Government Funding
On February 3, 2026, the United States government averted a prolonged fiscal crisis as Congress passed and President Donald Trump signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2026. This $1.2 trillion package effectively ended a three-day partial government shutdown and secured funding for the vast majority of federal operations through September 30, 2026.
The road to the FY 2026 budget was marked by intense negotiations and a brief lapse in funding after a January 30 deadline. Unlike previous years that relied on a single “omnibus” bill, this year’s funding was enacted through a series of “minibus” packages and standalone measures.
The final compromise passed the House with a narrow 217-214 vote and the Senate with a more comfortable 71-29 margin.
Key Provisions of the FY 2026 Act
The bill addresses several national priorities, ranging from military readiness to critical investments in public health and medical research:
- National Institutes of Health (NIH): In a significant rejection of proposed administration cuts, the bill provides $48.7 billion for the NIH. This represents an increase of $415 million over fiscal year 2025.
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC): The bill allocates $9.2 billion for the CDC, effectively sustaining level funding from the previous year.
- Defense and National Security: The Defense Appropriations Act provides $838.7 billion, including a 3.8% pay raise for all service members and a specialized 10% raise for junior enlisted personnel.
- Infrastructure and Transportation: The THUD package allocates $102.9 billion to modernize air traffic control systems and fund the hiring of 2,500 new air traffic controllers.
- Healthcare Extensions: The bill extends Medicare telehealth flexibilities through December 31, 2027, and delays Medicaid DSH payment cuts until 2029.
While the February 3 signing funded most of the government, it notably left the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on a two-week stopgap. As of Feb. 13, 2026, DHS funding is set to expire again. Lawmakers are currently engaged in last-minute negotiations to either pass a full-year bill for DHS or another short-term continuing resolution to prevent a localized shutdown of agencies like the TSA and ICE.
Perspectives on the NIH Modernization Hearing
On February 3, 2026, the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee convened a high-stakes hearing titled “Modernizing the National Institutes of Health: Faster Discoveries, More Cures.” The testimony of NIH Director Jayanta Bhattacharya, MD, PhD, provided a sobering yet pivotal look at the future of federal research—a future that signals a significant shift in how the United States approaches medical discovery and public health.
As the scientific community digests these proposed changes, several key themes emerged that will define the agency’s trajectory over the coming years.
1. Restoring Trust Through “Population Health” Success
A central theme of Dr. Bhattacharya’s testimony was allegations around erosion of public trust in scientific institutions. He signaled a shift in how the NIH defines its primary metrics for success. Rather than measuring impact solely by the volume of published research or academic citations, Bhattacharya argued that the agency’s “gold standard” should be tangible improvements in population health.
This pivot suggests a move toward practical, scalable health interventions. If the NIH moves to align its modernization effort with real-world health outcomes, it could change the landscape of preventative medicine and chronic disease management.
2. The Controversy Over Grant Cancellations
The hearing was marked by friction regarding the agency’s recent administrative actions. Ranking Member Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and other senators raised concerns over unprecedented grant terminations occurring over the previous fiscal year.
While Dr. Bhattacharya characterized these actions as “renegotiations” to remove political components and streamline the agency’s mission, the research community remains cautious. For scientists relying on multi-year commitments, this “unified funding strategy” introduces a new level of uncertainty. Critics argue that “clawing back” funds risks disrupting long-term studies and discouraging early-career researchers.
3. A Proposed Structural Overhaul: The National Institute on Body Systems
One of the most radical “modernization” proposals discussed was the potential establishment of the National Institute on Body Systems (NIBS). This new entity would aim to break down research silos by combining several existing institutes, including:
- National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI)
- National Institute on Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK)
- National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS)
The goal is to foster more holistic research into how various physiological systems interact, particularly regarding systemic chronic diseases. However, some advocates worry that specific expertise within these specialized fields might be diluted in a larger, consolidated bureaucracy.
4. Supporting Diverse Researchers and Facilities
In a move to decentralize research funding, Dr. Bhattacharya highlighted a commitment to increasing support for non-MD healthcare providers and smaller research facilities. By diversifying the pool of grant recipients, the NIH hopes to tap into innovations from smaller kinesiology departments, PhD researchers, and regional health centers that have historically been overshadowed by elite medical institutions.
The modernization of the NIH is well underway, but its final form remains a point of intense national debate. Whether the agency is truly moving toward a model of “Faster Discoveries, More Cures” will depend on how it balances administrative efficiency with the preservation of the rigorous, independent peer-review process.
As these reforms take shape, the priority remains ensuring that federal funding continues to protect the integrity of science while delivering the health breakthroughs Americans expect.
