House Appropriators Propose Flat Funding for NIH
The House Appropriations Committee's Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies (LHHS) Subcommittee has joined the Senate in rejecting President Trump's plan to slash the National Institutes of Health (NIH) budget by 40% and restructure its institutes.
In its fiscal year (FY) 2026 spending bill, advanced last week, the subcommittee recommended $46.9 billion for NIH--a modest $99 million increase over current levels that effectively maintains the agency's funding and structure. The Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H), however, would see its budget slashed by 37%, from $1.5 billion to $945 million.
The bill also proposes a 19% reduction to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), cutting $1.8 billion from its $9.2 billion budget while increasing infectious disease funding by 2%, or $55 million. In an accompanying bill summary, the panel noted that they want to focus the agency's work "on communicable diseases rather than social engineering." By contrast, the Senate's version would raise NIH funding by $400 million, provide level funding to ARPA-H, and trim CDC by less than 1%.
The House measure includes a broad ban on gain-of-function research and fetal tissue studies, restrictions scientists warn could stifle important biomedical work. Research advocacy groups praised Congress for protecting NIH but raised concerns about the steep cuts to ARPA-H and CDC, warning they could hamper public health and innovation.
The full appropriations committee is scheduled to mark up the LHHS spending bill tomorrow.
The full committee will also mark up the Commerce, Science, and Justice spending bill, which proposes a 23% cut to the National Science Foundation, this week. After committee approval, the bills will need to be passed by the full House before final numbers are negotiated with the Senate. With the fiscal year ending on September 30, lawmakers will likely need to pass a continuing resolution to keep the government operating at current levels until a final agreement is reached.
CDC in Turmoil After Director's Firing and Wave of Resignations
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has been plunged into crisis following the abrupt dismissal of Director Susan Monarez and the subsequent resignations of several top officials.
Monarez, who was confirmed by the Senate just a month earlier, reportedly clashed with Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. over vaccine policy, including demands to back limits on COVID-19 shots and dismiss senior staff. When she refused, Kennedy announced her firing, though Monarez's lawyers argued only the President can remove a Senate-confirmed director. The White House defended the move, saying Monarez was "not aligned" with its health agenda, and appointed HHS Deputy Secretary Jim O'Neill as Acting Director.
The fallout has been swift: at least four senior CDC officials, including leaders of its immunization and infectious disease centers, have resigned, citing political interference, radical policy shifts, and deep proposed budget cuts they warn will undermine evidence-based science. One departing official stated: "For the good of the nation and the world, the science at CDC should never be censored or subject to political pauses or interpretations." Employees at CDC headquarters also staged a demonstration in solidarity.
Nine former CDC directors, serving under every president since 1977, warned in a New York Times opinion piece that the turmoil could weaken one of the world's most vital public health institutions and endanger Americans. "This is unacceptable, and it should alarm every American, regardless of political leanings," they wrote, urging Congress and others to defend the CDC's mission.
Monarez, in an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, wrote she was ousted after refusing to "preapprove the recommendations of a vaccine advisory panel newly filled with people who have publicly expressed antivaccine rhetoric." Her firing follows months of turmoil at the $9 billion agency, including the dismissal of its vaccine advisory committee in June and a deadly shooting at CDC headquarters in August. Meanwhile, President Trump's FY 2026 budget seeks to halve CDC funding, a cut Congress has so far rejected.
Noting "these high profile departures will require oversight by the HELP Committee," Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Chair Bill Cassidy (R-LA) convened a hearing last week. Senators from both parties grilled Secretary Kennedy, who fervently defended his actions. Cassidy, who voted to confirm him, accused Kennedy of breaking his promises and warned that his policies are "effectively... denying people vaccine." Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) went further, calling for Kennedy's removal.
NOAA Proceeds with Climate Research Cuts in FY 2025
The Trump Administration is moving forward with nearly $100 million in cuts--about 14%--to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) research budget this year, despite Congress approving higher levels.
According to Science Insider, NOAA's spending plan for fiscal year (FY) 2025 shows the reductions will affect climate, ocean, and weather science and serve as a "down payment" on the White House's proposal to eliminate NOAA's research arm entirely in FY 2026. The Administration is pushing ahead with the cuts despite congressional spending panels rejecting the President's 2026 budget request for NOAA.
Climate research faces a 25% drop, with roughly $53 million cut from research grants, regional programs, and labs. In addition to the 14% spending cut at the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, the National Ocean Service is facing a $90 million (roughly 10%) shortfall and the National Marine Fisheries Service is looking at a $80 million (or 6%) cut. The National Weather Service and NOAA's aircraft and marine operations, however, would still receive the funding levels approved by Congress.
NOAA has also begun terminating contracts for next-generation satellite instruments, even though Congress has opposed the changes. Meanwhile, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has slowed agency spending by personally reviewing contracts over $100,000, leaving about $1 billion in limbo.
It remains uncertain what will happen to funds NOAA does not spend by the end of the fiscal year. While some appropriations can usually be carried over, unspent funds are more likely to revert to the Treasury unless Congress steps in.
Interior Brings Back "Open Science" Policy
The Department of the Interior has reinstated its 2018 "Promoting Open Science" policy, reversing changes made under the Biden Administration.
Signed by Secretary Doug Burgum on August 29, the order emphasizes transparency, reproducibility, peer review, and public access to scientific data, while aligning research and discretionary grants with agency priorities and the "national interest." Burgum said the goal is to ensure government decisions are based on "science that is open, honest and verifiable" and to reduce politicized ideology.
Interior's bureaus are now reviewing their scientific integrity policies and will propose revisions, with a public rulemaking process to follow. While some elements of the order, such as "prioritizing disciplined scientific methods," are considered routine, others--like "discouraging speculative claims or extrapolations"--could be open to interpretation. Linking funding and research decisions to agency priorities has drawn criticism for potentially increasing political influence.
