Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
This bill amends the Public Health Service Act to prohibit the National Institutes of Health from funding any research activity or program that uses live animals unless that research takes place within the United States. "United States" is defined to include States, territories, and possessions. The bill is motivated by findings about historical NIH funding to foreign organizations and concerns about oversight and animal welfare.
Liberals stress global health collaboration harms; conservatives stress stopping taxpayer-funded overseas experiments
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward substantive policy change that clearly states a prohibition on NIH support for live-animal research conducted outside the United States and cites supporting findings.
This bill amends the Public Health Service Act to prohibit the National Institutes of Health from funding any research activity or program that uses live animals unless that research takes place within the United States. "United States" is defined to include States, territories, and possessions.
The bill is motivated by findings about historical NIH funding to foreign organizations and concerns about oversight and animal welfare.
Clear, restrictive policy with limited compromise features and strong organized opposition from scientific and international stakeholders reduces prospects.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward substantive policy change that clearly states a prohibition on NIH support for live-animal research conducted outside the United States and cites supporting findings. It is explicit about the prohibited funding instruments and the statutory insertion point.
Liberals stress global health collaboration harms; conservatives stress stopping taxpayer-funded overseas experiments
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Liberals stress global health collaboration harms; conservatives stress stopping taxpayer-funded overseas experiments
Likely sympathetic to the animal welfare rationale but concerned about blunt impacts on global health research and equity.
Prefers stronger oversight, alternatives to animal use, and careful transition measures rather than an absolute ban.
Views the oversight concerns as legitimate but sees the ban as overly broad and possibly counterproductive.
Would favor targeted reforms, verification requirements, or conditional exceptions instead of an outright prohibition.
Likely supportive because it prevents U.S. taxpayer money funding animal research overseas and asserts national control.
Some concern exists about harming U.S. scientific competitiveness, but many conservatives favor restricting federal funding abroad.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Clear, restrictive policy with limited compromise features and strong organized opposition from scientific and international stakeholders reduces prospects.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberals stress global health collaboration harms; conservatives stress stopping taxpayer-funded overseas experiments
Clear, restrictive policy with limited compromise features and strong organized opposition from scientific and international stakeholders r…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward substantive policy change that clearly states a prohibition on NIH support for live-animal research conducted outside the United States and cites…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.