AIBS Public Policy Report, Volume 27, Issue 16, August 10, 2026
The AIBS Public Policy Report is distributed broadly by email every two weeks. Any interested party may self-subscribe to receive these free reports by email.
With proper attribution to AIBS, all material from these reports may be reproduced or forwarded. AIBS staff appreciates receiving copies of materials used. If you have questions, comments, or suggestions, please contact the AIBS Director of Public Policy, Jyotsna Pandey, at 202-628-1500 x 225.
|
Senate Passes Stopgap Spending Bill to Block OMB Grant Rule
The Senate has passed a bipartisan stopgap spending bill that would temporarily block the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) from implementing its proposed overhaul of federal grantmaking regulations. The measure, approved 90-6 on August 8, would fund the federal government through December 11 and prohibit OMB from issuing or finalizing the proposed rule during that period.
The controversial OMB proposal would give political appointees significantly greater authority over federal grant funding decisions, including research awards, and has drawn widespread criticism from the research community. According to the rulemaking docket the proposal generated nearly half a million public comments, although only about 66,000 have been made publicly available. Concerns about the proposed changes extend beyond the research community, with county governments, infrastructure organizations, transportation groups, and biotechnology companies warning that the proposal could increase uncertainty, administrative burdens, and delays for federally supported projects.
The provision blocking the proposal was included in the continuing resolution negotiated by Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Susan Collins (R-ME) and Vice Chair Patty Murray (D-WA), both of whom have publicly opposed the proposed rule. Collins has called for key provisions to be withdrawn, while Murray and Senate Democrats have urged OMB to rescind the proposal entirely.
The Senate's action represents a significant, bipartisan congressional rebuke of the proposed changes. Although the Senate has passed the continuing resolution, the measure has not yet been enacted. It now faces a potentially difficult path in the House, which previously passed a separate “clean” continuing resolution that would extend current federal funding through December 4, 2026, without the provision blocking the OMB grantmaking rule. The two versions will need to be reconciled when lawmakers return next month from their summer recess, and both chambers must ultimately agree on identical legislation before current funding expires September 30 to avert a government shutdown.
Even if the Senate provision is ultimately enacted, it would provide only a temporary reprieve. The Senate bill would prevent OMB from issuing or finalizing the proposed rule through December 11, after which the administration could potentially move forward. As a result, additional congressional or administrative action would be needed to permanently address concerns about the proposed changes to federal grantmaking.
Action Alert: Call & Write Your Members of Congress About the OMB Grants Rule
The public comment period on the Office of Management and Budget’s proposed Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance (Docket OMB-2026-0034) closed on July 13. The response from the scientific community was substantial, and AIBS thanks everyone who submitted comments, shared analysis, or urged colleagues to act.
That was an important step. It was not the last one.
Almost half a million comments were filed, and those that have been publicly posted are overwhelmingly opposed. OMB is under no obligation to change course, and the administration has indicated that it intends to finalize the rule this fall.
The Senate’s continuing resolution includes a provision that would block OMB from implementing the proposed rule through December 11, but the measure has not yet been enacted and the House’s version does not include the provision. Even if enacted, the Senate provision would provide only a temporary reprieve, making constituent outreach critical both now and in the months ahead.
Why Congress, and Why Now
This represents a major overhaul of the rules governing every federal grant. Congress authorizes federal programs and appropriates the funds that support them. The proposed rule would shift greater control over how those funds are awarded and managed toward the executive branch and away from the merit-based processes Congress has long supported.
The Senate’s continuing resolution creates an important opportunity to delay implementation of the OMB rule, but it does not resolve the underlying concerns. Congress needs to hear from constituents now—both to preserve the Senate provision in the immediate term and to address the rule more permanently.
The timing is particularly important. Members of Congress are in their districts and states for most of August, when they are often easier to reach—in person, at a town hall, or through a district office.
How to Take Action
- Get up to speed. Spend a few minutes with the AIBS resource page on the proposed rule. It includes AIBS’s formal comments to OMB, a number of helpful summaries of what the rule would change, external analyses, and a shareable one-pager designed to be emailed to a congressional office or printed and handed to a staffer you meet with.
- Call your members of Congress. Look them up and call the office using the phone script in the provided toolkit. If you reach voicemail, leave the message — it still gets logged.
- Email. Use our editable template letter to send a message to your Representative and both Senators. Personalize the letter — a specific example from your lab, museum, field station, or department is worth more than any argument we can supply. And if you submitted comments to OMB, you can share those with their offices too.
- Meet in district. Request a meeting with district staff, or attend a town hall and ask about the rule directly. Print the AIBS one-pager and leave it behind. If you can host a visit to your institution, offer it — seeing federally funded research firsthand is persuasive in a way that email is not.
The Toolkit
This rule would outlast the administration that wrote it. The mechanisms it would put in place could be used by any administration to reshape the nation’s research enterprise for reasons that have nothing to do with scientific merit. That is worth a few minutes of your time.
New NIH Policy Bans “Dangerous Gain-of-Function” Research
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has issued a new government-wide policy that prohibits federal funding for research classified as “dangerous gain-of-function” (DGOF) research. Released on July 28, the U.S. Government Policy for Stopping High-Risk Life Sciences Research implements a May 2025 Executive Order issued by President Trump directing federal agencies to strengthen oversight of biological research following concerns about biosafety and biosecurity. NIH said research previously paused under the Executive Order will remain suspended until agency-specific implementation guidance is completed.