The order also requires Interior to review educational curricula for compliance with President Trump's "Gold Standard Science" Executive Order, which questioned climate science, COVID-19 guidance, and diversity considerations. Conservation advocates warn that such directives could undermine established scientific standards used in endangered species management and other environmental programs.
Endangerment Finding Draws Support in Hearings, DOE Climate Report Faces Criticism
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) held four days of public hearings on its proposal to repeal the greenhouse gas endangerment finding--a key scientific determination that underpins federal regulation of pollution that causes climate change. Environmentalists, medical experts, and state and local officials voiced strong opposition to repealing the finding, while a few fossil fuel and auto industry representatives spoke in favor.
Ahead of the hearings, House Science Committee Democrats in a letter to EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin criticized the plan and a supporting Department of Energy (DOE) climate report authored by scientists known for downplaying climate risks. "The report rehashes and repeats old claims that the climate denial movement has relied upon for decades to mislead and confuse the public," Representatives Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) and Gabe Amo (D-RI) wrote.
More than 85 scientists sharply criticized the DOE report saying it was riddled with errors, cherry-picked data, and misrepresentations. Andrew Dessler, a professor at Texas A&M University who led the 439-page rebuttal, said the report's goal was "to muddy the waters" and undermine established science, with potentially serious consequences for public health and environmental regulation.
The American Meteorological Society (AMS) also released a statement highlighting five overarching "foundational flaws" in the DOE report, citing inconsistencies with scientific principles and practices and calling on DOE to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the evidence.
EPA Ends Air Pollution Advisory Panel
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is scrapping the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC), a decades-old panel that provided a public forum for outside experts to scrutinize air quality programs and regulations.
The move comes amid the Trump Administration's broader deregulatory push and follows the elimination of at least three other EPA advisory panels this term, including the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council. The CAAAC included industry representatives, environmental advocates, academics, and government officials, and could probe EPA staff on regulatory and research decisions at a deeper level than Congress.
EPA cited efficiency and other engagement mechanisms as reasons for the panel's elimination, but critics say its expertise and oversight role will be difficult to replace. The committee historically informed policies on hazardous pollutants, permitting practices, and implementation of the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments, providing transparency and input from diverse stakeholders.
Final Chance to Register for the Writing for Impact and Influence Online Course
The American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) is offering its popular professional development program to help scientists and students hone their written communication skills to increase the power of their message.
Writing for Impact and Influence provides practical instruction and hands-on exercises that will improve the participant's general writing proficiency. The program will provide participants with the skills and tools needed to compose scientific press releases, blog posts, memoranda, and more, with a focus on the reader experience.
Each product-oriented session will have an assignment (deadlines are flexible), with feedback from the instructor. The course is interactive, and participants are encouraged to ask questions and exchange ideas with the instructor and other participants. Each session is also recorded and shared with all participants to accommodate scheduling conflicts.
Who Should Take the Course?
- Individuals interested in furthering their professional development by augmenting their writing skills.
- Graduate students and early-career professionals interested in increasing their marketability to employers.
- Individuals interested in more effectively informing and influencing segments of the public, supervisors, policymakers, reporters, organizational leaders, and others.
The course consists of six weekly 90-minute online modules conducted live and subsequently archived online for participant review. The course will begin on Wednesday, September 10, 2025, with subsequent course sessions held weekly on Wednesdays, through October 15. Individuals who actively participate in and complete the full course will receive a certificate recognizing that they have completed a nine-hour professional development course on business writing for scientists.
Register now.
Short Takes
-
According to Science Insider, the National Science Foundation (NSF) may relocate just down the street from its current Alexandria, Virginia, headquarters after being told to vacate its building for the Department of Housing and Urban Development. A new General Services Administration notice describes requirements--proximity to Metro, shared services, and co-location with another federal agency--that closely match available space at the nearby U.S. Patent and Trademark Office campus. The move would minimize disruption for NSF's 1,500 employees and reflects the agency's reduced space needs since the pandemic. A lease deal is expected by November 2025.
-
Government lawyers have advised the National Institutes of Health (NIH) not to again terminate about 900 research grants--covering topics such as transgender health, COVID-19, and health disparities--that were recently reinstated by court order, despite a Supreme Court ruling threatening their status. The guidance protects the grants for now, but they could be at risk again after October 1, when new agency rules allow terminations for "nonalignment with agency priorities."
-
The NSF Office of Inspector General found that temporary staff or rotators employed through the Visiting Scientist, Engineer, and Educator Program are still performing prohibited supervisory duties, such as conducting performance reviews and managing personnel actions, despite earlier warnings. The report also found that prior to the government-wide hiring freeze, NSF continued to post temporary position openings with supervisory responsibilities. NSF acknowledged the issue and said it will develop a corrective action plan.
-
The Department of Energy, National Institutes of Health, and National Science Foundation have released their implementation plans for President Trump's Gold Standard Science Executive Order, which were due to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy by August 22.
- NIH has announced that starting in fiscal year 2026, NIH will post all grant and cooperative agreement opportunities only on Grants.gov, discontinuing notices of funding opportunities in the NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts, which will continue to provide policy and informational notices.
-
The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee approved Katherine Scarlett, President Trump's nominee to chair the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), on a 12-7 vote. Two Democrats--Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (RI) and Senator Mark Kelly (AZ)--joined Republicans in support. Scarlett, CEQ's current chief of staff, has helped accelerate permitting for large energy projects.
From the Federal Register
The following items appeared in the Federal Register from August 25 to September 5, 2025.
Agriculture
Commerce
Health and Human Services
Homeland Security
Interior
