Erasing the Biodefense Era: Inside the 2026 Restructuring of NIAID

I. Introduction: The Friday Directive and the End of the Biodefense Era

On a Friday in February 2026, a seemingly administrative directive rippled through the digital infrastructure of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), the United States’ premier agency for infectious disease research. Staff members were instructed to scrub specific terminology from the institute’s web pages. The terms in question—“biodefense” and “pandemic preparedness”—had defined the agency’s mission for nearly a quarter of a century.¹ This mandated linguistic shift was not merely a rebranding exercise; it marked the opening salvo in the most radical structural and philosophical overhaul in the institute’s history.

Under the administration of President Donald Trump, returning to office with a mandate to reshape the federal bureaucracy, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) found itself at the epicenter of a broader campaign to dismantle the "administrative state." The firing of NIAID Director Jeanne Marrazzo, less than two years into her tenure, and the appointment of Dr. Jeffery Taubenberger as Acting Director, signaled a decisive break from the era of Dr. Anthony Fauci, who had led the agency for 38 years.¹

The restructuring, articulated by NIH Director Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, represents a fundamental pivot in the nation’s approach to public health. The new leadership argues that the previous model—heavily invested in predicting future pandemics and developing countermeasures against potential bioterror threats—failed to prevent the catastrophic excess mortality of the COVID-19 pandemic.¹ In its place, they propose a "New Vision" focused on "people preparedness," basic immunology, and the chronic conditions that render populations vulnerable to infection.¹

This report examines the dimensions of this transformation. It explores the budgetary contractions, the consolidation of the massive HIV/AIDS research infrastructure, the controversial redefinition of antimicrobial resistance, and the strict prohibitions on gain-of-function research. By analyzing the FY 2026 congressional justification, internal memos, and expert commentary, we reveal how a philosophical disagreement about the nature of health security is being operationalized into a permanent alteration of the American scientific landscape.

II. The Ideological Pivot: From Pathogen Surveillance to "People Preparedness"

The Critique of the "Biomedical Security State"

To understand the 2026 restructuring, one must first understand the critique that drives it. For decades, the dominant paradigm in global health security was "anticipatory" research. This model posited that by cataloging viruses in the wild, studying their potential to spill over into humans, and developing prototype vaccines, science could intercept pandemics before they became global catastrophes. This approach was institutionalized following the anthrax attacks of 2001, which spurred the creation of Project BioShield and a massive infusion of "biodefense" funding into the NIAID.

However, the leadership installed in 2025—principally Dr. Jay Bhattacharya and Dr. Jeffery Taubenberger, advised by Dr. John Powers—has publicly rejected this premise. In a commentary published in Nature Medicine on January 16, 2026, they argued that NIAID’s work "clearly neither prevented the pandemic nor prevented Americans from experiencing among the highest levels of all-cause excess mortality in the developed world".¹

This critique suggests that the billions spent on biodefense and surveillance created a false sense of security while neglecting the underlying health of the population. The "New Vision" posits that the "Pandemic Preparedness Industry" is fueled by hubris—the belief that humanity can predict and control microbial evolution.¹ Instead, the new administration advocates for a retreat from global surveillance and a refocusing on the biological resilience of the American citizen.

Defining "People Preparedness"

The alternative model proposed is termed "people preparedness." Dr. John Powers, a senior adviser to the director, summarized this philosophy: "One way for people to be prepared is to be healthier, eat better and exercise, so you’re less likely to get sick or have a poor outcome".¹

This concept shifts the locus of responsibility from the state (which provides vaccines, stockpiles, and surveillance) to the individual and the biological terrain of the host. The reasoning is that during the COVID-19 pandemic, individuals with metabolic disorders, autoimmune conditions, and age-related frailty suffered the worst outcomes. Therefore, the most effective "biodefense" is not a new vaccine, but a population with a robust immune system capable of withstanding viral assault.

Consequently, the NIAID’s research priorities are being reallocated toward:

1. Basic Immunology: Understanding the mechanisms of immune function and dysfunction.

2. Chronic and Autoimmune Diseases: Addressing the rising prevalence of allergies and autoimmune disorders which complicate infectious disease outcomes.¹

3. Domestic Infectious Diseases: Focusing on infections currently affecting Americans, rather than theoretical threats from abroad.