The new framework replaces previous federal oversight policies with a broader, risk-based approach that focuses on the potential consequences of research rather than a defined list of pathogens. It explicitly prohibits federal support for DGOF research and creates a new category of “international research of concern,” restricting federally funded life sciences research conducted in or involving countries or institutions deemed to have inadequate biosafety oversight or to pose national security concerns. The policy also establishes stronger review, reporting, and compliance requirements for researchers and institutions, and calls for the creation of an independent third-party review body to evaluate high-risk research proposals. Federal agencies have 120 days to develop implementation guidance and 90 days to establish the review body.
In announcing the policy, NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya described it as “a paradigm shift” in federal oversight that seeks to preserve the benefits of biomedical research while preventing experiments that could create catastrophic biological risks. In a Wall Street Journal opinion piece, Bhattacharya argued that the policy is intended to foster scientific innovation while ensuring that research capable of causing a pandemic or other serious public harm is not supported with federal funds.
The American Society for Microbiology said it supports strong oversight of high-risk pathogen research and efforts to strengthen biosafety and biosecurity, but expressed concern that the policy's broad definitions of “dangerous gain-of-function research,” “potential dangerous gain-of-function research,” and “international research of concern” could unnecessarily restrict important infectious disease research and hinder preparedness for future outbreaks.
The new policy comes amid renewed congressional scrutiny of gain-of-function research. Former NIH infectious disease chief Anthony Fauci invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination during a July 29 Senate hearing focused on his role in the federal COVID-19 response and allegations surrounding NIH-funded research. The hearing, led by Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chair Rand Paul (R-KY), centered largely on longstanding disputes over whether NIH-supported coronavirus research in China involved gain-of-function experiments and allegations that Fauci had provided inaccurate testimony to Congress. Republican senators criticized Fauci’s decision to invoke the Fifth Amendment, while Democrats characterized the hearing as politically motivated.
The policy is expected to have significant implications for federally funded life sciences research, particularly studies involving enhanced pathogens and certain international collaborations. Research institutions receiving federal funding will need to review their oversight processes and prepare for new compliance requirements as agencies begin issuing implementation guidance over the coming months.
Bipartisan Bill Would Reverse Trump ESA Rule on Habitat Protections
A bipartisan group of House lawmakers has introduced legislation to overturn the Trump Administration's recent revision to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) regulations that narrowed the definition of “harm.”
The Safeguarding Endangered Species Act (H.R. 9901), introduced by Representatives Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) and Mike Quigley (D-IL), would restore the long-standing regulatory interpretation that habitat modification or degradation can constitute unlawful “harm” when it results in the injury or death of listed species.
The bill responds to a final rule issued in July by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries, which rescinded the decades-old regulatory definition of “harm” on the grounds that the ESA's statutory language applies only to direct actions against wildlife. Supporters of H.R. 9901 argue that restoring the previous definition is necessary to maintain effective protections for threatened and endangered species by recognizing the role of habitat loss in species decline. If enacted, the legislation would reinstate the regulatory framework that guided ESA implementation for more than 50 years before the Trump administration's 2026 rule.
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 and the appropriate use of modern writing tools, such as ChatGPT. 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 Friday, September 11, 2026, with subsequent course sessions held weekly on Fridays, through October 16. 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.
Learn more and register.
Short Takes
- The Senate has confirmed Dr. Erica Schwartz as Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) by a 51-44 vote, making her the agency's first Senate-confirmed permanent director in nearly a year. A physician and former deputy surgeon general during the first Trump Administration, Schwartz has consistently supported the safety and effectiveness of routine childhood vaccines while endorsing the Administration's Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) initiative.
- The State Department has proposed changes that would expand its authority to terminate J-1 exchange visitor visas for paperwork errors, while limiting the grounds for appeal and establishing new deadlines for participants whose programs extend beyond a fixed period of stay. The proposal could affect international students, researchers, and visiting scholars by increasing compliance requirements and the risk of visa termination for administrative mistakes. Separately, reports indicate the Trump Administration is considering a $100,000 fee for Optional Practical Training (OPT) applications, a program widely used by international STEM graduates to gain U.S. work experience after completing their degrees.
- The National Science Foundation (NSF) has announced a $47 million, five-year pilot program to create a new four-year Ph.D. model that integrates industry research placements into doctoral training. Led by the University-Industry Demonstration Partnership, the initiative will support more than 250 STEM doctoral students through partnerships with universities and private-sector companies, with the goal of better preparing graduates for careers across academia, industry, and government. The effort reflects growing attention to aligning graduate education with the career paths of today’s Ph.D. workforce, as most STEM doctoral graduates with confirmed employment commitments pursue careers outside academia.
- National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Jay Bhattacharya is terminating additional health disparities research grants, including two University of Pittsburgh studies examining links between socioeconomic factors and cognitive decline and Alzheimer's disease. According to termination letters, NIH is shifting its extramural research portfolio toward projects focused on “measurable health outcomes” and “solution-oriented approaches,” concluding that the affected studies no longer align with the agency's priorities. The latest cancellations follow an earlier termination of an Emory University grant studying the neurological effects of racial discrimination.
- The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) will review the process used to develop a disputed climate science chapter in the fourth edition of the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence following criticism from Republican attorneys general and pressure from the Trump Administration. The review follows President Trump’s July Truth Social post directing federal officials to examine NASEM’s federal funding in response to concerns raised about the chapter. “This assessment is about the process used to produce the chapter and not about the validity of climate science,” stated NASEM. The chapter will remain unavailable on NASEM’s website during the review, which is expected to conclude this fall.
|
From the Federal Register
The following items appeared in the Federal Register from July 27 to August 7, 2026.
Agriculture
Commerce
Health and Human Services
Interior
National Science Foundation
|
|
.jpg "Image")
