Breakthroughs Blog: US budget

Over the past century, partnerships between the US government and scientists have led to major breakthroughs in global health research and development (R&D). Consistent US government funding, combined with the nation’s strong research universities and entrepreneurial spirit, has positioned America as a world leader. This investment has paid off in both health and economic gains. However, that foundation has recently weakened, as US government actions have sharply reduced research spending and limited global health research collaborations. These changes risk driving US researchers abroad and eroding the very strengths that made the United States such a scientific powerhouse. The result could be fewer breakthroughs, fewer economic benefits, and a costly brain drain for our nation. How we got here America’s global health research leadership is built on the backbone of decades of government investment by agencies like the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the US Agency for International Development (USAID). This support built a top-tier talent pool at home and drew innovators from abroad—giving the United States a strong competitive advantage. That advantage is now in jeopardy. Recent policy and budget decisions have led to the termination of thousands of NIH grants, the wind-down of BARDA’s mRNA vaccine work, the closure of USAID and near-total cancellation of its health R&D awards, and the loss of more than 20,000 jobs at the Department of Health and Human Services. More cuts and restructuring are proposed.New federal rules are also disrupting universities—the backbone of US biomedical research. To stay eligible for federal funding, institutions must meet shifting requirements, adding costs and uncertainty. At the same time, new NIH policies have restricted international partnerships and broadly limited "dangerous gain-of-function research,” including studies that leading experts consider to be safe. Research on infectious diseases like tuberculosis has been disrupted as a result.  Funding for training young scientists is also falling. NIH’s main program for supporting early-career researchers saw its grant spending drop from $2.2 billion in 2024 to $1.7 billion in 2025. Without reliable support, many students and junior researchers may take their talents abroad—or abandon their field altogether. The international response In the wake of these changes, other countries are moving quickly to recruit US researchers.  In May, the European Union pledged $567 million over three years to “make Europe a magnet for researchers.” Similarly, the Netherlands launched a new fund to attract top international scientists, and Norway unveiled a £7.2 million program to recruit researchers. The head of Norway’s Research Council pointed to the pressure US researchers are facing on academic freedom as part of its rationale.  Individual universities are also joining in. Aix-Marseille University in France launched its Safe Place for Science program to attract US scientists who may “feel threatened or hindered in their research.” The Free University Brussels created a dedicated point of contact for US researchers interesting in continuing their work in Belgium. The message from abroad is clear: America’s loss can be their gain. So what?As the US retreats, the center of gravity for biomedical research may shift overseas. Data from Nature’s jobs board shows that in the first few months of the current administration, US job-seekers applying abroad rose sharply: 41 percent more to Canada, 32 percent to Europe, 20 percent to China, and 39 percent to other Asian countries compared to the same period in 2024.  Early-career researchers are being hit hardest. At the most innovative and impactful stage of their careers, opportunities are disappearing. Many have been left jobless or unsure if they have a future in their field. The US economy is also at stake. In 2024, NIH-funded research supported more than 400,000 jobs across all 50 states and generated $94.60 billion in economic activity—a return of $2.56 for every dollar spent. Reductions in US spending could shift those economic benefits to other countries. And since no other nation has the resources to fully replace the US’s historic role, we could see fewer medical breakthroughs for the world overall. Without strong and predictable federal research support, the United States risks losing its place as a top engine of global biomedical progress. Young researchers see more uncertainty than opportunity, and other nations are investing heavily to take the lead, accelerating a US brain drain. If US policymakers do not act to restore the foundational factors that rooted American scientific leadership, the future of science may unfold elsewhere—and the next generation of discoveries may not be American-led.  

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. 

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.