This ideological shift explains the order to remove "pandemic preparedness" from the website. In the view of the new leadership, the term represents a failed strategy of state interventionism that prioritized "bugs" over "people".⁵

The Scientific Counter-Argument: The Risk of Blindness

The pivot has alarmed the broader infectious disease community. Experts like Dr. Nahid Bhadelia of Boston University argue that this "one or the other" approach creates a dangerous blind spot. Pathogens are constantly evolving and spilling over from wildlife; ignoring this reality does not make the threat disappear.¹

Critics contend that "people preparedness" is insufficient against high-pathogenicity agents. A robust immune system and a healthy diet offer little protection against measles, Ebola, or a novel influenza strain with high virulence. The anticipatory research that the new administration derides as "hubris" was, in fact, responsible for the rapid development of mRNA platforms that allowed for the record-breaking deployment of COVID-19 vaccines.¹

By dismantling the infrastructure for surveillance and rapid countermeasure development, critics warn that the U.S. is effectively blinding itself to the next inevitable biological threat. Dr. Gigi Gronvall of Johns Hopkins University describes the new approach as "full of hubris" in its own right, assuming that lifestyle changes can mitigate the biological reality of viral pathogenesis.¹

III. The Anatomy of Fiscal Contraction: The FY 2026 Budget

The ideological shift at NIAID is being enforced through the most potent tool in the federal government: the budget. The President’s Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2026 proposes a reduction in NIAID’s resources that is historic in its scale and specificity. The total request stands at $4.175 billion, a decrease of $2.38 billion—or 36.4%—compared to the FY 2025 level.⁶

This is not a trimming of administrative fat; it is a structural amputation designed to resize the federal research footprint. To put this in perspective, NIAID’s budget had seen consistent growth over the previous decade, reaching approximately $6.6 billion, with roughly one-third dedicated to the now-disfavored areas of biodefense and emerging infectious diseases.¹ The FY 2026 budget explicitly redistributes these reductions across all programmatic areas, signaling a general contraction of the federal research ecosystem.

Research Project Grants: The Collapse of the Extramural Base

The primary mechanism by which NIH funds external science—Research Project Grants (RPGs)—bears the brunt of the cuts. The budget proposes a 43.5% decrease in RPG funding, bringing the total down to $2.32 billion.⁶ This reduction affects the core of academic science in the United States, threatening the viability of hundreds of laboratories at universities and medical centers.

The mechanics of this cut are devastatingly specific:

• Non-competing RPGs: Funding for ongoing multi-year grants (non-competing continuations) is slated for a 50% reduction.⁶ This effectively breaks the contract between the NIH and researchers. Typically, an R01 grant is awarded for 4-5 years. A 50% cut in out-year funding means laboratories currently in the middle of long-term projects will see their funding halved overnight. This forces immediate layoffs of postdoctoral fellows, technicians, and graduate students, and the termination of longitudinal experiments that cannot be paused.

• Competing RPGs: New grants (competing awards) will face a 21.5% reduction.⁶ This will historically lower the "payline" (the percentile score required to get funded), likely to single digits. This makes it nearly impossible for young investigators or high-risk/high-reward projects to secure support, favoring only the most established researchers proposing the safest science.

The Indirect Cost Cap: A Crisis for Research Universities

Compounding the direct funding cuts is a new policy action: a cap on indirect costs. Indirect costs (or Facilities and Administrative costs) are paid to universities to cover the overhead of research—electricity, building maintenance, hazardous waste disposal, and administrative compliance. Historically, these rates are negotiated individually with institutions based on their actual infrastructure costs, often ranging from 50% to 60%.

The new administration has imposed a standard indirect cost rate cap of 15% for all grants.⁶ This policy, though currently challenged in court, is built into the FY 2026 budgetary framework. For research-intensive universities like Johns Hopkins, UCSF, or Harvard, this represents a financial cataclysm. These institutions rely on indirect cost recovery to subsidize the expensive infrastructure required for biomedical research. A drop from ~55% to 15% means universities lose millions of dollars per grant. They will be forced to either subsidize federal research from their own endowments and tuition revenues or decline federal grants entirely. This policy disproportionately affects high-containment laboratories (BSL-3 and BSL-4), which have astronomical utility and security costs that far exceed a 15% overhead allowance.

Table 1: Major Budgetary Changes (FY 2025 vs. FY 2026 Request)

Budget Mechanism	FY 2025 Estimate (CR)	FY 2026 Request	% Change	Impact Analysis
Total NIAID Budget	~$6.56 Billion	$4.175 Billion	-36.4%	Broad reduction across all sectors; returns funding to pre-pandemic levels adjusted for inflation.
Research Project Grants (RPGs)	~$4.1 Billion	$2.32 Billion	-43.5%	Severe contraction of investigator-initiated research; reduced capacity for university-based science.
Non-Competing RPGs	--	--	-50.0%	Immediate defunding of active multi-year grants; creates "cliff" for ongoing projects.
Competing RPGs	--	--	-21.5%	Raises the bar for new science; prioritizes "safe" research over high-risk innovation.
R&D Contracts	~$860 Million	$625.2 Million	-27.3%	Cuts to clinical trial networks, product development, and biodefense contracts.
Intramural Research (IR)	~$873 Million	$699.0 Million	-20.0%	Reduction in government-led science (e.g., VRC, RML); creates pressure to reduce federal staff.

