Before leaving for August recess, the Senate Appropriations Committee (SAC) voted to approve the Labor, Health and Human Services (LHHS) budget for fiscal year 2026 (FY26). The bill, which includes key federal agencies funding FABBS disciplines, is a clear rebuke of both the extreme proposed budget cuts and also of the wrecking ball approach that the Trump Administration has taken to federal agencies.
Funding Levels
The SAC approved $48.7 billion for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in FY26. This is a slight increase of $400 million over the final FY25 continuing resolution (CR) level of $47.3 billion. This increase reflects, in part, $97.5 million transferred to the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) and $97.5 million to the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) for the BRAIN Initiative through the 21st Century Cures Act. The Senate bill includes appropriations for the existing centers, ignoring both the President’s budget request and indicating disagreement with numerous policy and staffing changes at NIH. Senators have been on the record indicating their support for NIH. In addition to comments during the NIH hearing with Dr. Bhattacharya, Senator Britt (R-AL) led a letter demanding that the administration spend all of the funding appropriated to NIH for FY25.
The Committee also approved $1.5 billion for the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H), this is flat funding from the FY25 CR level. This reflects another rejection of the administration’s proposal to incorporate ARPA-H into the NIH. The bill also includes a top line of $793.1 million for the Institute of Education Sciences (IES), at the same level as FY25 full-year CR. The President’s budget request for FY26 was $261 million, a 67 percent cut.
Report Language
Appropriations bills are accompanied by reports that play an essential role communicating Congressional direction and priorities to federal agencies. Even with CRs, when the House and Senate fail to reconcile bills, federal agencies still take careful note of this guidance. In addition to numerous provisions that get to the operations of NIH, the bill highlights specific areas of health research for which behavioral and brain sciences are critical such as, Alzheimer’s, Firearm Injury and Mortality Prevention; as well as Health Impacts on Children of Technology and Social Media.
FABBS members will be particularly interested to note language in the NIH report that addresses Restructuring NIH (see below) and Multiyear Funding (see below). The report lists statutes that led to the NIH institutes and centers and requires the Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary to provide the authorizing committees 180 days written notice of any determination to restructure, noting that no notice had been received. Furthermore, the language points to the Scientific Management Review Board (SMRB), as was directed in the FY24 report, to review the overall research portfolio of the agency to advise NIH leadership regarding reorganization. FABBS worked with colleagues to support this language to protect against threats to significantly restructure NIH without a deliberative process or stakeholder input.
Under the section Multi-Year Funding of Research Project Grants [RPGs] the report notes that the President’s budget request proposes reserving FY25 funds for outyear commitments. However, the SAC expressed concern about the impact on application success rates – a concern shared by our NIH colleagues – and directed NIH to provide a detailed report about the implications. The full committee adopted an amendment that would prohibit the use of F26 funds to be used to increase the proportion of multi-year NIH grants.
The report also contains valuable guidance to NIH on a wide range of critical concerns, including Article Processing Charge (APCs), Advisory Council Member selection, indirect costs, and research areas such as the BRAIN Initiative, firearms, and developmental delays.
The document includes key provisions for IES as well. For many of us watching the administration’s efforts to not only withhold critical funding for research but also to claw back committed funds, we have wondered why Congress, having gone through the deliberative and cumbersome process of developing annual spending bills, haven’t had more to say about it. The IES language underscores legislative direction from Congress: “it is the Committee’s expectation that IES will meet those statutory duties and obligations this year and have plans in place to continue doing so in the future.” Additional language requires $1.5 million for a National Academies (NASEM) study on literacy and a $10 million set-aside for the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP), also known as the Nation’s Report Card, which the President’s budget request had proposed eliminating.
For more information about FY26 appropriations report language, join FABBS for a deep dive on Wednesday August 20th at 1:00pm ET by registering for the Zoom call here.
NIH Senate Appropriations Committee bill summary, bill text for LHHS
Report Language – Full Text
Restructuring NIH.—The Committee notes that Congress established 24 NIH ICs in statute through section 401 of the Public Health Service Act (Public Law 106–525). The Committee further notes that section 401 of the Public Health Service Act (Public Law 106–525) requires that the Secretary provide the HELP Committee and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives 180 days written notice of any determination to restructure or reorganize the functions of NIH’s ICs, which the Committees have not received. The Committee commends NIH for reconvening the Scientific Management Review Board [SMRB], as directed in the fiscal year 2024 appropriations Act, to review the overall research portfolio of the agency and advise on the use of organizational authorities, including eliminating ICs, creating new ones, and reorganizing existing structures. NIH is directed to provide a report to the Committee no later than 30 days after enactment on SMRB activities, and an annual report on SMRB plans and activities thereafter. (page 166)
Multi-Year Funding of Research Project Grants [RPGs].—Historically, NIH research grants have been awarded for more than 1 year but funded incrementally wherein each year’s commitment is obligated from that year’s appropriation provided by Congress. The Committee notes that the fiscal year 2026 President’s Budget states that in fiscal year 2026 NIH proposes to continue a fiscal year 2025 policy to reserve half of the agency’s budget allocation for competing RPGs for awards that fully fund their outyear commitments as part of the initial grant obligation. The Committee is concerned about the impact of this policy on application success rates and that providing grantees with funding for every year of the RPG upfront would significantly reduce the number of grants NIH is able to fund. In fiscal year 2025 alone NIH estimates it will award 3,991 or 40 percent fewer new RPGs and application success rates for cancer research will decrease from 13.4 percent to 6.8 percent and success rates for NIA-funded research which overwhelmingly supports Alzheimer’s disease research would decrease from 18.0 percent to 6.0 percent. The Committee directs NIH to submit a report within 60 days of enactment on grants and contracts that were forward funded for each fiscal year from 2019–2024disaggregated by Institute, Center, and funding mechanism as well as on the number of new awards in fiscal year 2025 that were made under this mechanism by Institute and Center, the fiscal year 2025 decrease in the number of awards for each Institute and Center compared to fiscal year 2024, the number of grant applications from early career researchers received by NIH in fiscal year 2025, and the number and dollar amount of awards made to early career scientists using the multi-year funding model. Additionally, NIH is directed to provide the Committee with an analysis of the types of research funded by this model in fiscal year 2025, and the selection criteria to identify grants to be funded by the multi-year approach. (page 160)
