The D.C. Swamp is no stranger to corrupt bad actors. But every once in a while they get caught.
And a U.S. House Rep. was just caught in a stunning conflict of interest to scam the American people.
Democrat Congressmember Defends NIH, Hides Family Ties To The Troubled Agency and Anthony Fauci
A Democratic member of Congress has stepped forward as a staunch supporter of the existing framework at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), an agency currently facing significant scrutiny. This representative, hailing from Massachusetts, is none other than Rep. Jake Auchincloss, whose personal ties to the NIH run deep due to his family background. As the son of two prominent scientists with longstanding connections to the agency, Auchincloss’s defense of the NIH raises questions about potential conflicts of interest.
During a House Energy and Commerce Committee markup on February 25, 2025, Auchincloss voiced his disapproval of proposed budget reductions to the NIH under the Trump administration. He argued passionately in favor of maintaining the agency’s current approach, stating, “curiosity-driven peer reviewed basic research is not meant to pass the politicians’ test.” His stance positions him as a key figure in the ongoing debate over the NIH’s funding and direction, especially at a time when the agency is navigating significant changes and public criticism.
The roots of Auchincloss’s perspective may lie in his familial connections. His father, Hugh Auchincloss, spent 16 years as an aide to Anthony Fauci, the former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), a division of the NIH. Far from being a minor player, the elder Auchincloss held influential roles, including steering intramural research at NIAID from 2014 to 2015 and serving as the acting director of the institute between 2022 and 2023. These positions placed him at the heart of the agency’s operations during critical periods.
Hugh Auchincloss’s name surfaced in a notable way in 2021 when emails obtained through the Freedom of Information Act by BuzzFeed News brought his involvement into the public eye. These documents revealed that in February 2020, he was part of private discussions among Fauci’s inner circle regarding research funded by NIAID at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. This was a sensitive topic, as it occurred months before the broader public became aware of the research and its potential implications.
The emails specifically showed that Hugh Auchincloss assisted Fauci in gathering information about why the coronavirus research conducted with the Wuhan lab had not undergone more stringent oversight protocols. At the time, Fauci was publicly dismissing the idea that the virus could have originated from a lab, even as he sought answers internally. This discrepancy between public statements and private actions would later fuel debates about transparency at the NIH.
It wasn’t until April 2020—roughly two and a half months after those internal discussions—that the possibility of a link between the Wuhan research and the emerging pandemic began to gain traction in public conversations. This delay left many questioning what NIH leaders knew and when, adding layers of complexity to the agency’s reputation during a global health crisis.
On the other side of Jake Auchincloss’s family tree is his mother, Laurie H. Glimcher, a distinguished scientist with her own ties to NIH-funded work. Glimcher, who once served as president and CEO of the Dana Farber Cancer Institute, coauthored five research papers that have since come under fire for irregularities. According to reports from The New York Times, a scientific investigator uncovered evidence of image manipulation in these papers, all of which had received NIH support.
One particularly high-profile case involved a paper Glimcher coauthored in the journal Science, which was retracted in April 2024—18 years after its initial publication. The retraction notice pointed to “discrepancies” in several figures, stating, “The authors are no longer confident that these figures support the conclusions.” This development cast a shadow over Glimcher’s scientific legacy and raised questions about the integrity of NIH-backed research.
Back in Congress, the February 25 markup where Auchincloss spoke was focused on the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s oversight plan for the 119th Congress. However, Auchincloss and other Democratic members seized the opportunity to criticize recent moves by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which have stirred discontent in scientific circles. These actions include cuts and administrative changes at the NIH that some researchers view as detrimental to their work.
For instance, on February 7, 2025, the NIH implemented a 15 percent cap on administrative overhead for its grants—a decision now facing legal challenges in three separate lawsuits. Just a week later, over the weekend of February 14, the agency laid off approximately 1,165 probationary employees, representing 4.6 percent of its 25,000-strong workforce. Additionally, the study sections responsible for reviewing new extramural grants were temporarily halted, though some have since resumed operations.
The backdrop to Hugh Auchincloss’s involvement with the NIH includes a pivotal moment in February 2020, when Fauci reached out to him in the early hours of February 1. In an email marked “IMPORTANT” and sent at 12:29 a.m., Fauci wrote, “Hugh: It is essential that we speak this AM. Keep your cell phone on.” He added, “You will have tasks today that must be done.” This urgency came shortly after Fauci learned from a virologist that the novel coronavirus’s genome showed signs of possible engineering.
Attached to the email was a file Fauci labeled “Baric, Shi et al – Nature medicine – SARS gain of function.pdf,” likely a 2015 paper from Nature Medicine coauthored by Wuhan Institute scientist Zhengli Shi and University of North Carolina’s Ralph Baric. This NIH-funded study detailed experiments creating novel SARS-related coronaviruses, sparking later concerns about gain-of-function research—experiments that can enhance a virus’s lethality or transmissibility.
When questioned in a congressional interview about the “tasks” Fauci assigned, Hugh Auchincloss admitted his memory was “hazy”. He recalled being asked to check whether the research in the paper had been reviewed by the Potential Pandemic Pathogens Committee (P3CO), a body tasked with overseeing high-risk studies. He stated, “The only tasks I recall were reading the paper and trying to understand it and what kind of review we had done of it.” Ultimately, the research had not gone through P3CO but had been cleared by NIAID’s Division of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, which allowed grantees to set their own rules.
Despite the file’s internal name including “gain of function,” Fauci later maintained—both publicly and under oath—that the experiments did not qualify as such. This position persisted even as evidence mounted, and Fauci received a full pardon from then-President Biden, closing the door on legal repercussions. Meanwhile, Hugh Auchincloss retired from the NIH in September 2024, and efforts to contact him for this article were unsuccessful, as his NIH email is no longer active.
On the maternal side, Laurie Glimcher’s tenure at Dana Farber ended in September 2024, a departure some tied to her decision to end a long-standing partnership with Brigham and Women’s Hospital. However, her exit also aligned with revelations from scientific sleuth Sholto David, who identified manipulated images in dozens of her papers. These findings prompted six retractions and 31 corrections, with Glimcher’s work—spanning 2003 to 2012—facing intense scrutiny. As Jake Auchincloss defends the NIH, his parents’ connections to the agency raise red flags about the corruption involved between Congress and the NIH.