Dismantling the Contract Infrastructure

Research and Development (R&D) contracts, which funded the clinical trials networks and the rapid development of therapeutics, are reduced by 27.3% to $625.2 million.⁶ These contracts are the engine of the "biodefense" infrastructure, supporting the strategic national stockpile and the advanced development of medical countermeasures. Their reduction aligns with the administration's skepticism of the "biomedical security state" and the pivot away from government-managed pandemic response.

IV. The Division of AIDS: From Exceptionalism to Consolidation

Since the 1980s, HIV/AIDS research has enjoyed "exceptional" status at NIH, with protected budget lines, expedited review processes, and a massive, dedicated infrastructure. The Division of AIDS (DAIDS) at NIAID has been the command center for this global effort, managing a portfolio that historically commanded nearly $1.5 billion annually.¹ The 2026 restructuring marks the end of this era of exceptionalism.

The Legacy Structure

Before the restructuring, DAIDS was a sprawling organism designed to attack the virus from every conceivable angle. It consisted of 33 separate branches organized into four main programs ⁸:

1. Basic Sciences Program: Included branches like Pathogenesis and Basic Research, Targeted Interventions, and Epidemiology. This program focused on the fundamental biology of the virus.

2. Therapeutics Research Program: Included the HIV Research Branch, Drug Development and Pre-clinical Research Branch, and the TB Clinical Research Branch. This program developed the antiretrovirals that transformed HIV from a death sentence to a chronic condition.

3. Vaccine Research Program: Included the Preclinical Research and Development Branch and the Vaccine Clinical Research Branch. This program led the elusive quest for an HIV vaccine.

4. Prevention Sciences Program: Included the Preclinical Microbicide and Prevention Research Branch and the Maternal, Adolescent, and Pediatric Research Branch.

This specialized structure allowed for granular focus but was criticized by the new leadership as bloated and representative of an "old model" that prioritized a single pathogen over broader immunological health.¹

The 2026 Consolidation Plan

Under the restructuring plan ordered by NIH Principal Deputy Director Matthew Memoli, the Division of AIDS is targeted for massive consolidation. The 33 distinct branches are expected to be merged into a streamlined, flattened structure.¹ While the exact new organigram remains internal, the directive implies a move toward "functional" rather than "pathogen-specific" organizations—consolidating "vaccine research" for all diseases into one unit, rather than having a dedicated HIV vaccine branch.

The "Normalization" of HIV

The overarching strategy is the "normalization" of HIV—treating it as just another chronic infectious disease rather than a unique crisis. This is evident in several policy changes:

• Grant Alignment: The administration has aligned HIV/AIDS grant receipt dates with standard NIH cycles, eliminating the expedited review process that had been in place since 1988 to treat HIV as an emergency.¹⁰ This removes the speed advantage HIV researchers previously held, slowing the pipeline from idea to funding.

• Vaccine Research Cancellation: In May 2025, the NIH canceled funding for several HIV vaccine research projects focused on broadly neutralizing antibodies (bNAbs).⁷ bNAbs were seen as a promising frontier for both prevention and cure, but they are expensive and scientifically difficult. Their cancellation suggests that the administration views high-cost, high-failure-rate "moonshot" projects as a poor use of taxpayer funds, preferring to focus on existing therapeutics.

The Human Cost

The consolidation of 33 branches inevitably leads to the displacement of Branch Chiefs and specialized program officers. These individuals hold the institutional memory of thirty years of HIV research. Their removal or reassignment dissolves the collaborative networks that connected basic scientists with clinical trialists. The loss of these leaders also threatens relationships with community advisory boards (CABs) and international partners that were integral to the success of networks like the AIDS Clinical Trials Group (ACTG) and the HIV Prevention Trials Network (HPTN).¹¹

Critics argue that dismantling the DAIDS infrastructure threatens the progress toward "ending the HIV epidemic." The complex interplay between HIV, coinfections like Tuberculosis and Hepatitis, and non-AIDS comorbidities (cardiovascular disease, malignancies) requires specialized oversight that a generalized structure may fail to provide.¹³

V. The New Epistemology: Redefining Antimicrobial Resistance

One of the most intellectually significant shifts in the "New Vision" is the redefinition of Antimicrobial Resistance (AMR). Historically, AMR has been defined by microbiologists based on in vitro susceptibility—whether a specific concentration of a drug kills bacteria in a petri dish (Minimum Inhibitory Concentration, or MIC).

