new knowledge to help prevent, detect, diagnose, and treat disease and disability, from the rarest genetic disorder to the common cold. The NIH mission is to uncover new knowledge that will lead to better health for everyone. NIH works toward that mission by conducting research in its own laboratories, supporting the research of non-federal scientists (in universities, medical schools, hospitals, and research institutions throughout the country and abroad), helping in the training of research investigators, and fostering communication of medical and health sciences information.

Institutes[link]

Centers of the NIH[link]

In addition to being divided by research area, NIH has many operating groups called centers operating across all of the Institutes.

Office of the Director[link]

The Office of the Director is the central office at NIH. The OD is responsible for setting policy for NIH and for planning, managing, and coordinating the programs and activities of all the NIH components. Program offices in the Office of the Director are responsible for stimulating specific areas of research throughout NIH and for planning and supporting research and related activities. Current program areas are: minority health, women's health, AIDS research, disease prevention, and behavioral and social sciences research.^[13] In July 2009, President Barack Obama nominated Dr. Francis S. Collins, M.D., PhD, to be the Director of the NIH. On August 7, 2009, the US Senate confirmed Dr. Collins by unanimous vote.

Program offices within the Office of the Director fund research through the institutes:

Ida A. Bengtson, a bacteriologist who in 1919 was the first women hired to work in the Hygienic Laboratory.^[17]

History[link]

The predecessor of the NIH began in 1887 as the Laboratory of Hygiene.^[18][19] It grew and was reorganized in 1930 by the Ransdell Act into the National Institute of Health (singular at the time).

To better understand the NIH’s funding policy, a better understanding of this federal agency’s history is helpful. NIH’s roots extend back to a Marine Hospital Service in the late 1790s that provided medical relief to sick and disabled men in the U.S. Navy. By 1870, a network of marine hospitals had developed and was placed under the charge of a medical officer within the Bureau of the Treasury Department. In the late 1870s, Congress allocated funds to investigate the causes of epidemics like cholera and yellow fever, and it created the National Board of Health, making medical research an official government initiative.^[20] In 1887, a laboratory for the study of bacteria, the Hygienic Laboratory, was established at the Marine Hospital in New York. In the early 1900s, Congress began appropriating funds for the Marine Hospital Service. By 1922, this organization changed its name to Public Health Services and established a Special Cancer Investigations laboratory at Harvard Medical School. This marked the beginning of a partnership with universities. In 1930, the Hygienic Laboratory was re-designated as the National Institutes of Health and was given $750,000 to construct two NIH buildings. Over the next few decades, Congress would increase its funding tremendously to the NIH, and various institutes and centers within the NIH were created for specific research programs.^[21] In 1967, the Division of Regional Medical Programs was created to administer grants for research for heart disease, cancer, and strokes. That same year, the NIH director lobbied the White House for increased federal funding in order to increase research and the speed with which health benefits could be brought to the people. An advisory committee was formed to oversee further development of the NIH and its research programs. By 1971, cancer research was in full force and President Nixon signed the National Cancer Act, initiating a National Cancer Program, President’s Cancer Panel, National Cancer Advisory Board, and 15 new research, training, and demonstration centers. In 1984, National Cancer Institute scientists found implications that “variants of a human cancer virus called HTLV-III are the primary cause of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS),” a new epidemic that gripped the nation.^[22] In July 1987, as NIH celebrated its 100th anniversary, President Reagan announced a committee to research the HIV epidemic. By the 1990s, the focus of the NIH committee had shifted to DNA research, and the Human Genome Project was launched. In 2009, President Obama reinstated federally funded stem-cell research, revoking the ban imposed by President Bush in 2001. From logistical restructuring, to funding increases, to research prioritization, to government expansion and political influence, the history of the National Institutes of Health is extensive and full of change. The NIH has grown to encompass nearly 1 percent of the federal government’s operating budget. The NIH now controls more than 50 percent of all funding for health research, and 85 percent of all funding for health studies in universities.^[23]

How NIH Obtains Funding[link]

To allocate funds, the NIH must first obtain its budget from Congress. This process begins with IC leaders collaborating with scientists to determine the most important and promising research areas within their fields. IC leaders discuss research areas with NIH management who then develops a budget request for continuing projects, new research proposals, and new initiatives from the Director. NIH submits its budget request to HHS, and HHS considers this request within the parameters of its overall budget. Many adjustments and appeals occur between NIH and HHS before the agency submits NIH’s budget request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). OMB determines what amounts and research areas are approved for incorporation into the President’s final budget. The President then sends NIH’s budget request to Congress in February for the next fiscal year’s allocations.^[24] The House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees deliberate and by fall, Congress usually appropriates funding. This process takes approximately 18 months before the NIH can allocate any actual funds.^[25]

How NIH Allocates Funding[link]

NIH employs five broad decision criteria in its funding policy. First, ensure the highest quality of scientific research by employing an arduous peer review process. Second, seize opportunities that have the greatest potential to yield new knowledge and that will lead to better prevention and treatment of disease. Third, maintain a diverse research portfolio in order to capitalize on major discoveries in a variety of fields such as cell biology, genetics, physics, engineering, and computer science. Fourth, address public health needs according to the disease burden (e.g., prevalence and mortality). And fifth, construct and support the scientific infrastructure (e.g., well-equipped laboratories and safe research facilities) necessary to conduct research.^[26]

Funding Policy Changes[link]

The NIH funding policy has changed in several significant ways over time. First, the amount of money given to the NIH has increased, most significantly in the last few decades. For example, in 1999, Congress increased the NIH’s budget by $2.3 billion.^[27] In 2009 Congress again increased the NIH budget to $30.3 billion.^[27] These budgetary increases have allowed NIH to fund more research. The proportion of funding allocated to the individual ICs does not change much over time, but the overall amount of funding each IC receives has increased significantly.^[28] Second, with the creation of the various ICs, the responsibility to allocate funding to researchers has shifted from the OD and Advisory Committee to the individual ICs. Additionally, Congress increasingly sets apart funding for particular causes. In the 1970s, Congress began to earmark funds specifically for cancer research and in the 1980s there was a significant amount allocated for AIDS/HIV research.^[27] Congress has continued to play an active role in allotting funds for specified research. These are some of the most significant changes in NIH funding policy over the last century. A few of the key issues in evaluating NIH funding policy were previously mentioned in the paper as the five criteria the NIH has established. Three of the criteria are particularly relevant. First, is the NIH ensuring the highest quality of research by fairly implementing their peer review process and allocating extramural research funds? Second, is the NIH maximizing opportunities to produce research that yields new knowledge that will lead to better disease prevention and treatment? Next, are public health needs being addressed according to the public disease burden; in other words, are the most important needs of society being met rather than those of special interest groups. These are the most important issues in evaluating NIH funding policy.

Stakeholders[link]

Many groups are highly invested in NIH funding. Two key stakeholders will be addressed in the following portion of this paper; namely the general public and extramural researchers. Extramural researchers are directly impacted by NIH funding and the general public is providing the funds and should be receiving the benefits.

General Public: One of the goals of the NIH is to “expand the base in medical and associated sciences in order to ensure a continued high return on the public investment in research.”^[29] Taxpayer dollars funding NIH are from the taxpayers, making them the primary beneficiaries of advances in research. Thus, the general public is a key stakeholder in the decisions resulting from the NIH funding policy. Congress theoretically represents the public interest as the NIH Advisory Committee allocates to the NIH, and the funds to the Director.^[30] However, many in the general public do not feel their interests are being accurately represented. As a result, individuals have formed patient advocacy groups to represent their own interests.^[31] Patient advocacy groups tend to focus on specific aspects of health care or diseases. Advocates get involved in many different areas such as organizing awareness campaigns, promoting patients’ rights, and enhancing health policy initiatives. Most importantly, patient advocacy groups are oftentimes involved with advisory panels to ensure that current projects and those projects being considered for funding will directly impact patients’ lives, improve delivery of care, and provide support for tertiary care. Advocacy groups strive to promote a health care system that is beneficial for all parties involved. Through congressional representation, NIH Advisory Committee efforts, and patient advocacy groups, the public is able to influence funding allocation as well as the policy itself.^[32]

Extramural Researchers and Scientists: Other important stakeholders of the NIH funding policy are the researchers and scientists themselves. Extramural researchers differ from intramural researchers in that they are not employed by the NIH but must apply for funding. Throughout the history of the NIH, the amount of funding received has increased, but the proportion to each IC remains relatively constant. The individual ICs then decide who will receive the grant money and how much will be allotted. Research funding is important to extramural researchers for multiple reasons. Without the help of an NIH grant (or a similar type of funding), researchers and scientists are unable to pursue their own research interests but are obliged to follow the agenda of the company or university for which they work. This could potentially hinder discoveries in novel research areas. In 2000, Brian Jacobs and Lars Lefgren researched extensively the impact of NIH grants on basic research and development, and the careers of grant recipients. For the period of 1980–2000, they reviewed all postdoctoral research grants and standard research grants for those who received funding and those who did not.^[33] Jacobs and Lefgren found that scientists who received postdoctoral research grants were 20 percent more likely to be published within the first five years after receiving the grant.^[33] They also found that scientists who received grants were 11 percent more likely to have one publication and 23 percent more likely to have five publications. Due to the ‘publish or perish’ standard that many researchers face, NIH funding can have a great impact on researchers’ careers.^[33] Receiving a standard research grant also has a significant impact on researchers. Young scientists who receive a first-time grant (R01) usually produce more than one additional publication in the five-year period after they receive the grant. Those who receive an NIH grant will typically receive $252,000 more in NIH funding in the following six to ten years,^[33] and a statistically significant relationship exists between scientists receiving NIH grants and their research productivity throughout their careers. Policy changes on who receives funding also significantly affect researchers. For example, the NIH has recently attempted to approve more first-time NIH R01 applicants, or the research grant applications of young scientists. To encourage the participation of young scientists who potentially think outside the box, the application process has been shortened and made easier.^[34] In addition, first-time applicants are being offered more funding for their research grants than those who have received grants in the past.^[35] Although this change provides greater opportunities for young scientists, it also places older, more experienced scientists at a funding disadvantage.

