Breakthroughs Blog

Interested in more global health innovation news? Every week GHTC scours media reports worldwide to deliver essential global health R&D news and content to your inbox. Sign up now to receive our weekly R&D News Roundup email. Scientists have launched the first-ever library of adjuvants, which are substances that boost the ability of vaccines to create stronger, longer-lasting immunity. The repository, which will be housed at the United Kingdom’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and funded and led by the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, will include 25 adjuvants available for use in developing new vaccines against epidemic and pandemic threats. The library will act as a matchmaking service, helping developers select the best suited adjuvants to increase the effectiveness and potency of their vaccines. The project is intended to support the 100 Days Mission, an ambitious global effort to develop vaccines against newly emerging threats in as few as 100 days.A new study has found that delivering a single gene therapy injection at birth could offer years-long protection against HIV. In the study, non-human primates who received the therapy within their first month of life saw protection for at least three years without the need for a booster—a potential signal that protection could last into adolescence in humans—, while those treated at 8-12 weeks saw a less effective immune response. The immune system is naturally more tolerant within a person’s first weeks of life, so it marks an optimal window for gene treatment that could be rejected at an older age. While questions remain as to whether these findings will translate to human infants and children, if successful, this treatment could offer a “one-and-done” multiyear solution to protect again mother-to-child HIV transmission that could be more cost-effective and feasible to implement in low-resource settings worldwide.The antiparasitic drug ivermectin was found to reduce the incidence of malaria by 26 percent in a trial conducted in Kenya, a finding that demonstrates its potential use for mass drug administration alongside other malaria control interventions. Invermectin is a drug commonly used to treat parasitic diseases like onchocerciasis and lymphatic filariasis, but scientists have been exploring its potential in malaria prevention, given the rise in insecticide resistance, which has rendered other prevention tools like insecticide-treated bednets and indoor residual spraying less effective. The trial, which involved more than 20,000 participants, compared the drug, administered in a single monthly dose for three months during the rainy season, with the antiparasitic albendazole—both alongside use of existing bed nets. It is the largest study of ivermectin for malaria conducted to date.

On Thursday, Senate appropriators advanced out of committee a fiscal year (FY) 2026 spending bill for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that rejects billions in health spending cuts proposed by the Trump Administration and protects programs vital to global health innovation.The bill increases or flat-funds global health research-relevant agencies, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), and slightly reduces funding for the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) compared to FY25 enacted—an outcome that is in stark contrast to the President’s Budget Request (PBR), which proposed deep cuts across all three. Funding at this level will enable these agencies to continue to advance medical breakthroughs and operate programs that deliver better health outcomes for people around the world and fortify our defenses against disease threats.Funding highlightsThe legislation allocates $48.7 billion in funding for NIH, which is a $400 million (.8 percent) increase compared to FY25 enacted and nearly $22.2 billion (77 percent) above the PBR, and $1.015 billion for BARDA, which represents level funding from FY25 but $361 million (55 percent) more than the White House request. While the legislation unfortunately cuts funding for CDC by $72 million, or 1 percent, this allocation is $4.8 billion or 112 percent greater than the President’s request.While advocates expected the Senate to reject the steep cuts proposed by the Trump Administration, many still anticipated significant reductions. It is therefore both welcome and surprising that Senate appropriators advanced a spending package that maintains strong funding for many programs the President aimed to slash or eliminate.Beyond topline funding