Dr. John Powers, a senior advisor to the director and a key architect of the new vision, proposes a radical re-centering of this definition. The administration argues that AMR should be defined by "patients who have poor outcomes on current therapies, rather than solely on in vitro biological activity".³

The Scientific Rationale: Patients vs. Pathogens

This shift is based on data suggesting that a vast majority of deaths from infections—94% by some NIH estimates cited by the new leadership—are caused by organisms that are technically "susceptible" to antibiotics in the lab, yet the patient still dies.³ This discrepancy suggests that the problem is not just the "bug" resisting the drug, but the host’s physiological failure (sepsis, immune collapse) or the drug’s failure to reach the site of infection in vivo.

The new leadership critiques the FDA and the pharmaceutical industry for being "pathogen-focused"—developing new drugs that kill resistant bacteria in a test tube but may not improve survival rates in actual patients.¹⁴ They argue that the obsession with "superbugs" (like MRSA) distracts from the larger number of patients dying from common, treatable infections due to poor overall health or delayed treatment.

Implications for Research and Policy

By redefining AMR as a clinical outcome failure rather than a microbiological trait, NIAID is pivoting research dollars toward:

1. Host-Response Therapies: Drugs that modulate the immune system or prevent sepsis, rather than just killing bacteria. This aligns with the "people preparedness" focus on biological resilience.

2. Clinical Trial Redesign: Moving away from non-inferiority trials based on microbiological eradication to superiority trials based on patient survival and symptom resolution.⁵

3. De-emphasis on Novel Antibiotics: If the problem is in vivo failure of susceptible bugs, then churning out new antibiotics for resistant bugs is a lower priority. This could lead to a reduction in funding for basic antibacterial drug discovery, alarming the infectious disease community who see the pipeline of new antibiotics running dry.¹⁵

This epistemological shift challenges the business model of the pharmaceutical industry, which relies on the FDA's current pathogen-focused criteria for drug approval. By demanding proof of improved patient survival, the new NIAID creates a much higher barrier for new antimicrobial drugs.

VI. The War on "Gain of Function" and Research Security

A central pillar of the restructuring is the strict prohibition of "dangerous Gain of Function" (dGOF) research. This policy was formalized in President Trump’s Executive Order 14292, titled "Improving the Safety and Security of Biological Research," issued in May 2025.³

The New Regulatory Framework

The term "Gain of Function" generally refers to research that alters an organism to enhance its biological activity. In the context of virology, it often involves experiments that might make a pathogen more transmissible or virulent to understand how it might evolve in nature. This research has been a flashpoint of controversy, particularly regarding the origins of SARS-CoV-2.

The new administration’s stance is absolute: "those projects that do [pose a catastrophic threat] will play no part in the NIAID portfolio going forward".³ The NIAID, under Bhattacharya and Taubenberger, has committed to strictly adhering to these new prohibitions.

This policy shift has immediate operational consequences:

• Grant Terminations: NIH issued Notice NOT-OD-25-127 to terminate or suspend funding for research falling under the new dGOF definition.¹⁷

• Operational Pauses: The policy has led to "safety stand-downs" and research pauses at high-containment facilities, most notably at the NIAID Integrated Research Facility at Fort Detrick (IRF-Frederick).¹⁸

• Brain Drain: The criminalization of certain types of virological research creates a chilling effect. Scientists working on vector-borne diseases or viral evolution may abandon the field or move their research to countries with less restrictive oversight, paradoxically reducing U.S. visibility into emerging threats.

The Scientific Debate

Proponents of the ban argue that the risks of accidental release from a lab outweigh the theoretical benefits of predicting viral evolution. They align with the "people preparedness" model, arguing that resources should be spent on hardening the population rather than creating "superbugs" in a lab.

Opponents, including the American Society for Microbiology (ASM), warn that a broad definition of dGOF can capture benign and essential research, such as developing seasonal flu vaccines (which requires adapting viruses to grow in eggs or cell cultures). They argue that these restrictions "eviscerate" the federal scientific workforce and weaken the ability to respond to natural outbreaks.¹⁹

VII. The Threat to High-Containment Infrastructure

NIAID funds and operates a network of high-containment laboratories, including Biosafety Level 4 (BSL-4) facilities capable of handling the world’s most dangerous pathogens (e.g., Ebola, Marburg). Key facilities include the Integrated Research Facility at Fort Detrick, Maryland, and the Rocky Mountain Laboratories (RML) in Hamilton, Montana.