Over the past few months, the US administration has made sweeping changes at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the backbone of America’s public health and health research infrastructure, which contains the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA). Together, NIH, CDC, and BARDA, in conjunction with other agencies across the government, support the development of health technologies that save and improve lives in the United States and around the world, including a key role in combatting emerging infectious diseases and longstanding global health challenges like HIV/AIDS.   As the United States’ lead agency for medical research, NIH has long been at the forefront of scientific discovery, pushing forward innovations in health technology across a range of health areas. In compliment, BARDA supports the advanced development of medical countermeasures against diseases with pandemic potential to shore up the nation’s public health security, and CDC, alongside tracking the spread of diseases and other health threats, supports the development of new diagnostic, prevention, and surveillance technologies and evaluates the effectiveness of existing tools to inform future research and development (R&D) needs. Far-reaching cuts to HHS’s workforce and infrastructure and the terminations of thousands of research grants—with further budget reductions proposed—threaten to reverse decades of scientific progress, shrink the pipeline of next-generation health technologies, weaken the country’s biomedical workforce and industry, and make Americans and people around the world more vulnerable to longstanding and emerging health threats.  Widespread job losses and restructuring jeopardize key R&D functionsThe US administration has overseen the dismissal or abrupt exits of up to 20,000 federal employees across HHS—amounting to 25 percent of the workforce. Thirteen hundred jobs were eliminated at NIH and around 2,400 at CDC (while some jobs have since been restored, the administration’s pivots have made it hard to track the scale and permanence of these changes), including the removal of directors and gutting of divisions focused on infectious disease and global health partnerships. The departure of these staff—from seasoned leaders to young recruits—represents an immense loss of expertise and promise and could lead to severe disruptions in critical research and surveillance efforts.Additionally, HHS has also canceled thousands of research grants over the past few months—estimates of the value of terminated funding at NIH alone range from $1.8 to $2.7 billion (more than 1,000 grants terminated and 1,000 additional projects that had funding delayed) and billions more from CDC and BARDA, with research on COVID-19 and other emerging infectious diseases and HIV/AIDS particularly impacted. Moreover, a new NIH policy halting foreign subawards could upend international research collaborations and put thousands of additional grants at risk of termination, while a policy to cap NIH indirect research costs, which has remained blocked in the courts, could further erode available funding to support researchers.Beyond these initial layoffs and cuts, the administration is also proposing a restructuring effort and federal budget for fiscal year 2026 that would reduce funding for NIH, CDC, and BARDA by 43, 53, and 36 percent respectively and implement a new primary focus on chronic disease at HHS, shuttering key centers carrying out infectious disease research and forging global partnerships, including the NIH Fogarty International Center and CDC’s Global Health Center and National Center for HIV, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and Tuberculosis Prevention.While thoughtful and thorough reforms could serve to improve these agencies’ ability to carry out critical work and ensure American taxpayer money is well spent, the rapid pace and far-reaching scale of these cuts and changes (which have seen pushback in the courts) has aroused concern among many across academia, industry, and the medical research sector who fear long-term health and economic consequences and the risk of a US scientific workforce “brain drain,” as researchers leave the field or country altogether. Terminated research makes Americans more vulnerable to emerging health threatsFrom avian influenza to COVID-19, Ebola, and mpox, emerging health threats pose a growing risk to Americans in our increasingly interconnected world. We know all too well the significant toll of pandemics, both in terms of lives lost and health care spending and economic disruptions.NIH, CDC, and BARDA have historically played a crucial role in ensuring that Americans have the technologies to protect us against disease threats wherever they arise. The research that led to the development of the mRNA vaccines for COVID-19 and rapid diagnostic tests and the world’s first vaccine and treatments for Ebola were all supported by one or multiple of these agencies.Unfortunately, research on COVID-19 and other emerging threats have been among those areas most heavily impacted by recent grant terminations, caught in the crosshairs of various efforts to claw back COVID-19 funding; curtail funding for mRNA, gain-of-function, and vaccine research; zero out funding for specific universities; and prioritize chronic disease research.For example, at NIH, an initiative founded in 2022 to support the development of antivirals against a range of pandemic threats, including the viruses that cause Ebola, Zika, and measles, was defunded. Other NIH-funded projects to develop pan-coronavirus vaccines that could protect against COVID-19, MERS, SARS, and other yet-to-emerge coronaviruses, as well as drugs targeting a range of RNA viruses, including coronaviruses, avian influenza, and measles, were also cut.At CDC, $11.4 billion in funding allocated for the COVID-19 response was pulled back, including funding that was supporting essential surveillance and preparedness activities for COVID-19 and other emerging health threats. Meanwhile, at BARDA, grants supporting the late-stage development of mRNA vaccines for avian influenza were terminated over concerns about the safety of mRNA technology, despite scientific consensus that mRNA vaccines are safe and saved millions of lives during the COVID-19 pandemic.If enacted, the proposed HHS restructuring and president’s budget proposal would also eliminate key functions across NIH and CDC that serve as our first line of defense against pandemic threats. These include institutes and centers, like the NIH Fogarty International Center and CDC Global Health Center, that provide critical training, forge international partnerships, and monitor and respond to threats abroad.   