The science advocacy community, including FABBS, is busy drafting testimony, circulating funding letters, and meeting with Congressional appropriators as we await the Trump administration’s “skinny budget” for fiscal year 2026 (FY26). While expecting significant cuts to science agencies, groups are nevertheless recommending funding levels that reflect the amount necessary to serve the missions of respective federal agencies and meet the legislative guidance from Congress.
[See current list of letters FABBS has signed and FABBS Federal Funding Dashboard]
House and Senate Appropriations Committees have been sharing guidance for the public and Members of Congress wanting to weigh in on specific programs and projects. It is worth noting that while the Trump administration has moved aggressively to dramatically alter the staffing and functioning of federal agencies, the committees have not provided any guidance on how this might impact the FY26 appropriations process.
Meanwhile, the House is actively working to pass budget resolution following the Senate’s passage this past weekend. Budget resolutions are limited to mandatory spending (i.e., Medicare and Social Security) and must address taxes. Given the current differences between the Senate and the House – not to mention the close margin and Members expressing concern – it is hard to see the path forward.
| House | Senate | |
| Debt Limit | Raise by $4 trillion | Raise by up to $5 trillion |
| Tax Cuts | Up to $4.5 trillion to extend 2017 tax law | Up to $1.5 trillion for new tax cuts, writes off $4 trillion deficit increase to extend expiring tax provisions |
| Spending Cuts | At least $1.5 trillion | At least $4 billion |
| Spending Increases | Up to $300 billion for defense, border, and immigration | $175 billion for border and immigration, $150 billion for defense |
Fiscal Year 2025
As previously reported, Congress passed and the President signed a continuing resolution (CR) for the remainder of FY25, until September 30, 2025. However, the administration has since announced two maneuvers to reduce the approved funding levels.
Rescinding Agency Funding
Multiple recent press articles report that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is preparing to submit a package of proposed spending cuts pursuant to the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act (CBICA) (P.L. 93-344) to Congress for its consideration. The rescission package could range from tens of billions to hundreds of billions. For example, Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced that the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) plans to claw back $11.4 billion in funds allocated to state and community health departments, nongovernment organizations, and international recipients.
The rescission process is complicated and specific instructions must be included in reconciliation bills, so the community is vigilantly watching for this as well.
Emergency Funding
The FY24 final budget included 27 emergency funding items. This was viewed by some as a tactic by the previous Congress to get more funding for science, and was carried over to the CR for FY25. The administration has since determined that 11 of these are no longer considered to be emergencies, including $234 million for NSF to cover its Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC) account. Current MREFC projects include the Leadership-Class Computing Facility in Texas, upgrading Antarctic infrastructure, and building a new telescope in Hawaii. It is unclear if NSF will have the flexibility and/or the inclination to try to cover the expenses from other accounts.
Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins (R-ME), together with Ranking Member Patty Murray (D-WA), sent a letter to OMB Director Russ Vought challenging the administration’s selective release of billions in emergency funds that Congress approved in the CR. Both Senators argue that the White House budget office should disburse the full amount, emphasizing that President Trump cannot pick and choose which emergency designations to honor. Across the Capitol, House Appropriations leaders have also weighed in, though Chairman Tom Cole (R-OK) notably did not sign onto a similar letter sent by his Democratic counterpart, Ranking Member Rosa DeLauro (D-CT). Top Democrats have also expressed concern that the “apportionments” OMB website has been down, worried that the outage is an intentional attempt to obscure federal spending.