Research[link]

This section requires expansion.

NIH devotes 10% of its funding to research within its own facilities (intramural research). They give 80% of its funding in research grants to extramural (outside) researchers. The extramural funding consists of about 50,000 grants to more than 325,000 researchers at more than 3000 institutions.^[36] In FY 2010^[update], NIH spent US$10.7bn (not including temporary funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009) on clinical research, US$7.4bn on genetics-related research, US$6.0bn on prevention research, US$5.8bn on cancer, and US$5.7bn on biotechnology.^[37]

In 2011, a paper published in Science found that black researchers were 10% less likely to win NIH R01 grants (the oldest and most widely-used) than white researchers, after controlling for "educational background, country of origin, training, previous research awards, publication record, and employer characteristics." It also found that black researchers are significantly less likely to resubmit an unapproved grant than white researchers.^[38] The study lead and economist Donna Grant said that grant reviewers do not have access to the applicant race, but may infer it from biographies or names. She also speculated that the decreased re-submission rate may be due to lack of mentoring.^[39]

NIH Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee February 13, 2012 the National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced a new group of individuals assigned to research pain. This committee is composed of researchers from different organizations and will focus to “coordinate pain research activities across the federal government with the goals of stimulating pain research collaboration… and providing an important avenue for public involvement” ("Members of new," 2012). With a committee such as this research will not be conducted by each individual organization or person but instead a collaborating group which will increase the information available. With this hopefully more pain management will be available including techniques for arthritis sufferers.

Literature Review[link]

1. Cardiovascular Disease Burden Increases NIH Funding Decreases Breslow, JL. “Cardiovascular Disease Burden Increases, NIH Funding Decreases,” Nature Medicine 3(6): 600–601.

Heart disease and stroke are among the leading causes of death in the United States. The rates of these problems have drastically increased. With the baby-boomer generation recently reaching age 65, the number of problems is expected to increase even more. However, the extramural heart research funding program decreased 5.5 percent during the period of 1986 to 1996, while the overall NIH budget increased 36 percent.

Breslow provides more statistics about the growing problem of cardiovascular disease, the economic burden it has on our society, and the shortcomings of NIH funding policy that prevented funding increases. Though this article is dated, the consequences of the funding shortage 15 years ago have implications for today’s level of understanding. NIH policy should reflect the burden of disease, but in this case, it clearly does not.

This article appears in the peer reviewed journal, “Nature Medicine.” This journal is consistently ranked as one of the most influential scientific journals published by the Institute for Scientific Information. Breslow provides excellent insight to heart disease’s burden on society and the lack of funds to match the burden. Additional research should be done to determine the burden of specific diseases over time. This data can be compared to the NIH funding changes for that disease to determine how well the NIH is using burden of disease as a resource to guide funding allocation.

2. NIH Disease Funding Levels and Burden of Disease Gillum LA, Gouveia C, Dorsey ER, Pletcher M, Mathers CD. “NIH Disease Funding Levels and Burden of Disease,” Plos One (February 2011).

According to the authors, during the 1990s, Congress and the public raised concerns that the NIH was not appropriately distributing funds according to burden of disease. As a result, Congress arranged for the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to examine how the NIH was allocating funds. The IOM concluded that the NIH should improve the process of earmarking funds for specific diseases.

This article examines if the NIH has better aligned the amount of funding with burden of disease by comparing results that were reported in 1999. This study’s results show that some conditions received an abundance of funding based on disease burden such as AIDS, diabetes mellitus, and perinatal conditions. On the other hand, Depression and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Diseases (COPD) received inadequate funding. Despite some disparities, the conclusion is that NIH’s disease-specific research funding generally correlates with U.S. disease burden. However, when comparing results from 10 years ago, the overall funding process has not improved. Diseases that were previously overfunded and underfunded largely remain the same. Further research needs to address the reason for why this trend continues. Another recommendation for future research is to help implement better NIH disease-specific accounting methods.

This research article is credible and was peer-reviewed by the journal, Public Library of Science that publishes original research from all disciplines within science and medicine. This research was conducted by a collaboration of scientists from various universities who received funding through a grant from NIH’s National Center for Research Resources (NCRR).

3. Race, Ethnicity, and NIH Research Awards Ginther, et al. “Race, Ethnicity, and NIH Research Awards,” Science 333(6045), (Aug. 19, 2011) 1015–1019.

This article explains the research efforts to determine the allocation of research funds to scientists and their race. The data indicate that Asian researchers are 4 percent less likely to obtain federal funding and African-American researches are 13 percent less likely to obtain funding for their research proposals. Even after controlling for educational background, country of origin, training, previous research awards, publication record, and employer characteristics, African-Americans were still 10 percent less likely to be awarded funds from NIH. Ginther, et al., highlight a problem in the review process that prevents equal distribution of funds. The research proposes several potential causes for these discrepancies, but does not conclude on a direct cause.

This article was recently published in the journal “Science,” which is the premier journal published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

The article calls for more research to be conducted on this issue to further understand the source of this problem and find an adequate solution to these discrepancies. Interestingly, there is no correlation between quality of proposal and research funds approval. This may be the next step in the research; to determine if Asians or African-Americans are less likely to receive high scores on their proposals.

4. American Science in Crisis: The Need to Revise the NIH Funding Policy Musacchio, Jose M. “American science in crisis: the need to revise the NIH funding policy,” The FASEB Journal 8 (July 1994): 679–683.

This article states that The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has experienced less effective funding mechanisms over the years. The problems are attributed to the small percentage of applications that can be supported by limited funds. This problem additionally affects the ability and quality of the peer-review process. Dr. Musacchio also observes that the applications that are accepted and rejected are insignificantly different.

In order to solve the crisis, the author suggests that NIH policy should regulate the amount of funding and effort required for projects.

This research was conducted by Dr. Musacchio of the Department of Pharmacology at New York Medical University Center. Dr. Musacchio is the Chairperson of the Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Neuroscience Review Committee. The article is credible and was reviewed by the journal, The Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology. The FASEB journal is recognized as the policy voice of biological and biomedical researchers.

5. NIH Peer Review of Grant Applications for Clinical Research Kotchen, Theadore; Lindquist, Teresa; Malik, Karl; Ehrenfeld, Ellie. “NIH Peer Review of Grant Applications for Clinical Research,” JAMA 291, (2004), 836–843.

In this article from JAMA (the leading peer-reviewed medical journal), the authors discuss the issue of bias in the grant-funding process. The highest priority of the NIH is to facilitate the translation of scientific discoveries to the prevention and treatment of human disease (837). However, it is a concern among many in the medical community that the peer review process discriminates against clinical research. It is possible that concerns about safety and privacy of human subjects may have contributed to the less favorable outcomes of clinical research applications. It is unclear whether this correlation has a causal relationship, but the fact remains that clinical studies are less likely to be awarded funding than laboratory research.

This is troubling for several reasons, including the fact that a bias against clinical research alienates physicians whose research and input is critical to address human disease. Laboratory research is never going to generate the same results as clinical trials. If the ultimate goal of NIH research funding is to prevent and treat human disease, then physicians and clinical research are a vital part of the equation. Any bias in the peer-review process that is not conducive to that end is problematic.

While this article addresses the important issue of keeping the peer review process unbiased and mission-driven, it is in and of itself not completely unbiased. Since it is from the JAMA, a credible source notwithstanding, it is clearly from the perspective of advocating for the physician’s perspective. More investigation of this issue would need to be conducted by other stakeholders in order to verify the concerns raised in this article.

6. Peer Review at NIH Scarpa, Tony. “Peer Review at NIH,” Science Magazine Vol. 311, (January 2006): 41.

When the NIH grants program was established 60 years ago, it processed only 800 applications. With a dramatic influx to more than 80,000 applications a year, the demand for a timely review process is critical. Each year, more than 15,000 outside experts are needed to review grant applications, many of whom spend more than a month assessing applications. In addition to the pressure of processing thousands of applications, the NIH has also experienced stagnation in funding. Previously, the NIH would have steady and generous budget increases that kept up with inflation, but this is no longer the case. Worse yet, the funding model of universities and organizations is still framed around the assumed growth of the NIH.

Recently a committee was formed to evaluate the efficiency of the grant review process of the NIH. However, the recommendations of this committee were neither progressive nor timely. This article from Science Magazine, the official publication of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, discusses the need for aggressive assessment and action to bring the peer review process up to speed. The only way the NIH can keep up with the demand of the rising disease burden and population in a climate of budget cuts is to improve the efficiency with which they process grants, without compromising quality or integrity.