If a new outbreak were to start (or if one of the several ongoing ones suddenly worsened) tomorrow or next month, the precious expertise, resources, and technologies in the pipeline that are now being lost or rolled back would mean Americans would be less safe and less prepared. In fact, the very ability to swiftly identify a new outbreak is now in question. Research terminations set back progress in the fight against HIV/AIDS and other longstanding global health challengesHIV has led to the deaths of more than 700,000 people in the United States since 1981, with 1.2 million Americans now living with HIV. NIH and CDC have played a crucial role in developing technologies and supporting programs that have reduced the number of new infections and enabled Americans and people around the world living with HIV to live longer and healthier lives.NIH has long been a global leader in HIV R&D, working with partners to isolate the virus for the first time and discovering a new class of antiviral drugs that helped turned HIV into a manageable chronic condition. HIV research supported by NIH has also led to technologies for other diseases and health conditions that affect millions of Americans, including cancer, heart failure, and even COVID-19. But efforts to drastically reduce funding for infectious disease research, including HIV research, at the agency could slow the discovery of future health breakthroughs.NIH has already terminated at least $759 million in grants involving HIV research, with many caught up in attempts to realign US investments away from diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts; zero out federal funding for several universities; crack down on funds going to foreign sub-awardees; and cut all foreign aid dollars for South Africa.  The latter two policies targeting research done outside of the United States are of particular concern for HIV R&D. While HIV continues to affect many Americans, to ensure new technologies are broadly effective, it is crucial to conduct research in diverse populations of people living with or at risk of HIV, including populations outside the United States—especially in South Africa, which remains the epicenter of the pandemic. The executive order ending US aid to South Africa has already threatened the continuation of at least 24 HIV trials being carried out there, including those advancing some of the most promising new tools. (The impact of these two policies also goes far beyond HIV/AIDS, with basic and clinical research on other longstanding global health challenges like tuberculosis and malaria also disrupted).NIH supports four global HIV clinical trial networks, which facilitate cross-sector and international partnerships furthering HIV R&D, all of which have seen their ongoing research or functions hampered in some way in the last few months by terminations and this collection of policies. They are now having to grapple with their future; one network has already scaled back ongoing studies, declined new research opportunities, laid off employees, and canceled at least six scheduled trials.NIH also notified two major consortia working on developing an HIV vaccine that it will not renew funding next year. While new long-acting HIV prevention tools represent major breakthroughs, most experts agree that a traditional, immunizing vaccine is still needed to sustainably end HIV/AIDS as a global health challenge. The consortia’s work has had tremendous success, furthering what are widely considered the most innovative, experimental vaccine candidates into clinical trials.  CDC has also played a complementary role in HIV efforts, leading surveillance and supporting research to help improve prevention and treatment efforts in the United States and globally. It is also a key implementing agency of the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR. Proposed budget cuts and restructuring at CDC would curtail domestic HIV prevention and surveillance activities, as well as eliminate the agency’s Global Health Center and, with it, a specific funding line for global HIV and TB activities (though the agency will likely continue to implement certain PEPFAR activities), undermining the ability of public health officials to track new infections and ensure patients can start treatment in a timely manner. They would likewise dismantle the NIH Fogarty International Center and, with it, programs that have long played a key role in training the next generation of HIV researchers.These changes threaten to set us back in the decades-long effort to develop a vaccine and other game-changing technologies to address HIV/AIDS, which were gathering momentum recently, with promising vaccine clinical trial results and the recent approval by the US Food and Drug Administration of an injectable HIV prevention drug (developed using evidence from NIH-funded research) that provides long-term protection—the next best thing from a vaccine. Delays and suspensions of ongoing research, as well as disrupted surveillance and services, could not only stall the development of the next generation of technologies, but also potentially lead to a resurgence of HIV in the United States and around the world.The bottom lineInvestments in global health R&D, including investments in emerging infectious disease and HIV/AIDS R&D, at NIH, CDC, BARDA, and other US agencies have demonstrated a huge return on investment, delivering 67 new technologies approved since 1999 for neglected and non-COVID emerging infectious diseases. Additionally, between 2007 and 2022, at least 86 percent of all funding that the US government directed to global health R&D was reinvested in American companies and institutions. This investment has created an estimated 600,000 new American jobs, spurred $104 billion in direct economic activity, and yielded scientific knowledge to inspire further innovations, which will ultimately generate $255 billion in long-term benefits to the American economy.  As the global heavyweight in biomedical R&D, NIH investments alone have generated hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions in new economic activity in every state (including the most rural ones), bolstering the American universities, research institutes, and businesses that make up the biomedical sector. And it pays off: every $1 received from NIH generates $2.46 on average in increased economic activity. In fact, we’re already beginning to see the dramatic economic fallout of this pullback in investment. These past investments have made America a global leader in biomedical innovation. As other countries start to pursue American researchers who have lost jobs and funding and China makes major investments and advances in life sciences R&D, for the first time surpassing the United States in drug clinical trials in 2024, America could fall behind. Investing in biomedical research is a tide that raises all boats and benefits cross-cutting health areas. In an era of great scientific opportunity but increased risks, this is the time to invest more and shore up the critical work at HHS agencies to boost the economy, America’s leadership on the world stage, and our ability to protect Americans and people around the world from an ever-increasing roster of longstanding and new health threats.