2,422 videos 1,389,747,653 views US Joined Aug 30, 2018
Charlie Kirk is the Founder and President of Turning Point USA, the largest and fastest growing conservative youth activist organization in the country with over 250,000 student members, over 150 full-time staff, and a presence on over 2,000 high school and college campuses nationwide. Charlie is also the Chairman of Students for Trump, which aims to activate one million new college voters on campuses in battleground states in the lead up to the 2020 presidential election. His social media reaches over 100 million people per month and according to Axios, he is one of the "top 10 most engaged" Twitter handles in the world. He is also the host of “The Charlie Kirk Show,” which regularly ranks among the top news shows on Apple podcast charts.
Jay Bhattacharya Breaks Down NIH's Fight Against Predatory Scientific Publishers Charging Taxpayers Twice
Jay Bhattacharya, Director of the National Institutes of Health, announces a major policy shift to stop predatory scientific publishers from double-charging taxpayers. Under the new rule, NIH-funded research must be available to the public for free, and the agency will cap what it pays publishers like Springer Nature, some of which have charged up to $13,000 per article while also collecting millions in subscription fees. Bhattacharya explains how this duopoly has exploited both scientists and taxpayers, and how open-access science could prevent the kind of information suppression seen during COVID-19. He also discusses the challenges of refocusing NIH on actual health outcomes rather than social justice initiatives, and why concentrating 60-70% of funding in just 20 universities creates dangerous groupthink in the scientific community.
Jay Bhattacharya, Director of the National Institutes of Health, made an important announcement regarding how taxpayer-funded scientific research will be published and accessed. The new policy addresses a little-known problem in scientific publishing: when taxpayers fund research through NIH grants, that research gets published in scientific journals that often charge the public to read it—even though they already paid for the research itself.
As of July 1st, the NIH implemented a policy requiring that any paper published by an NIH-funded scientist must be available to the entire public for free, without any paywall. This seems straightforward enough, but the response from the publishing industry revealed a deeper problem.
The Double-Dipping Problem
Many scientific publishers responded to the open access requirement by charging scientists exorbitant fees—sometimes as much as $13,000—for the privilege of making their work publicly available. Springer Nature stands out as a particularly problematic actor in this space. The company charges up to $13,000 per article for immediate open access while simultaneously collecting substantial subscription fees from government agencies.
Springer Nature receives more than $2 million annually in subscription fees from the NIH alone, plus tens of millions more through exclusive article processing charges (APCs). This represents classic double-dipping: charging both for access to the journals and for making individual articles freely available.
The economics become even more troubling when you consider that it costs publishers virtually nothing to put content on the web, and they don't even pay the peer reviewers who vet the scientific papers. Taxpayers end up paying twice—once for the research itself, and again for the privilege of accessing it.
The Duopoly Controlling Scientific Publishing
The scientific publishing industry operates as a duopoly, with two major players—Springer Nature and Elsevier—dominating the field and setting terms for most scientific journals. This lack of competition has created an unhealthy situation for science.
NIH pays these publishers subscription fees so that NIH scientists can access journals and stay current with their field—a reasonable library expense that has existed for a long time. The problem arises with the additional article processing charges that exploit the publishers' duopoly power.
Interestingly, private foundations like the Gates Foundation have negotiated better deals or refused to allow these kinds of charges altogether. For years, these publishing giants have given better terms to private foundations than to American taxpayers.
The New Fiscal Year 2026 Policy
To address this exploitation, the NIH announced a policy for fiscal year 2026 that will limit the amount of money the agency is willing to pay scientific journals for making taxpayer-funded publications available for free to taxpayers. This policy is expected to be controversial within the narrow world of science publishing, but it represents a significant step toward protecting taxpayer dollars and ensuring they're spent on actual science rather than exorbitant publication fees.
The expected result is that these journal publishers will lose some of their market power. The policy should lead to more competitive pricing and ultimately to a more open scientific ecosystem.