7. NIH Peer Review Reform—Change We Need, or Lipstick on a Pig? Casadevall, Arturo; Fang, Ferris; “NIH Peer Review Reform—Change We Need, or Lipstick on a Pig?” Journal of Infection and Immunity 77(3), (Mar 2009): 929–932.

This article raises questions regarding the peer review process, and outlines issues that persist despite reforms. For example, the article questions the new “two strikes and you’re out” policy that rejects a third submission for a grant application that has been turned down twice before. The authors argue that science evolves and new data can shine a favorable light on a proposal that was discounted previously. History shows that grant applications approved on the third submission have a much higher success rate than proposals approved on the first or second submission.

The authors suggest another issue is that the peer review process remains “unscientific.” For example, the system is statistically weak in that there is little correlation between proposals that receive high scores through peer review and significant scientific breakthroughs. Additionally, the system is imprecise in that the scientists who make up the peer review panel, although outstanding in his/her particular field, are under-equipped to review the ever-increasing range of research proposals. Instead of evaluating a proposal for its scientific merits, they oftentimes focus on the completeness of the application. Their efforts are often biased in that they tend to favor topics that are well understood and disfavor ideas that are less conventional.

This article was published in the Journal of Infection & Immunity. The journal’s credibility is evidenced by the following: it is the number one cited journal in infectious diseases and the number three cited journal in immunology.

Future research could look to identify connections or commonalities between those research proposals that have led to significant scientific breakthroughs. This information could help the peer review process become more effective in selecting research proposals that are more likely to yield improvements to public health.

8. NIH Funding Reform Strauss, Jerome F. III, “NIH Funding Reform,” Science, New Series 309(5736), (Aug. 5, 2005):851.

This article is an editorial discussing the changes that have taken place since the doubling of the NIH budget that ended in 2003. He compared the ending of the doubling period not as a soft landing but as an uncontrolled crash. He points out that the NIH will be unable to keep up with all of the financial commitments it has made. The primary problem is that the NIH has committed funding so many existing projects that they will struggle to find funding for new research proposals. The author offers a few suggestions to help control the let down from the doubling era. One suggestion is that the NIH should stop the annual cost of living increases for research grants. Another suggestion offered was that Congress should stop burdening the NIH with mandates that are not funded. Finally he suggests that the NIH learn to push back on the special interest groups that unduly pressure the NIH without providing funding or any other contribution.

The article was published by a credible and peer-reviewed journal, Science. It came to no quantitative conclusions and followed the general sentiment of various articles published during the beginning of the century. Higher quality articles addressing NIH funding with more research and less anecdotal evidence would benefit the biomedical research field, rather than more editorials. In this article Strauss explains his opinion of the topic but makes no attempt to validate it with evidence.

9. The NIH: Organization, Funding, and Congressional Issues Johnson, Judith; Smith, Pamela. “The NIH: Organization, Funding, and Congressional Issues,” Congressional Research Service (March 16, 2011): 21–38.

This report gives an overview of NIH’s organization, how NIH’s funding is derived and distributed, and outlines Congressional issues affecting NIH’s funding policy. This review focuses on the issues. One issue is the federal government’s involvement in setting research priorities. For example, the Obama administration has set specific funding levels for specific diseases, and has proposed earmarks on two-thirds of NIH’s budget increase for research on cancer and autism. In response to high constituent interest, the House and Senate reports that accompanied the 2010 Labor-HHS appropriations bill encouraged the NIH to place emphasis on the study of gastrointestinal cancers. Also in response to constituent pressure, Congress has attempted to cancel grants for research currently in progress. They question the value of particular studies (e.g. in mental health and human sexuality) and argue that NIH’s limited funding would be better applied in other “specific” fields. These activities establish a dangerous precedent. It is certain advocates for other diseases and interests will pressure their congressional representatives for similar treatment. Instead of research being directed by an objective peer review process, growing political interference would jeopardize scientific integrity and manipulate funding for selfish, political gains.

A major issue that persists, despite reforms to the peer review process, is the imbalance of Congressional funding in light of the number of worthy research proposals. Since 2003, Congress has consistently increased NIH appropriations below the rate of inflation. These insufficient increases have strained NIH’s ability to not only fund existing budget commitments but new research as well. This has resulted in intense competition amongst scientists who, instead of doing research, spend the majority of their time writing and rewriting grant applications in hopes of being awarded NIH’s diminishing funds. Less research (because of insufficient funding and time devoted elsewhere) does not bode well for reducing the burden of diseases on the American public.

This report was produced by Judith Johnson, a Biomedical Policy Specialist, and Pamela Smith, a Biomedical Policy Analyst, of the Congressional Research Service (CRS). The CRS is a legislative branch agency that is responsible for providing policy and legal analysis that is authoritative, objective, and non-partisan. The CRS is a very credible source.

Future research could look to determine ways to mitigate the public pressure that is driving the federal government’s growing influence in setting research priorities. Two possibilities could be to increase public awareness of the benefits of an objective peer review process in allocating funds; or increase awareness of the fortuitous outcomes of research in seemingly unrelated fields. An issue that was not addressed was how to ensure that the NIH receives the optimal level of funding. Research in this area would be most beneficial.

10. Political Influence behind the Veil of Peer Review: An Analysis of Public Biomedical Research Funding in the United States Hedge, Deepak. “Political Influence behind the Veil of Peer Review: An Analysis of Public Biomedical Research Funding in the United States,” Journal of Law and Economics 52(4), (November 2009): 665–690.

This article was written to further explore the relationship between pork barrel politics and the NIH peer review process. Hedge argues that although the House Appropriations Committee has no power or right to decide who should receive the NIH grants (for primarily extramural research) they still manage to influence the process so that their constituents are more likely to receive a NIH research grants. Members of Congress do this by transferring funding to areas of the biomedical field that are most likely to arrive to researchers in their constituencies. In the final stages of budget appropriations the subcommittees of the HAC write reports recommending how the budget be spent within each IC. The reports are not lawfully binding but failure to follow the recommendations does affect the ICs likelihood of receiving their requested funding in the future.

Hedge conducted his research by reviewing peer review grants from 1984–2003 and found that researchers in the states of the members of the House Appropriations Committee received roughly 6–10% more funding than researchers in states that were not represented on the HAC. His article also discusses multiple ways in which members of the House of Representatives and the Senate on the HAC manipulate the appropriations bills to make it more likely that money will go to their constituents. This pork barrel often goes unnoticed by other members of Congress as well as the public, increasing the incentive for members of the Appropriations Committee to try and benefit their constituents in the funding allocation process. The article explains how the research was conducted and further findings.

The article was found after a broad search of the academic JSTOR article finder. Hedge’s article was selected because it was written within the last three years and was published in the Journal of Law and Economics, one of the most frequently cited journals in its field (according to JSTOR). The research methodology used is sound in its logic and interpretation. It touches on a topic that receives very little attention from researchers within and without the biomedical research community. Further research on the role that politics play in NIH funding would be highly valuable and is very much needed.

ADDITIONAL RESEARCH NEEDED: After careful analysis of the existing literature on this topic, we have concluded that more extensive research is needed to generate a complete assessment of this policy. Greater research on the role of politics in the NIH funding policy is needed. Not only does it reveal the role that pork barrel and politics play within the biomedical field. Follow-up research to confirm Hedge’s previously discussed research would shed further light on the role the House Appropriations Committee plays in grant allocation. More research similar to the work of Hedge would provide greater transparency in government as well as more equity in the NIH funding process. Further research on the role that politics play in NIH funding would also be helpful. We know the outlined process for budget approval, but no objective research exists that inspects the role partisan politics play in what diseases are funded and by how much. Trends over the past few decades show that research funding tends to be tied to disease burden, and patient advocacy groups, but to what extent lobbying takes place at the political level, we have not been able to assess.

Another area that is lacking in data and research is assessing the inefficiencies of the NIH funding model. The article from Science Magazine by Tony Scarpa did address the time-frame for processing grant applications (although no follow-up reports could be found), but no information existed that addressed the budgeting process for individual diseases at the federal level. Our assumption is that there is a correlation between political loyalties and where NIH funding is directed, but without the availability of more credible research, it is difficult to accurately assess the impact.

More peer-reviewed content from the American Medical Association regarding the impact NIH funding has on the medical profession would also be beneficial. Especially information regarding the impact NIH funding has on individual patients. If the goal of health research is to ultimately improve the health of individuals, then doctors would likely have relevant anecdotal evidence of the impact of funding. There does not seem to be any data that tracks the dollars spent by NIH down to the doctor/patient level and identifies correlations at this level. Overall, our assessment of the NIH budgeting process and funding policy requires us to make a fair amount of assumptions that would be strengthened with scholarly research on this subject.

CONCLUSION: With a growing world population, and constant strain for limited resources, effective research aimed at eliminating disease is more critical than ever. Understanding the current policy is important, and this comprehensive review of the existing literature is just the first step. Through extensive research, we were able to identify and assess a broad range of credible and scholarly works that shed light on the NIH funding policy. From the medical, government and science journals reviewed, three main themes emerged from the literature: the burden of disease, problems with the review process, and ethical issues from congressional involvement. These themes encapsulated the pertinent issues, and provided a frame for evaluating the trends and for recommending further research. While the existing literature is credible and informative, there is still a need for current literature on the intricacies of the NIH funding policy.

