Â鶹´«Ã½Ó³»­

June 8, 2026

We’ve got your back on Capitol Hill—and we’re in overdrive advocating for you and your patients. Capitol Hill Report is your source for all things neurology advocacy, including this summary of a sweeping new proposal on federal grants. Let us know if your practice, research, or patients are affected by recent policy changes.

Issue in focus

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a proposed rule late last month that would reshape the federal government’s approach to how agencies award grants, cooperative agreements, and other forms of federal financial assistance. According to OMB, the proposed revisions are intended to improve transparency, accountability, and oversight for awards across the federal government, while also reducing the burden on recipients. This regulation is broadly consistent with the Trump administration’s previous efforts to exert increased control over research funding, but it would establish a standard framework for the whole government rather than allowing each agency to establish and implement its own policies.

Notably, the proposal would treat peer reviews by program officers or scientists as advisory, and it would make political appointees complete a "pre-issuance review" to ensure discretionary grants advance the president's policy priorities. Further, the proposed rule would allow grants to be terminated if the work "no longer effectuates program goals, federal agency priorities, or the national interest.” The proposed rule also includes a number of restrictions regarding research topic areas, including “unlawful DEI,” “gender ideology,” issue advocacy, and theories of disparate impact liability. Research awards would also move to a domestic-first model, limiting direct awards to foreign entities outside of express statutory authority or senior appointee determination. Further, international elements in otherwise domestic projects would have to be affirmatively justified on a case-by-case basis. The proposed rule also includes restrictions on how funds can be utilized, including requirements of prior approval for conference attendance and professional membership, as well as disallowing the use of research funds for publication costs, open access fees, and public relations costs. 

The Â鶹´«Ã½Ó³»­ has serious concerns about the proposed rule, which could damage neuroscience research and set back countless researchers’ crucial work. We’re reviewing it thoroughly and will submit formal comments ahead of the July 13 deadline. 

We also continue to strongly advocate for increased funding for neuroscience research at the NIH. Specifically, we have been advocating for:

• 468 million in base funding for the BRAIN Initiative to offset the loss of mandatory funding and ensure continued progress
• An 8.7% increase for NINDS, bringing total funding to $3.04 billion, to maintain the pace of discovery and support the full pipeline of basic, translational, and clinical research
• Protection of NIH research funding policies, including rejecting proposals that would cap indirect costs and otherwise restrict the number and scope of grants awarded by funding upfront

The House Appropriations Labor, Health, Human Services, and related agencies subcommittee marked up their proposal for NIH funding this past Friday. It includes:

• $48 billion for NIH, a $100 million increase over FY 2026 levels
• $2.866 billion for NINDS, a $62 million increase over FY 2026 levels
• Language that limits indirect cost reimbursement at 30% for certain institutions

Full funding for neuroscience research is a necessity—and if we’re going to achieve it in Financial Year 2027, we need your help. Join your colleagues today and to support neuroscience research! 

Latest advocacy news

Proposed rule would reduce drug prior authorization burden 
The Â鶹´«Ã½Ó³»­ has submitted a comment letter in response to a proposed rule from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services that would reduce the prior authorization burden associated with prescribing drugs. Our comments discuss standards for electronic prior authorizations, application program interfaces (APIs), and increased transparency.

New York chiropractor bill will not move forward
We are pleased to announce that New York A.4706C/S.5860C, which would have inappropriately expanded chiropractic scope of practice by granting chiropractors the authority to evaluate, detect, and diagnose neuromusculoskeletal conditions—functions that fall outside the scope of their education and clinical training—has died in session and will not move forward. To oppose these bills, we mobilized two Action Alerts, issued one week apart, generating a total of 332 actions. We also submitted formal opposition letters to each committee chair as the legislation advanced through the Assembly. We’re pleased with this outcome and grateful for the strong engagement that helped secure this important advocacy win!

What we're reading

• States balk at the high price of Medicaid work requirements amid budget crunch |
• Trump administration to ask US AI firms to voluntarily submit models for cybersecurity tests |
• OIG: Feds may have overpaid MA plans by millions due to unsupported stroke diagnosis |