Oversight?: Trump NIH Pick Fails to Include Big Award From Major Right-Wing Group On Financial Disclosure

Jay Bhattacharya won the $250,000 Bradley Prize in 2024 but did not include it in his government filing.

Written by Walker Bragman. Published: 2/21/25

Donald Trump’s NIH director pick appears to have left a considerable monetary award from a major right-wing dark money group off of his federal financial disclosures.

In 2024, Stanford health economist Jay Bhattacharya, a well-known COVID-19 contrarian, was one of three recipients of the Bradley Prize, the annual award of the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, one of the largest funders of right-wing causes in the country. Bradley is known for supporting business-aligned dark money groups like those billionaire Charles Koch has backed like the American Legislative Exchange Council, State Policy Network, American Enterprise Institute, and Independent Women’s Forum. Its annual prize comes with a $250,000 stipend.

Yet, on his Form 278e filing with the U.S. Office of Government Ethics (OGE), Bhattacharya did not include the money. The form does show that Bhattacharya was paid $20,000 in October for a speech by the Bradley Impact Fund, a donor-advised fund affiliated with the Bradley Foundation.

On October 4, 2024, Bhattacharya claimed to have donated the Bradley Prize money to charity in a tweet calling out The Nation for publishing a piece that noted his receipt of the high-dollar prize. That same day, Stanford hosted a health policy conference the professor had organized, which was stacked with anti-vaxxers and right-wing operatives. Stanford later revealed that the event had been bankrolled in part by the UK-based anti-COVID lockdown charity Collateral Global, where Bhattacharya served as editor-in-chief and board member until December 2024.

Bhattacharya did not respond to a request for clarification as to why he did not report the Bradley Prize stipend on his financial disclosure. Important Context previously asked the professor what charity he donated the Bradley money to after his tweet attacking The Nation, but received no answer. The Bradley Foundation did not respond to our inquiries either.

“I really can’t figure out why Bhattacharya would not have reported the $250,000 stipend he received from the Bradley Foundation,” campaign finance attorney Brendan Fischer, deputy executive director of journalism watchdog group Documented, told Important Context. “Even if the stipend were donated to charity, it still must be reported.”

The OGE Form 278e requires executive branch nominees to disclose their employment assets and income and retirement accounts for the preceding calendar year to the filing date as well as sources of compensation exceeding $5,000 for the preceding two calendar years and the current calendar year to the filing date.

“It is no secret that Bhattacharya received the $250,000 Bradley Prize last year—the Bradley Foundation and Bhattacharya’s employers put out press releases about it —so I can’t imagine that he is actively trying to hide anything,” Fischer said. “Perhaps it was an oversight or a misunderstanding of the rules. Typically, an omission on a financial disclosure report would be addressed by amending the report and adding the missing information.”

Bhattacharya’s disclosure reveals $457,000 in income from Stanford University for 2024 and January and February 2025, which is well above the $246,000 estimatefrom Glassdoor for a professor with more than 15 years experience. It also reveals nearly $12,000 from X’s profit sharing—Bhattacharya’s social media presence has grown significantly since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic—as well as honoraria from the right-wing Hillsdale College ($2,200) and Global Liberty Institute ($3,500).

Bhattacharya is one of several controversial public health picks by Trump. The professor emerged through the pandemic as a leading evangelist of a herd immunity strategy reliant on mass infection. Articulated in the Great Barrington Declaration, which he co-authored, the strategy was supposedly less disruptive economically and socially and would deliver the promised immunity within three-to-six months. Bhattacharya also suggested that COVID might be significantly less dangerous than it proved to be.

Despite his incorrect predictions, over time—with the help of right-wing dark money groups—Bhattacharya’s reputation and audience grew. With greater reach, the professor waded increasingly to anti-vaccine territory to boost his arguments for “natural immunity,” casting doubt on the safety and efficacy of the mRNA shots. In a recent pseudo-documentary linked to the conspiratorial Epoch Times, he promoted an anti-vaccine conspiracy theory that the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin, which evidence shows is not effective against COVID, was suppressed to secure approval of the vaccines.

The UK right-wing tabloid The Daily Mail recently revealed that Bhattacharya is a signatory to the so-called Hope Accord, which blames the vaccines for “an alarming rise in excess mortality and disability” throughout the pandemic—damage done by COVID itself—and calls for their pause for all age groups. The accord was also signed by Bhattacharya’s ally, Aseem Malhotra, a British cardiologist who is reportedly under consideration for a health advisory role under Kennedy.

Bhattacharya’s Senate confirmation hearings have not yet been scheduled.