Economic impact[link]

In 2000, a report from a Joint Economic Committee of Congress outlined the benefits of NIH research. It noted that some econometric studies had given its research, which was funded at $16 billion a year in 2000, a rate of return of 25 to 40 percent per year. It also found that of the 21 drugs with the highest therapeutic impact on society introduced between 1965 and 1992, public funding was "instrumental" for 15.^[40]

See also[link]

• Unethical human experimentation in the United States
• Guatemala syphilis experiment
• National Institutes of Health Director's Pioneer Award
• The Proteolysis Map
• United States Public Health Service

References[link]

External links[link]

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: National Institutes of Health

• Official website
• US Scientific Grant Funding Database

v t e Agencies of the United States Department of Health and Human Services Secretary of Health and Human Services Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services Secretariate staff offices Office of the Secretary of Health and Human Services Office of the Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General Organizations under the Assistant Secretary for Health Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health Public Health Service Office of Public Health and Science Administration for Children and Families Administration on Aging Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Food and Drug Administration Health Resources and Services Administration Indian Health Service National Institutes of Health Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Public Health Service Commissioned Corps (Surgeon General) Programs National Toxicology Program

Barack Obama
44th President of the United States
Incumbent
Assumed office January 20, 2009
Vice President	Joe Biden
Preceded by	George W. Bush
Personal details
Born	Barack Hussein Obama II[1] (1961-08-04) August 4, 1961 (age 50) Honolulu, Hawaii, United States[1]
Nationality	American
Political party	Democratic
Spouse(s)	Michelle Robinson (m. 1992)
Children	Malia (b.1998) Sasha (b.2001)
Residence	The White House
Alma mater	Occidental College Columbia University (B.A.) Harvard Law School (J.D.)
Profession	Community organizer Attorney Author Constitutional law professor United States Senator President of the United States
Religion	Christian,[2] former member of United Church of Christ[3][4]
Signature
Website	WhiteHouse.gov

	This article is part of a series on Barack Obama
Background Illinois Senate US Senate Political positions Public image Family 2008 primaries Obama–Biden campaign Transition Inauguration Electoral history Presidency Timeline '09 '10 '11 '12 First 100 days Nobel Peace Prize Re-election campaign

Barack Obama being sworn in as President of the United States.

The Presidency of Barack Obama began at noon EST on January 20, 2009, when he became the 44th President of the United States. Obama was a United States Senator from Illinois at the time of his victory over Arizona Senator John McCain in the 2008 presidential election. Barack Obama is the first African-American president of the United States, as well as the first born in Hawaii.

His policy decisions have addressed a global financial crisis and have included changes in tax policies, legislation to reform the United States health care industry, foreign policy initiatives and the phasing out of detention of prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp in Cuba. He attended the G-20 London summit and later visited U.S. troops in Iraq. On the tour of various European countries following the G-20 summit, he announced in Prague that he intended to negotiate substantial reduction in the world's nuclear arsenals, en route to their eventual extinction. In October 2009, Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."

Transition period[link]

The presidential transition period began following Obama's election to the presidency on November 4, 2008. The Obama-Biden Transition Project was co-chaired by John Podesta, Valerie Jarrett, and Pete Rouse. During the transition period, Obama announced his nominations for his Cabinet and administration. Shortly after the election on November 4, Obama chose Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois as White House Chief of Staff.^[5]

Cabinet nominations included former Democratic primary opponents Hillary Rodham Clinton for Secretary of State and Bill Richardson for Secretary of Commerce (although the latter withdrew on January 4, 2009). Obama appointed Eric Holder as his Attorney General, the first African-American appointed to that position. He also nominated Timothy F. Geithner to serve as Secretary of the Treasury.^[6] On December 1, Obama announced that he had asked Robert Gates to remain as Secretary of Defense, making Gates the first Defense head to carry over from a president of a different party.^[7] He nominated former Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Susan Rice to the United States Ambassador to the United Nations, which he restored to a Cabinet-level position.^[8]

During his transition, he maintained a website Change.gov, on which he wrote blogs to readers and uploaded video addresses by many of the members of his new cabinet.^[9] He announced strict rules for federal lobbyists, restricting them from financially contributing to his administration and forcing them to stop lobbying while working for him.^[10] The website also allowed individuals to share stories and visions with each other and the transition team in what was called the Citizen's Briefing Book, which was given to Obama shortly after his inauguration.^[11] Most of the information from Change.gov was transferred to the official White House website whitehouse.gov just after Obama's inauguration.^[12]

Inauguration[link]

Barack Obama was inaugurated on January 20, 2009. He officially assumed the presidency at 12:00 noon, EST,^[13] and completed the oath of office at 12:05 PM, EST. He delivered his inaugural address immediately following his oath. After his speech, he went to the President's Room in the House Wing of the Capitol and signed three documents: a commemorative proclamation, a list of Cabinet appointments, and a list of sub-Cabinet appointments, before attending a luncheon with congressional and administration leaders and invited guests.^[14] To commemorate the 200th anniversary of the birth of former President Abraham Lincoln, the same Bible that was used for Lincoln's inauguration was used in Obama's inauguration.^[15]

In administering the oath, Chief Justice John G. Roberts misplaced the word "faithfully" and erroneously replaced the phrase "President of the United States" with "President to the United States" before restating the phrase correctly; since Obama initially repeated the incorrect form, some scholars argued the President should take the oath again.^[16] On January 21, Roberts readministered the oath to Obama in a private ceremony in the White House Map Room, making him the seventh U.S. president to retake the oath; White House Counsel Greg Craig said Obama took the oath from Roberts a second time out of an "abundance of caution".^[17]

First 100 days[link]

Expectations[link]

Obama's 100th day in office was April 29, 2009. In his first post-election interview with 60 Minutes, Obama said that he has been studying Franklin Roosevelt's first 100 days,^[18] while adding, "The first hundred days is going to be important, but it's probably going to be the first thousand days that makes the difference."^[19]

Obama's first 100 days were highly anticipated ever since he became the presumptive nominee.^[20] Several news outlets created web pages dedicated to covering the subject.^[21] Commentators weighed in on challenges and priorities within domestic, foreign, economic, and environmental policy.^{[22][23][24][25]} CNN lists a number of economic issues that "Obama and his team will have to tackle in their first 100 days", foremost among which is passing and implementing a recovery package to deal with the financial crisis.^[24] Clive Stafford Smith, a British human rights lawyer, expressed hopes that the new president will close Guantanamo Bay detention camp in his first 100 days in office.^[23] After aides of the president announced his intention to give a major foreign policy speech in the capital of an Islamic country, there were speculations in Jakarta that he might return to his former home city within the first 100 days.^[26]

The New York Times devoted a five-part series, which was spread out over two weeks, to anticipatory analysis of Obama's first hundred days. Each day, the analysis of a political expert was followed by freely edited blog postings from readers. The writers compared Obama's prospects with the situations of Franklin D. Roosevelt (January 16, Jean Edward Smith),^[27] John F. Kennedy (January 19, Richard Reeves),^[28] Lyndon B. Johnson (January 23, Robert Dallek),^[29] Ronald Reagan (January 27, Lou Cannon),^[30] and Richard Nixon.

Legislation and executive orders[link]

Within minutes of taking the Oath of Office on January 20, Obama's Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, issued an order suspending last-minute federal regulations pushed through by outgoing President George W. Bush, planning to review everything still pending.^[31] Due to the economic crisis, the President enacted a pay freeze for Senior White House Staff making more than $100,000 per year,^[32] as well as announcing stricter guidelines regarding lobbyists in an effort to raise the ethical standards of the White House.^[33] He asked for a waiver to his own new rules, however, for the appointments of William Lynn to the position of Deputy Defense Secretary, Jocelyn Frye to the position of director of policy and projects in the Office of the First Lady, and Cecilia Muñoz to the position of director of intergovernmental affairs in the executive office of the president, leading to some criticism of hypocrisy and violation of his pledge for governmental openness.^[34][35]

In his first week in office, Obama signed Executive Order 13492 suspending all the ongoing proceedings of Guantanamo military commission and ordering the detention facility to be shut down within the year.^[36][37][38] He also signed Executive Order 13491 - Ensuring Lawful Interrogations requiring the Army Field Manual to be used as a guide for terror interrogations, banning torture and other coercive techniques, such as waterboarding.^[39] Obama also issued an executive order entitled "Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Personnel", setting stricter limitations on incoming executive branch employees and placing tighter restrictions on lobbying in the White House.^[40] Obama signed two Presidential Memoranda concerning energy independence, ordering the Department of Transportation to establish higher fuel efficiency standards before 2011 models are released and allowing states to raise their emissions standards above the national standard.^[41] He also ended the Mexico City Policy, which banned federal grants to international groups that provide abortion services or counseling.^[42][43]

In his first week he also established a policy of producing a weekly Saturday morning video address available on whitehouse.gov and YouTube,^[44][45][46] much like those released during his transition period.^[47][48] The first address had been viewed by 600,000 YouTube viewers by the next afternoon.^[49]

The first piece of legislation Obama signed was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 on January 29, which revised the statute of limitations for filing pay discrimination lawsuits. Lilly Ledbetter joined Obama and his wife, Michelle, as he signed the bill, fulfilling his campaign pledge to nullify Ledbetter v. Goodyear.^[50] On February 3, he signed the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act (CHIP), expanding health care from 7 million children under the plan to 11 million.^[51]

President Obama signs the ARRA into law on February 17, 2009 in Denver, Colorado. Vice President Joe Biden stands behind him. Obama addresses a joint session of Congress, with Vice President Joe Biden and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.	Address Before a Joint Session of Congress (February 24, 2009) The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was a focal point of Barack Obama's February 24, 2009 Address Before a Joint Session of Congress. Address Before a Joint Session of Congress (February 24, 2009) (audio) Audio-only version
Problems listening to these files? See media help.