for agencies, the bill and accompanying report also diverge from the PBR in other crucial ways. While the President proposed eliminating the CDC Global Health Center (GHC), this spending bill keeps the center intact, maintaining level funding from FY25. The bill also maintains flat funding for the NIH Fogarty International Center—which supports global health research partnerships and training—and provides a 0.5 percent increase to the NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). This stands in sharp contrast to the White House’s proposal to eliminate Fogarty entirely and cut NIAID’s budget by 58 percent. Additionally, it provides level funding to the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H), a new agency established under the Biden Administration to support high-risk, high-potential health research, rejecting the President’s proposal to reduce its funding by $555 million.Beyond  funding numbers, the bill’s accompanying report includes welcome directives affirming the Senate’s support for research activities critical to global health, including across health areas like neglected tropical diseases, malaria, tuberculosis, emerging infectious diseases, antimicrobial resistance (AMR), and more, and underscores the importance of international health research partnerships and training programs supported by the Fogarty International Center and global health activities undertaken by CDC GHC and NCEZID.  Taken together, the funding and directives can be viewed as a strong rebuke of the president’s efforts to downsize and dismantle US global health efforts and a strong affirmation of the Senate’s support for programs that save and improve lives around the world and protect Americans from disease threats. The report also dictates stricter reporting requirements to Congress for HHS, indicating bipartisan concern by lawmakers as to whether the agency is dispersing funding as directed and making scientifically-drive decisions.The report also conveys Senate appropriators’ desire to see BARDA devote robust funding to developing countermeasures against emerging infectious diseases, AMR, and pandemic influenza, and directs BARDA to spend no less than $10 million on advancing countermeasures against “Disease X,” which is a term to denote priority viral pathogens that could cause the next pandemic. Despite an overall positive picture, the bill does include some decreases to subaccounts relevant to global health, including an 80 percent cut to  the CDC-wide Infectious Disease Rapid Response Fund, which was a fund originally created to provide flexible funds for the agency to rapidly respond to pandemic and epidemic threats. See the chart below for a more detailed comparison of funding in the Senate bill and percent changes compared to FY25 enacted and the PBR.What comes nextThe bill’s passage out of committee is just an initial step in a lengthy political process. It will next go to the full Senate for a vote, the House of Representatives will need to advance its parallel bill, and then the two bills will need to be conferenced to work out their differences before going back to both chambers for a vote and then to the President for signature.It is anticipated that the House will propose lower spending levels for health programs than the Senate, so these numbers are a likely high watermark where negotiations begin between the two chambers. Nonetheless, if one reads the House’s spending bill on global health as a tea leaf of what’s to come, it’s unlikely the House will cut as deep as the President wishes , so if the two chambers can reach a compromise and pass a budget, we could see funding levels land somewhere below the Senate but still substantially above the PBR. In the House bill, we are likely to see stronger relative numbers for NIH over CDC, given heightened criticism for the latter agency among Republican lawmakers.For many advocates, this bill is welcome news that Congress is reasserting its power of the purse in opposition to the president, yet significant concerns remain. Will the two chambers actually reach a promising compromise? And even if Congress appropriates strong funding for FY26, given all the recent moves by the Administration to rescind, halt, or slow the disbursement of federal spending, will this money actually reach researchers and health implementers to deliver impact? While we can’t predict for certain, GHTC and other advocates will continue to keep a close watch on what’s to come and activate where we can in order to protect vital funding for global health and medical research. 