Open Access as a Tool for Democratic Science
Beyond the fiscal benefits, which could save tens of millions or even hundreds of millions of dollars, this policy has profound implications for public health and scientific discourse. The COVID-19 pandemic revealed how a small number of high-profile scientists could dominate the conversation and control what counted as "the science."
When access to scientific literature is locked behind paywalls and controlled by a few publishers, it becomes much easier for a scientific elite to determine what's true and false. Claims about masks, vaccines, school closures, and other interventions were presented as settled science, even when substantial scientific literature suggested otherwise.
Opening up access to journals so that the public at large can see what scientific debates are actually happening makes it much more difficult for a small number of scientists to dominate the conversation. Science is fundamentally democratic—not in a political sense, but in the sense that it should be open and free, allowing honest scientific discussions about data rather than having a few big actors dominate the field.
Scientists advance knowledge by challenging ideas, not by appealing to authority. They publish papers that examine evidence and test hypotheses. When that process is accessible to everyone immediately upon publication, it's much harder for anyone—even the NIH Director—to present their potentially wrong ideas as unchallengeable truth.
Science as Liberation, Not Control
Science, properly understood as a method for understanding the natural world and how we interface with it, should be a tool of liberation, flourishing, and the betterment of humanity. During the pandemic, however, science became a tool of suppression—restricting liberty, agency, and freedom. The phrase "trust the science" really meant "trust the scientists we approve of."
The new open access policy addresses this by democratizing access to scientific information. It ensures that heterodox journals and alternative viewpoints can be introduced and evaluated on their merits rather than being suppressed by gatekeepers. A more open scientific ecosystem creates space for real debate and correction.
Refocusing NIH on Actual Health Outcomes
Beyond the publishing policy, Bhattacharya has faced challenges in refocusing the NIH on its core mission: advancing the health and well-being of the American people. The most shocking discovery upon taking the job was how parts of the NIH's mission had been adulterated by other objectives.
Since 2012, there has been no increase in life expectancy in the United States—a major scandal that received little attention. While European life expectancy continued to rise, America experienced flat life expectancy alongside high rates of chronic disease including diabetes, cancer, obesity, and heart disease. Working-class Americans have felt the brunt of these trends.
Rather than focusing intensely on these pressing health problems, portions of the NIH had become focused on DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) objectives—attempting to achieve social justice goals that science isn't well-equipped to accomplish. Instead of identifying what health problems minority populations face and developing solutions, resources were directed toward initiatives remote from actually advancing people's health.
The goal now is to refocus the NIH on real health priorities that matter to people, pursuing advances that improve the health of everybody regardless of race or color. If someone has a health problem, the NIH should study ways to help them—not try to achieve social justice, which is beyond the agency's capability and mission.
Breaking Up the University Concentration
Another structural problem undermining scientific progress is the concentration of NIH funding. Approximately 60-70% of all NIH funding goes to just the top 20 universities. This concentration creates scientific groupthink.
While elite universities like Stanford employ great scientists, great scientists exist all across the country. The current system creates a vicious circle: to have excellent scientists, you need excellent facilities; to get funding for excellent facilities, you need excellent scientists. This guarantees that excellent scientists outside the top 20 universities will have a much more difficult time getting their excellent ideas funded.
The NIH solicits research ideas from researchers around the country in a competitive process to determine which ideas are best. However, the fixed cost support—money given to universities for lab space and infrastructure—is tied to already having excellent grant-winning scientists at the institution. This circular system perpetuates concentration and groupthink.
Addressing this concentration is important not just for fairness but for the quality of science itself. The COVID-19 response demonstrated the dangers of scientific groupthink. A more decentralized, merit-based funding system would produce more robust science and more diverse perspectives.
The Make America Healthy Again Coalition
The policies being implemented at NIH are part of the broader Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement led by figures like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. While various political coalitions have experienced tension on issues like foreign policy and immigration, the MAHA coalition has remained remarkably strong and battle-tested. The movement has consistently delivered on what it promised: refocusing government health agencies on actual health outcomes, challenging corrupted relationships between agencies and industries, and prioritizing the well-being of ordinary Americans over institutional interests.