After much debate, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) was passed by both the House and Senate on February 13, 2009. Originally intended to be a bipartisan bill, the passage of the bill was largely along party lines. No Republicans voted for it in the House, and three moderate Republicans voted for it in the Senate (Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania).^[52] The bill combined tax breaks with spending on infrastructure projects, extension of welfare benefits, and education.^[53][54] The final cost of the bill was $787 billion, and almost $1.2 trillion with debt service included.^[55] Obama signed the Act into law on February 17, 2009, in Denver, Colorado.^[56]

On March 9, 2009, Obama lifted restrictions on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research,^[57] and in doing so, called into question some of George W. Bush's signing statements. Obama stated that he too would employ signing statements if he deems upon review that a portion of a bill is unconstitutional,^[58][59] and he has issued several signing statements.^[60]

Early in his presidency, Obama signed a law raising the tobacco tax 62 cents on a pack of cigarettes.^[61] The tax is to be "used to finance a major expansion of health insurance for children", and "help some [smokers] to quit and persuade young people not to start".^[61]

In October 2011, Obama instituted the We Can't Wait program, which involved using executive orders, administrative rulemaking, and recess appointments to institute policies without the support of Congress.^[62] The initiative was developed in response to Congress's unwillingness to pass economic legislation proposed by Obama, and conflicts in Congress during the 2011 debt ceiling crisis.^[63]

Approval ratings and opinion[link]

2009[link]

After his transition period, Obama entered office with an approval rating of 82%.^[64] At the end of his first week, 68% of respondents in a Gallup poll approved of how Obama was handling his job, the second highest approval rating for a President shortly after being elected since World War II.^[65] Throughout early February polls showed scattered approval ratings: 62% (CBS News),^[66] 64% (USA Today/Gallup), 66% (Gallup), and 76% in an outlier poll (CNN/Opinion Research).^[67][68] Gallup reported the congressional address in late February boosted his approval from a term-low of 59% to 67%.^[69]

Throughout autumn 2009, Rasmussen estimated Obama's approval as fluctuating between 45% and 52% and his disapproval between 48% and 54%;^[70] as of November 11, Pew Research estimated Obama's approval between 51% and 55% and his disapproval between 33% and 37% since July.^[71]

Handling of the economy[link]

Rasmussen reported in mid-February 2009, that 55% of voters gave Obama good or excellent marks on his handling of the economy.^[72] In early March, a The Wall Street Journal survey of 49 economists gave Obama an average grade of 59 out of 100, with 42% of the respondents surveyed giving the administration's economic policies a grade below 60 percent. In comparison, only 30% of those same economists considered the response of governments around the world to the global recession to have been adequate.^[73] In April, a Gallup poll showed trust in Obama's economic policy with 71% saying they had "a fair amount" or "a great deal" of confidence in Obama's handling of the economy, higher than for Ben Bernanke, Tim Geithner, or leaders of Congress.^[74] Another Gallup poll in June showed 55% of Americans approved Obama's overall handling of the economy, but 48% and 51% disapproved of his handling of the federal budget deficit and controlling federal spending, respectively.^[75] A CBS News poll taken August 27–31 showed 53% of those polled approved of his handling of the economy.^[76] A Rasmussen poll taken on November 12 found 45% of Americans rating Obama's handling of the economy as poor and 39% rating him as doing a good or excellent job. They found 72% of Democrats rated his handling of the economy as good or excellent, while only 10% of Republicans and 27% of voters not affiliated with either party agreed.^[77]

2010[link]

On March 25, 2010, following his signing of landmark health care reform legislation into law, Obama's polling was revealed by Bloomberg to be 50%, with higher marks for relations with other countries (58%) and his running of the war in Afghanistan (54%). "Obama's approval rating is roughly equal to what Bill Clinton had at this point in his presidency, according to data maintained by Gallup (and) higher than the 45 percent Ronald Reagan recorded in April 1982" and more favorable than Democrats or Republicans office in 2010. They found Obama's approval rating was at 85% among Democrats, compared with 46% among independents and 11% among Republicans.^[78]

Fox News released the results of two polls on April 8–9, 2010. The first showed a drop in Obama's approval rating to 43%, with 48% disapproving. In that poll, Democrats approved of Obama's performance 80–12%, while independents disapproved 49–38%.^[79] The other poll, which concentrated on the economy, showed disapproval of Obama's handling of the economy by a 53–42% margin, with 62% saying they were dissatisfied with the handling of the federal deficit.^[80] According to a Gallup Poll released April 10, 2010, President Obama had a 45% approval rating, with 48% disapproving.^[81] In a poll from Rasmussen Reports, released April 10, 2010, 47% approved of the President's performance, while 53% disapproved.^[82][83]

2011[link]

Obama's approval rating jumped to a high following the death of Osama Bin Laden on May 2, 2011. A GfK poll conducted May 5, 2011 found his approval rating to be 60%. During the debt ceiling debate in August 2011, Obama's approval rating dropped to the low-40s.^[84]

This section requires expansion.

Major legislation[link]

2009[link]

• January 29: Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act
• February 4: Children's Health Insurance Reauthorization Act
• February 11: DTV Delay Act
• February 17: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
• March 30: Omnibus Public Lands Management Act of 2009
• April 21: Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act
• May 20: Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act
• May 20: Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009
• May 22: Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure Act of 2009
• June 22: Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act
• August 6: Cash For Clunkers Extension Act
• October 22: Veterans Health Care Budget Reform and Transparency Act
• October 28: Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act
• October 30: Ryan White HIV/AIDS Treatment Extension Act
• November 6: Worker, Homeownership, and Business Assistance Act of 2009

2010[link]

• January 27: Emergency Aid to American Survivors of Haiti Earthquake Act
• March 4: Travel Promotion Act
• March 18: Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act (HIRE Act)
• March 23: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
• March 30: Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010
• May 5: Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2010
• May 17: Daniel Pearl Freedom of the Press Act
• July 1: Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act
• July 21: Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
• July 22: Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2010
• July 22: Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act of 2010
• August 10: SPEECH Act
• September 27: Small Business Jobs and Credit Act of 2010
• December 9: Animal Crush Video Prohibition Act of 2010
• December 13: Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010
• December 17: Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010
• December 22: Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010

2011[link]

• January 2: James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010 (H.R. 847)
• January 4: Food Safety and Modernization Act, Pub.L. 111-353, H.R. 2751
• August 2: Budget Control Act of 2011
• October 21: United States-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implemention Act
• October 21: United States-Panama Free Trade Agreement Implemention Act
• October 21: United States-South Korea Free Trade Agreement Implemention Act

Personnel[link]

Cabinet appointees[link]

The Obama Cabinet
Office	Name	Term
President	Barack Obama	2009–present
Vice President	Joe Biden	2009–present
Secretary of State	Hillary Clinton	2009–present
Secretary of Treasury	Timothy Geithner	2009–present
Secretary of Defense	Robert Gates*	2006–2011
	Leon Panetta	2011–present
Attorney General	Eric Holder	2009–present
Secretary of the Interior	Ken Salazar	2009–present
Secretary of Agriculture	Tom Vilsack	2009–present
Secretary of Commerce	Gary Locke	2009–2011
	John Bryson	2011–present
Secretary of Labor	Hilda Solis	2009–present
Secretary of Health and Human Services	Kathleen Sebelius	2009–present
Secretary of Education	Arne Duncan	2009–present
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development	Shaun Donovan	2009–present
Secretary of Transportation	Ray LaHood	2009–present
Secretary of Energy	Steven Chu	2009–present
Secretary of Veterans Affairs	Eric Shinseki	2009–present
Secretary of Homeland Security	Janet Napolitano	2009–present
Chief of Staff	Rahm Emanuel	2009–2010
	William Daley	2011–2012
	Jacob Lew	2012–present
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency	Lisa Jackson	2009–present
Director of the Office of Management and Budget	Peter Orszag	2009–2010
	Jacob Lew	2010–2012
	Jeffrey Zients**	2012–present
Ambassador to the United Nations	Susan Rice	2009–present
United States Trade Representative	Ron Kirk	2009–present
*Retained from previous administration **Acting

Twenty-two members of the Obama administration are either in the United States Cabinet (15) or are in positions considered to be Cabinet-level (7). The members of the Cabinet are the heads of the fifteen major departments (State, Defense, Justice, etc.), and the seven cabinet-level positions are the Vice President, White House Chief of Staff, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, U.S. Trade Representative, Ambassador to the United Nations, and the Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers.^[85][86] Since Robert Gates was a member of the previous administration, his letter of resignation (a formality at the end of a President's term) was simply not accepted, and he did not need confirmation.^[87] On January 19, 2009, Senate Democratic leaders requested fifteen of the twenty positions to be ratified by unanimous consent,^[88] and seven gained unanimous confirmation by voice vote the next day: Ken Salazar, Steven Chu, Arne Duncan, Peter Orszag, Eric Shinseki, Tom Vilsack, and Janet Napolitano.^[87][89] On January 21, Obama presided over the swearing in of the seven unanimous nominees.^[90] Later that day, the Senate confirmed Hillary Clinton by a 94–2 vote. On January 22, several more confirmations were approved unanimously: Susan E. Rice, Ray LaHood, Lisa P. Jackson, and Shaun Donovan.^[91] On January 26, the Senate confirmed Geithner by a 60–34 margin.^[92][93]