Interested in more global health innovation news? Every week GHTC scours media reports worldwide to deliver essential global health R&D news and content to your inbox. Sign up now to receive our weekly R&D News Roundup email. Last week, the Drugs for Neglected Diseases initiative (DNDi) and AN2 Therapeutics announced a new collaboration to advance clinical development of AN2’s oral drug candidate for the treatment of chronic Chagas disease, which can remain asymptomatic for years while the infection wreaks irreversible damage in the body, potentially leading to the development of life-threatening conditions. The drug candidate, AN2-502998, is currently being tested in a Phase 1 first-in-human clinical study, scheduled for later in 2025, with a Phase 2 proof-of-concept study expected to commence next year. The partnership will leverage DNDi’s established network of clinical trial sites throughout Latin America and Spain, established through its previous Chagas clinical trial work.A team of researchers shared last week that they have developed a special kind of floss that could serve as a vaccine delivery method, delivering proteins and inactive viruses to the gums and triggering immune responses that can protect against infectious disease. While scientists have long been investigating alternatives to syringes like oral and nasal vaccine delivery methods, a challenge they’ve come across is that the mouth and nose have naturally tough defenses against foreign molecules. The flossing approach overcomes this challenge by targeting the pockets of gum between the teeth that are better at absorbing molecules. The approach proved successful in mice in multiple tests where researchers coated the floss in protein and inactive flu virus, and researchers have also tested the feasibility in humans, finding positive results. Further research will help determine if the technique will work in humans with a wide variation in gum health, including people with gum disease.Study results presented at the recent International AIDS Society Conference in HIV Science found that more than half of people living with HIV who received a pair of broadly neutralizing antibodies plus the drug N-803 experienced delayed viral rebound or maintained a low or suppressed viral load during interruption from antiretroviral treatment. While antiretroviral treatment can keep HIV suppressed indefinitely, the long-lasting viral reservoir maintained in the body has confounded researchers efforts to eliminate it, putting a cure out of reach. A small proportion of individuals naturally make unique broadly neutralizing antibodies that target key parts of the virus, which researchers have been trying to replicate with a manufactured drug. N-803, which is approved as a treatment for bladder cancer and is being studied in both cancer and HIV research, appears to be able to both reactivate dormant HIV and clear the virus out of hiding. Further research and an analysis across studies testing the approach will help confirm the underlying mechanisms of the effects researchers are seeing and determine whether the drug could be part of a future cure.

In a surprising move, House appropriators advanced out of committee yesterday a fiscal year 2026 funding bill that codifies the closure of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and cuts global health spending—yet delivers nearly $6 billion more than the White House requested, putting Congress on a collision course with the administration’s global health agenda.  Funding highlightsThe bill, covering National Security, State, and Related Programs, allocates $9.5 billion in funding for global health activities at the Department of State. This includes $5.9 billion for programs historically housed at State and $3.6 billion for programs formerly housed at USAID that have been absorbed into State following the administration’s official closure of the agency on July 1.This development is a glass-half-full or glass-half-empty outcome, depending on how advocates choose to view it. While this funding represents a $511.7 million (5 percent) cut to global health programs overall compared to fiscal year 2025 (FY25) enacted levels, it is also $5.7 billion above what was proposed in the President’s Budget Request, which would have represented a massive 62 percent cut.Many political observers had anticipated that the House would put forward a bill closely aligned with the President’s request, so it is both surprising and welcome news that House appropriators have advanced legislation maintaining substantial funding across many programmatic areas the administration has sought to drastically cut or eliminate. Beyond topline funding, the bill and accompanying report also diverge from the president’s proposal in other key ways. While the administration proposed eliminating funding for family planning and reproductive health, neglected tropical diseases, vulnerable children, nutrition, maternal and child health activities (except polio), and certain HIV/AIDS activities (formerly at USAID) and announced it would stop financial contributions to Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, the House bill retains funding across each of these aforementioned areas.  Additionally, the bill and report include welcome language affirming that House appropriators believe—in agreement with advocates—that investments in global health make America safer, stronger, and more prosperous. They also included language advocated for by GHTC, allowing appropriated funds to be used to support research and noting that the committee “supports investments in research, development, and introduction of innovative technologies” for global health, alongside other language supportive of research and innovation for specific health areas. The report also directs that global health security funding be made available to support the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, an international vaccine development partnership, consistent with prior fiscal year levels, which was $100 million. It is positive to see the House send a clear and unequivocal message to the administration that investments in research and development (R&D) are essential to delivering on the United States’ global health goals, given that the vast majority of global health awards financing R&D were terminated earlier this year, following the administration’s foreign assistance review.