At the conclusion of Obama's first week as President, Hilda Solis, Tom Daschle, Ron Kirk, and Eric Holder had yet to be confirmed, and there had been no second appointment for Secretary of Commerce.^[93] Holder was confirmed by a vote of 75–21 on February 2,^[94] and on February 3, Obama announced Senator Judd Gregg as his second nomination for Secretary of Commerce.^[95] Daschle withdrew later that day amid controversy over his failure to pay income taxes and potential conflicts of interest related to the speaking fees he accepted from health care interests.^[96] Solis was later confirmed by a vote of 80-17 on February 24,^[97] and Ron Kirk was confirmed on March 18 by a 92-5 vote in the Senate.^[98]

Gregg, who was the leading Republican negotiator and author of the TARP program in the Senate, after publication that he had a multi-million dollar investment in the Bank of America, on February 12, withdrew his nomination as Secretary of Commerce, citing "irresolvable conflicts" with President Obama and his staff over how to conduct the 2010 census and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.^[99][100] Former Washington governor Gary Locke was nominated on February 26^[101] as Obama's third choice for Commerce Secretary and confirmed on March 24 by voice vote.^[102]

On March 2, Obama introduced Kansas governor Kathleen Sebelius as his second choice for Secretary of Health and Human Services. He also introduced Nancy-Ann DeParle as head of the new White House Office of Health Reform, which he suggested would work closely with the Department of Health and Human Services.^[103][104] At the end of March, Sebelius was the only remaining Cabinet member yet to be confirmed.^[102]

Six high-ranking cabinet nominees in the Obama administration had their confirmations delayed or rejected among reports that they did not pay all of their taxes, including Tom Daschle, Obama's original nominee for Health and Human Services Secretary, and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.^[105] Though Geithner was confirmed, and Senator Max Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, thought Daschle would have been confirmed, Daschle withdrew his nomination on February 3.^[96] Obama had nominated Nancy Killefer for the position of Chief Performance Officer, but Killefer also withdrew on February 3, citing unspecified problems with District of Columbia unemployment tax.^[106] A senior administration official said that Killefer's tax issues dealt with household help.^[106] Hilda Solis, Obama's nominee for Secretary of Labor, faced delayed confirmation hearings due to tax lien concerns pertaining to her husband's auto repair business,^[107] but she was later confirmed on February 24.^[97] While pundits puzzled over U.S. Trade Representative-designate Ron Kirk's failure to be confirmed by March 2009, it was reported on March 2 that Kirk owed over $10,000 in back taxes. Kirk agreed to pay them in exchange for Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus's aid in speeding up the confirmation process;^[108] he was later confirmed on March 18.^[98] On March 31, Kathleen Sebelius, Obama's nominee for Health and Human Services secretary, revealed in a letter to the Senate Finance Committee that her Certified Public Accountant found errors in her tax returns for years 2005-2007. She, along with her husband, paid more than $7,000 in back taxes, along with $878 in interest.^[109]

Notable non-Cabinet positions[link]

Appointees serve at the pleasure of the President and were nominated by Barack Obama except as noted.

• Chair of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
  • Sheila Bair¹ (2009–2011)
• Special envoy for Afghanistan and Pakistan
  • Richard Holbrooke (2009–2010)
  • Marc Grossman (2011–present)
• Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs
  • Retired General James L. Jones (2009–2011)
  • Thomas E. Donilon (2011–present)
• Special envoy to the Middle East
  • George J. Mitchell (2009–2011)
  • David Hale (2011–present)
• Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
  • Robert Mueller² (2009–present)
• Director of the Central Intelligence Agency
  • Leon Panetta (2009–2011)
  • Michael Morell (Acting-2011)
  • David Petraeus (2011–present)
• Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers
  • Christina Romer (2009–2010)
  • Austan Goolsbee (2010–2011)
  • Alan Krueger (2011–present)
• Chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission
  • Mary Schapiro (2009–present)
• Assistant to the President for Economic Policy and Director of National Economic Council
  • Lawrence Summers (2009–2010)
  • Gene Sperling (2011–present)
• Chairman of the Economic Recovery Advisory Board
  • Paul Volcker (2009–2011)
  • Replaced by Council on Jobs and Competitiveness in 2011
• Chairperson of the Council on Jobs and Competitiveness
  • Jeffrey R. Immelt (2011–present)

¹Appointed by George W. Bush in 2006 to a five-year term
²Appointed by George W. Bush in 2001 to a ten-year term

Judicial nominees[link]

United States Supreme Court[link]

Obama appointed the following Justices to the Supreme Court of the United States:

• Sonia Sotomayor – 2009
• Elena Kagan – 2010

Other courts[link]

Outside of the Supreme Court, by October 2009, Obama had nominated fewer than two dozen judges to fill judicial vacancies, of which there were close to 100. This has prompted some Democrats to criticize the pace of Obama's judicial appointments as too slow.^[110] In December 2009, Senator Patrick Leahy criticized Republicans for stalling those judicial nominations that had been made, noting that the Senate confirmed more district and circuit court nominees during the first year of the George W. Bush administration than it had approved by that point during the Barack Obama presidency.^[111]

As of July 2010, Obama's nominees to the district and circuit courts had been confirmed at a rate of only 43.5 percent, compared to 87.2 percent during Bill Clinton's administration and 91.3 percent for George W. Bush. The Center for American Progress, which compiled the data, commented:

Judicial confirmations slowed to a trickle on the day President Barack Obama took office. Filibusters, anonymous holds, and other obstructionary tactics have become the rule. Uncontroversial nominees wait months for a floor vote, and even district court nominees—low-ranking judges whose confirmations have never been controversial in the past—are routinely filibustered into oblivion. Nominations grind to a halt in many cases even after the Senate Judiciary Committee has unanimously endorsed a nominee. ^[112]

Policies[link]

Economy[link]

Upon entering office, Obama planned to center his attention on handling the global financial crisis.^[113] Even before his inauguration he lobbied Congress to pass an economic stimulus bill,^[114] which became the top priority during his first month in office.^[115] As President, Obama made a high profile trip to Capitol Hill, Washington, D.C. to dialog with Congressional Republicans and advocate for the bill.^[116] On February 17, 2009, Obama signed into law a $787 billion plan that included spending for health care, infrastructure, education, various tax breaks and incentives, and direct assistance to individuals.^[117] The tax provisions of the law reduced taxes for 98 percent of taxpayers, bringing tax rates to their lowest levels in 60 years.^[118]

As part of the 2010 budget proposal, the Obama administration has proposed additional measures to attempt to stabilize the economy, including a $2–3 trillion measure aimed at stabilizing the financial system and freeing up credit. The program includes up to $1 trillion to buy toxic bank assets, an additional $1 trillion to expand a federal consumer loan program, and the $350 billion left in the Troubled Assets Relief Program. The plan also includes $50 billion intended to slow the wave of mortgage foreclosures.^[117] The 2011 budget includes a three-year freeze on discretionary spending, proposes several program cancellations, and raises taxes on high income earners to bring down deficits during the economic recovery.^[119]

Obama speaking with former President Bill Clinton and Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett about job creation in July 2010.

In a July 2009 interview with ABC News, Biden was asked about the sustained increase of the U.S. unemployment rate from May 2007 to October 2009^[120] despite the administration's multi-year economic stimulus package passed five months earlier. He responded "The truth is, we and everyone else, misread the economy. The figures we worked off of in January were the consensus figures and most of the blue chip indexes out there ... the truth is, there was a misreading of just how bad an economy we inherited."^[121][122] The White House indicates that 2 million jobs were created or saved due to the stimulus package in 2009^[123] and self reporting by recipients of the grants, loans, and contracts portion of the package report that the package saved or created 608,317 jobs in the final three months of 2009.^[124]

The unemployment rate rose in 2009, reaching a peak in October at 10.1% and averaging 10.0% in the fourth quarter.^[125] Following a decrease to 9.7% in the first quarter of 2010, the unemployment rate fell to 9.6% in the second quarter, where it remained for the rest of the year.^[125] Between February and December 2010, employment rose by 0.8%, which was less than the average of 1.9% experienced during comparable periods in the past four employment recoveries.^[126] GDP growth returned in the third quarter of 2009, expanding at a 1.6% pace, followed by a 5.0% increase in the fourth quarter.^[127] Growth continued in 2010, posting an increase of 3.7% in the first quarter, with lesser gains throughout the rest of the year.^[127] Overall, the economy expanded at a rate of 2.9% in 2010.^[128]

During November–December 2010, Obama and a lame duck session of the 111th Congress focused on a dispute about the temporary Bush tax cuts, which were due to expire at the end of the year. Obama wanted to extend the tax cuts for taxpayers making less than $250,000 a year. Congressional Republicans agreed but also wanted to extend the tax cuts for those making over that amount, and refused to support any bill that did not do so.^[129] All the Republicans in the Senate also joined in saying that, until the tax dispute was resolved, they would filibuster to prevent consideration of any other legislation, except for bills to fund the U.S. government.^[130][131] On 7 December, Obama strongly defended a compromise agreement he had reached with the Republican congressional leadership that included a two-year extension of all the tax cuts, a 13-month extension of unemployment insurance, a one-year reduction in the FICA payroll tax, and other measures.^[132] On December 10, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) led a filibuster against the compromise tax proposal, which lasted over eight hours.^[133] Obama persuaded many wary Democrats to support the bill,^[134] but not all; of the 148 votes against the bill in the House, 112 were cast by Democrats and only 36 by Republicans.^[135] The $858 billion Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010, which The Washington Post called "the most significant tax bill in nearly a decade",^[136] passed with bipartisan majorities in both houses of Congress and was signed into law by Obama on December 17, 2010.^[134]

Ethics[link]

Lobbying reform[link]

Early in his presidential campaign, Obama stated that "they [lobbyists] won't find a job in my White House", but softened his stance later in the campaign.^[137] On January 21, 2009, Obama issued an executive order for all future appointees to his administration, which stated, no appointee who was a registered lobbyist within the two years before his appointment could participate on matters in which he lobbied for a period of two years after the date of appointment.^[40] Three formal waivers were initially issued in early 2009, out of 800 executive appointments:^[138][139] to William J. Lynn III, a lobbyist for Raytheon, to hold the position of Deputy Secretary of Defense;^[34] to Jocelyn Frye, former general counsel at the National Partnership for Women and Families, to serve as Director of Policy and Projects in the Office of the First Lady; and to Cecilia Muñoz, former senior vice president for the National Council of La Raza,^[138] to serve as Director of Intergovernmental Affairs in the Executive Office of the President.^[139] As of March 21, 2009, at least thirty officials appointed by Obama had been lobbyists in the past five years.^[137] Ten additional waivers were announced in September 2009.^[140]

Not all recent former lobbyists require waivers; those without waivers write letters of recusal stating issues from which they must refrain because of their previous jobs.^[138] USA Today reported that 21 members of the Obama administration have at some time been registered as federal lobbyists, although most have not within the previous two years.^[141] Lobbyists in the administration include William Corr, an anti-tobacco lobbyist, as Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services^[142] and Tom Vilsack, who lobbied in 2007, for a national teachers union, as Secretary of Agriculture.^[141] Also, the Secretary of Labor nominee, Hilda Solis, formerly served as a board member of American Rights at Work, which lobbied Congress on two bills Solis co-sponsored,^[143] and Mark Patterson, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's chief of staff, is a former lobbyist for Goldman Sachs.^[141]

The Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington have criticized the administration, claiming that Obama is retreating from his own ethics rules barring lobbyists from working on the issues about which they lobbied during the previous two years by issuing waivers. According to Melanie Sloan, the group's executive director, "It makes it appear that they are saying one thing and doing another."^[141]

Transparency[link]

Obama presents his first weekly address as President of the United States, discussing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

The Obama administration has said that all executive orders, non-emergency legislation, and proclamations will be posted to the official White House website, whitehouse.gov, allowing the public to review and comment for five days before the President signs the legislation.^[144] The pledge was twice broken during Obama's first month in office when he signed SCHIP legislation and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act with less than the full five days of "sunlight before signing". The administration has said that they are still "working through implementation procedures and some initial issues with the congressional calendar".^[145][146]

During his first week in office, Obama announced plans to post a video address each week on the site,^[44] and on YouTube,^[45] informing the public of government actions each week. During his speech at the 2008 Democratic National Convention, Obama stated, "I will also go through the federal budget, line by line, eliminating programs that no longer work and making the ones we do need work better and cost less - because we cannot meet twenty-first century challenges with a twentieth century bureaucracy."^[147]

On January 21, 2009, by executive order, Obama revoked Executive Order 13233, which had limited access to the records of former United States Presidents.^[148] Obama issued instructions to all agencies and departments in his administration to "adopt a presumption in favor" of Freedom of Information Act requests.^[149] In April 2009, the United States Department of Justice released four legal memos from the Bush administration to comply voluntarily with a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union.^[150] The memos were written by John Yoo^[151] and signed by Jay Bybee and Steven Bradbury, then Principal Assistant Attorneys General to the Department of Justice, and addressed to John A. Rizzo, general counsel of the Central Intelligence Agency.^[152] The memos describe in detail controversial interrogation methods the CIA used on prisoners suspected of terrorism.^[153][154] Obama became personally involved in the decision to release the memos, which was opposed by former CIA directors Michael Hayden, Porter Goss, George Tenet and John Deutch.^[152] Former Vice President Dick Cheney criticized Obama for not releasing more memos; Cheney claimed that unreleased memos detail successes of CIA interrogations.^[155]

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act requires all recipients of the funds provided by the act to publish a plan for using the funds, along with purpose, cost, rationale, net job creation, and contact information about the plan to a website Recovery.gov so that the public can review and comment. Inspectors General from each department or executive agency will then review, as appropriate, any concerns raised by the public. Any findings of an Inspector General must be relayed immediately to the head of each department and published on Recovery.gov.^[156]

On June 16, 2009, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed a lawsuit against the Obama administration in order to get information about the visits of coal company executives. Anne Weismann, the chief counsel for CREW, stated "The Obama administration has now taken exactly the same position as the Bush administration... I don't see how you can keep people from knowing who visits the White House and adhere to a policy of openness and transparency." On June 16, MSNBC reported that its more comprehensive request for visitor logs since Obama's January 20 inauguration had been denied.^[157] The administration announced that White House visitor logs will be made available to the public on an ongoing basis, with certain limitations, for visits occurring after September 15, 2009.^[158] Beginning on January 29, 2010, the White House did begin to release the names of its visitor records.^[159] Since that time, names of visitors (which includes not only tourists, but also names of union leaders, Wall Street executives, lobbyists, party chairs, philanthropists and celebrities), have been released. The names are released in huge batches up to 75,000 names at a time.^[160] Names are released 90–120 days after having visited the White House. The complete list of names is available online by accessing the official White House website.^[161]

Obama stated during the 2008 Presidential campaign that he would have negotiations for health care reform televised on C-SPAN, citing transparency as being the leverage needed to ensure that people stay involved in the process taking place in Washington. This did not fully happen and Politifact gives President Obama a "Promise Broken" rating on this issue.^[162] After White House press secretary Robert Gibbs initially avoided addressing the issue,^[163] President Obama himself acknowledged that he met with Democratic leaders behind closed doors to discuss how best to garner enough votes in order to merge the two (House and Senate) passed versions of the health care bill. Doing this violated the letter of the pledge, although Obama maintains that negotiations in several congressional committees were open, televised hearings. Obama also cited an independent ethics watchdog group describe his administration as the most transparent in recent history.^[164]

The Obama administration has been characterized^[165] as much more aggressive than the Bush and other previous administrations in their response to whistleblowing and leaks to the press. Three people have been prosecuted under the rarely used Espionage Act of 1917. They include Thomas Andrews Drake, a former National Security Agency (NSA) employee who was critical of the NSA's Trailblazer Project,^{[166][167][168]} Stephen Jin-Woo Kim, a State Department contractor who allegedly had a conversation about North Korea with James Rosen of Fox News,^[169][170] and Jeffrey Sterling, who allegedly was a source for James Risen's book State of War. Risen has also been subpoenaed to reveal his sources, another rare action by the government.^[171]

Foreign policy[link]

The first meeting between Dmitry Medvedev and Barack Obama before the G20 summit in London on April 1, 2009.

In his inaugural address, Obama suggested that he plans to begin the process of withdrawing from Iraq and continuing to focus on the war in Afghanistan. He also mentioned lessening the nuclear threat through "working tirelessly with old friends and former foes". He spoke about America's determination to combat terrorism, proclaiming America's spirit is "stronger and cannot be broken — you cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you." To the Muslim world, Obama extended an invite to "a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect". He also said the USA would "extend a hand" to those "who cling to power through corruption and deceit" if they "are willing to unclench" their fists.^[172] Shortly after his inauguration President Obama first called President Abbas of the Palestinian National Authority (PNA). Calls were also made to President Mubarak of Egypt, Prime Minister Olmert of Israel and King Abdullah of Jordan.^[173] Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton named George Mitchell as Special Envoy for Middle East peace and Richard Holbrooke as special representative to Pakistan and Afghanistan on January 23, 2009.^[174] At the same time, Obama called on Israel to open the borders of Gaza, detailing early plans on his administration's peace plans for the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.^[175]

President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama are welcomed by Queen Elizabeth II to Buckingham Palace in London, April 1, 2009.