“Investments in global health programming are a fundamental pillar of America’s national security agenda. It makes America safer by supporting early detection and protection from dangerous outbreaks…and improving health infrastructure to bolster prevention, preparedness, and response….It makes American stronger and more prosperous by strengthening global economic stability…and unleashes American ingenuity in creating medicines, treatment, technology…and more.” – House FY26 National Security, State, and Related Programs billConcerning cuts The cuts in the bill from FY25 enacted funding levels are spread across several initiatives and health areas, including reductions to the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR); the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria; family planning and reproductive health; and topline funding for former USAID global health programs, which could potentially trickle down to cuts to global health security programming, given specific funding levels for this area were not specified in the bill or report. See the chart below for a more detailed comparison of funding lines in the House bill and percent changes compared to FY25 enacted and the President’s Budget Request. Program House FY26 bill ($ million) FY26 House vs FY25 enacted (%) FY26 House vs PBR (%) Global Health Programs, all $9,518 -5% +151% State Global Health Programs $5,895 -2% +55% PEPFAR $4,395 0% +51%  Global Fund $1,500 -9% Undefined* Former USAID Global Health Programs, now State $3,623 -9% Eliminated in PBR Maternal & Child Health $915 0% +976% of which Gavi $300 0% Eliminated in PBR Nutrition $172.5 +5% Eliminated in PBR HIV/AIDS† $330 0% Eliminated in PBR Vulnerable Children $32.5 +3% Eliminated in PBR Tuberculosis $394.5 0% +122% Malaria $800 +1% +89% Neglected Tropical Diseases $114.5 0% Eliminated in PBR Global Health Security‡ Undefined N/A N/A Family planning and reproductive health, across Up to $461 -24% Eliminated in PBR UNFPA§ $0 -100% Eliminated in PBR  *The PBR did not specify funding for the Global Fund but specified that a contribution could be made using Global Health Program funds. †  HIV/AIDS formerly at USAID are transferred to PEPFAR, adding to the PEPFAR amount reported in this table. ‡ Funded at $700 million in FY25 and funded at $200 million in PBR but not specified in House FY26 bill.  § Funded at $32.5 million in FY25 but eliminated in House bill and PBR.  These concerning proposed cuts could threaten decades of progress in advancing better health for families around the world and weaken America’s defenses against global disease threats. The bill also includes policy riders that prohibit funding for vital global actors, including the United Nations Population Fund and the World Health Organization, the latter in alignment with the administration’s executive order withdrawing from the organization. The bill also reaffirms the expanded “Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance” or “Mexico City Policy” restrictions, as well as forbids funding to organizations that provide transgender medical services, to any laboratories owned or controlled by adversary nations including China, or to support gain-of-function research, the last of which is written broadly enough to implicate both potentially dangerous research on pandemic risks as well as far lower-risk studies on infectious diseases. While the more favorable-than-expected House funding numbers represent a relatively positive development, in the context of USAID’s closure, mass grant terminations, and recent large-scale reductions in staffing at State, the bill also raises concerns about whether the State Department has the technical expertise or operational capacity to manage the former USAID portfolio effectively. It could also tee up a constitutional showdown in the courts if the administration ultimately chooses not to dispense funding as directed by congressional lawmakers or could spur further administration-driven efforts to claw back funding through recissions. What comes next The bill also represents just the first step in a long political process ahead. It will next go to the full House for a vote, then the Senate will advance its parallel bill, and then the two bills will need to be conferenced to work out differences before being re-voted on by both chambers and sent to President Donald Trump’s desk for signature. With its higher-than-expected funding relative to the White House’s request, the House bill provides a better starting place for these bicameral negotiations than many advocates anticipated we’d see this summer. Historically, the Senate has proposed higher funding levels for global health than the House and rejected many of the lower chamber’s more controversial political policy riders, so if the two chambers are able to reach a compromise and pass a bill, we could hopefully see funding levels increase to even closer to FY25 enacted levels, with some riders removed.  For many advocates and political observers, this bill and report represent a confusing split screen—the same Republican lawmakers who just recently voted to rescind millions in global health funds are now advancing relatively healthy funding for the same priorities. Does this indicate a change of heart? A divide between the beliefs of appropriators and other members of Congress? If such a bill advances, will the administration follow congressional directives, and will those same members push back if it doesn’t? Only time and the persistent work of advocates will tell.