On February 18, 2009, Obama announced that the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan would be bolstered by 17,000 new troops by summer.^[176] The announcement followed the recommendation of several experts including Defense Secretary Robert Gates that additional troops be deployed to the war-torn nation.^[177][178]

Obama declared his plan for ending the Iraq War on February 27, 2009, in a speech at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, before an audience of Marines stationed there. According to the president, combat troops will be withdrawn from Iraq by August 2010, leaving a contingent of up to 50,000 servicemen and servicewomen to continue training, advisory, and counterterrorism operations until as late as the end of 2011.^[179][180]

Other characteristics of the Obama administration on foreign policy include a tough stance on tax havens,^[181] continuing military operation in Pakistan,^[182] and avowed focus on diplomacy to prevent nuclear proliferation in Iran^[183] and North Korea.^[184]

On April 1, 2009, Obama and China's President, Hu Jintao, announced the establishment of the U.S.-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue and agreed to work together to build a positive, cooperative, and comprehensive U.S.-China relationship for the 21st century.^[185]

In that same month, Obama requested that Congress approve $83.4 billion of supplemental military funding, mostly for the war in Iraq and to increase troop levels in Afghanistan. The request also includes $2.2 billion to increase the size of the US military, $350 million to upgrade security along the US-Mexico border, and $400 million in counterinsurgency aid for Pakistan.^[186]

In May 2009, it was reported that Obama plans to expand the military by 20,000 employees.^[187]

On June 4, 2009, Obama delivered a speech at Cairo University in Egypt.^[188] The wide ranging speech called for a "new beginning" in relations between the Islamic world and the United States.^[189][190] The speech received both praise and criticism from leaders in the region.^{[191][192][193][194][195]} In March 2010, Secretary of State Clinton criticized the Israeli government for approving expansion of settlements in East Jerusalem.^[196]

On April 8, 2010, Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev signed the latest Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), a "major" nuclear arms control agreement that reduces the nuclear weapons stockpiles of both countries.^[197]

In March 2011, international reaction to Muammar Gaddafi's military crackdown on rebel forces and civilians in Libya culminated in a United Nations resolution to enforce a no fly zone in Libya. Obama authorized U.S. forces to participate in international air attacks on Libyan air defenses using Tomahawk cruise missiles to establish the protective zone.^[198]

Guantánamo Bay detention camp[link]

On his first day in office, Obama requested a 120-day suspension of all trials for alleged terrorists held at the Guantánamo Bay detention camp, so the new administration could "review the military commissions process, generally, and the cases pending before military commissions as of 2011^[update], specifically".^[199] Another order established a task force to lead a review of detention policies, procedures and individual cases. Obama addressed the State Department that "the United States will not torture" and drafted an executive order to close Guantánamo within a year.^[200] On January 22, 2009, Obama signed an executive order ensuring safe, lawful, and humane treatment of individuals detained in armed conflicts. This order restricts interrogators to methods listed and authorized by an Army Field Manual.^[201] A detainee released since Obama took office claimed in an interview with Agence France-Presse that conditions at Guantánamo had worsened, stating guards wanted to "take their last revenge" before the facility is closed.^[202] On March 13, 2009, the administration announced that it would no longer refer to prisoners at Guantánamo Bay as enemy combatants, but it also asserted that the president has the authority to detain terrorism suspects there without criminal charges.^[203]

The case review of detainee files by administration officials and prosecutors was made more difficult than expected as the Bush administration had failed to establish a coherent repository of the evidence and intelligence on each prisoner. By September 2009, prosecutors recommended to the Justice Department which detainees are eligible for trial, and the Justice Department and the Pentagon worked together to determine which of several now-scheduled trials will go forward in military tribunals and which in civilian courts. While 216 international terrorists are already held in maximum security prisons in the U.S., Congress was denying the administration funds to shut down the camp and adapt existing facilities elsewhere, arguing that the decision was "too dangerous to rush".^[204] In November, Obama stated that the U.S. would miss the January 2010 date for closing the Guantánamo Bay prison as he had ordered, acknowledging that he "knew this was going to be hard". Obama did not set a specific new deadline for closing the camp, citing that the delay was due to politics and lack of congressional cooperation.^[205] The state of Illinois has offered to sell to the federal government the Thomson Correctional Center, a new but largely unused prison, for the purpose of housing detainees. Federal officials testified at a December 23 hearing that if the state commission approves the sale for that purpose, it could take more than six months to ready the facility.^[206]

Killing of Osama bin Laden[link]

	President Obama on Osama bin Laden's Death President Obama's address (Full Text)  President Obama on Osama bin Laden's Death audio only version
Problems listening to these files? See media help.

Obama, sitting next to Biden, with the U.S. national security team gathered in the Situation Room to monitor the progress of Operation Neptune Spear.

Wikisource has original text related to this article: Remarks by the President on Osama Bin Laden

Starting with information received in July 2010, intelligence developed by the CIA over the next several months determined what they believed to be the location of Osama bin Laden in a large compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, a suburban area 35 miles from Islamabad.^[207] CIA head Leon Panetta reported this intelligence to Obama in March 2011.^[207] Meeting with his national security advisers over the course of the next six weeks, Obama rejected a plan to bomb the compound, and authorized a "surgical raid" to be conducted by United States Navy SEALs.^[207] The operation took place on May 1, 2011, resulting in the death of bin Laden and the seizure of papers and computer drives and disks from the compound.^[208][209] Bin Laden's body was identified through DNA testing,^[210] and buried at sea several hours later.^[211] Within minutes of Obama's announcement from Washington, DC, late in the evening on May 1, there were spontaneous celebrations around the country as crowds gathered outside the White House, and at New York City's Ground Zero and Times Square.^[208][212] Reaction to the announcement was positive across party lines, including from predecessors George W. Bush and Bill Clinton,^[213] and from many countries around the world.^[214]

Overseas Contingency Operation[link]

Obama discontinued use of the term "War on Terror" and instead uses the term "Overseas Contingency Operation". However, Obama has stated that the U.S. is at war with Al-Qaeda, saying "Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred."^[215]

In April 2010, the Obama administration authorized the targeted killing of the radical Muslim cleric and American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki, who was believed to have shifted from encouraging attacks on the United States to directly participating in them.^[216]

Gun control[link]

During the presidential campaign, Obama announced that he favors measures that respect Second Amendment rights, while at the same time keeping guns away from children and criminals.^[217][218] On February 25, 2009, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Obama administration would seek a new assault weapons ban across the United States, saying that it would have a positive impact on the drug-related violence in Mexico.^[219] After the statement drew criticism from the NRA and some House Democrats, the Administration reportedly ordered the Justice Department to end public discussion of the issue.^[220] Obama has signed into law two bills containing amendments reducing restrictions on gun owners, one which permits guns to be transported in checked baggage on Amtrak trains^[221] and another which allows carrying loaded firearms in national parks located in states allowing concealed carry.^[222][223]

Science and technology[link]

Wikinews has related news: NSA to participate in U.S. cybersecurity

President Obama during a call to the crew aboard the ISS.

Cybersecurity[link]

Obama initiated a 60-day review of cybersecurity^[224] by Melissa Hathaway, a consultant for Booz Allen Hamilton, appointed Acting Senior Director for Cyberspace.^[225][226]

The New York Times reported in 2009, that the NSA is intercepting communications of American citizens including a Congressman, although the Justice Department believed that the NSA had corrected its errors.^[227] United States Attorney General Eric Holder resumed the wiretapping according to his understanding of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 Amendments Act of 2008 that Congress passed in July 2008, but without explaining what had occurred.^[228]

Environment[link]

On January 27, 2009, Obama issued two presidential memoranda concerning energy policy. One directed the Department of Transportation to raise fuel efficiency standards incrementally to 35 miles per US gallon (15 km/L) by 2020, and the other directed the Environmental Protection Agency to allow individual states to set stricter tailpipe emissions regulations than the federal standard.^[41][229]

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provides $54 billion in funds to double domestic renewable energy production, renovate federal buildings making them more energy-efficient, improve the nation's electricity grid, repair public housing, and weatherize modest-income homes.^[230]

On February 10, 2009, Obama overturned a Bush administration policy that had opened up a five-year period of offshore drilling for oil and gas near both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar has been quoted as saying, "To establish an orderly process that allows us to make wise decisions based on sound information, we need to set aside" the plan "and create our own timeline".^[231]

On May 19, 2009, Obama announced a plan to increase the Corporate Average Fuel Economy national standards for gasoline mileage, by creating a single new national standard that will create a car and light truck fleet in the United States that is almost 40 percent cleaner and more fuel-efficient by 2016, than it is today, with an average of 35.5 miles per gallon.^[232] Environmental advocates and industry officials welcomed the new program, but for different reasons. Environmentalists called it a long-overdue tightening of emissions and fuel economy standards after decades of government delay and industry opposition. Auto industry officials said it would provide the single national efficiency standard they have long desired, a reasonable timetable to meet it and the certainty they need to proceed with product development plans.^[232]

On March 30, 2010, Obama partially reinstated Bush administration proposals to open certain offshore areas along the Atlantic coastline, the eastern Gulf of Mexico and the north coast of Alaska to oil and natural gas drilling. The proposals had earlier been set aside by President Obama after they were challenged in court on environmental grounds.^[233]

On May 27, 2010, Obama extended a moratorium on offshore drilling permits after the April 20, 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill which is considered to be the worst oil spill in U.S. history.^[234][235] Although BP took responsibility for the disaster and its ongoing after effects, Obama began a federal investigation along with forming a bipartisan commission to review the incident and methods to avoid it in the future.^{[236][237][238]} Obama visited the Gulf Coast on May 2 and May 28 and expressed his frustration on the June 8 NBC Today Show, by saying "I don't sit around just talking to experts because this is a college seminar. We talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answers, so I know whose ass to kick."^[239] Obama's response to the disaster drew confusion and criticism within segments of the media and public.^[240]

NASA[link]

President Obama speaks at Kennedy Space Center, April 15, 2010.

Obama set up the Augustine panel to review the Constellation program in 2009, and announced in February 2010, that he was cutting the program from the 2011 United States federal budget, describing it as "over budget, behind schedule, and lacking in innovation."^{[241][242][243][244][245]} After the decision drew criticism in the United States, a new "Flexible path to Mars" plan was unveiled at a space conference in April 2010.^{[246][247][248]} It included new technology programs, increased R&D spending, a focus on the International Space Station and contracting out flying crew to space to commercial providers.^[249] The new plan also increased NASA's 2011 budget to $19 billion from $18.3 billion in 2010.^[246]