Funding Cuts and Operational Risks

The FY 2026 budget cuts pose an existential threat to these facilities. BSL-4 labs are incredibly expensive to maintain due to their complex air filtration, waste treatment, and security systems. The NIH already faces a massive backlog of maintenance and repair (BMAR). Cutting the Buildings and Facilities (B&F) budget or restricting overhead recovery (indirect costs) makes it nearly impossible to maintain the safety standards required for these labs.²⁰

The "safety stand-down" at Fort Detrick in April 2025, triggered by personnel issues and potential exposures, highlights the fragility of these operations.¹⁸ The new administration’s scrutiny of "safety violations" combined with budget cuts creates a pincer movement that may force the closure or mothballing of BSL-4 capacity.

The Local Context: Hamilton, Montana

The situation at Rocky Mountain Laboratories (RML) in Hamilton, Montana, illustrates the intersection of local politics and federal policy. RML is a world-class facility nestled in a conservative, rural town. While it is a major economic driver, it has also been the subject of local suspicion, exacerbated by political rhetoric linking labs to the origins of COVID-19.²¹

The "people preparedness" narrative plays well in such communities, framing health as a matter of personal responsibility and liberty rather than federal biomedical intervention. However, mass layoffs and grant cancellations threaten the economic stability of Hamilton, creating a tension between the ideological goals of the administration (cutting government) and the economic reality of the communities it claims to represent.²¹ The protest signs reading "Stop Strangling Science" in downtown Hamilton reflect the tangible impact of Washington's policy shifts on rural America.

VIII. Workforce Decimation: The "Deep State" Purge

The restructuring of NIAID is facilitated by broader civil service reforms. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) finalized a rule creating "Schedule Policy/Career" (often referred to as Schedule F in previous iterations). This reclassification strips civil service protections from career employees in "policy-influencing" roles, making them "at-will" employees who can be fired without cause.²²

RIFs and Retributions

Simultaneously, the administration has utilized "Reduction in Force" (RIF) procedures to implement mass layoffs. Approximately 20% of the NIH workforce has already been laid off or left voluntarily since January 2025.¹ These cuts are not random; they target specific offices deemed aligned with the "old model" of public health, such as diversity offices, communication departments, and pandemic preparedness units.⁷

The result is a catastrophic loss of institutional knowledge. The "brain drain" affects everything from grant review administration to the management of complex clinical trials. For NIAID, an agency that relies on long-term relationships with researchers and global partners, this turnover is devastating. It breaks the continuity of research that often spans decades (e.g., the development of the RSV vaccine took over 50 years).

The environment of fear ("Everyone is worried about what comes next" ¹) effectively paralyzes the remaining staff, discouraging innovation or the raising of safety concerns. It also creates a recruitment crisis; top scientific talent is unlikely to enter a federal service characterized by instability and political hostility.

IX. Conclusion: A Gamble on Resilience

The 2026 restructuring of NIAID is not merely a downsizing; it is a fundamental reimagining of the federal government's role in biology. The administration has wagered that the greatest threat to American health is not a novel virus from a bat cave in Yunnan or a monkey in the Congo, but the chronic frailty of the American body and the bureaucratic overreach of the "biomedical security state."

By pivoting to "people preparedness," the NIAID leadership hopes to restore trust lost during the pandemic mandates. They argue that a healthier population is a more resilient population, one that does not require lockdowns or rushed vaccines to survive.

However, this gamble assumes that future threats will behave like past ones. It assumes that "people preparedness" can outpace viral evolution. Critics argue that this is a dangerous fallacy. By dismantling the "radar systems" (surveillance) and "missile defense" (vaccine platforms/biodefense), the U.S. is leaving itself naked before a universe of microbial threats that care nothing for political ideology or human boundaries.

The consolidation of the HIV/AIDS division, the slashing of research grants, the restrictions on gain-of-function research, and the redefinition of antibiotic resistance are all components of this high-stakes bet. As the BSL-4 labs quiet down and the grant dollars dry up, the American public health infrastructure enters a new, uncharted era—one focusing inward on the host, while the pathogens continue their ancient, relentless work in the wild.

Works cited

1. Jeffery Taubenberger Named Acting Director of NIAID - AABB, accessed February 14, 2026, https://www.aabb.org/news-resources/news/article/2025/04/29/jeffery-taubenberger-named-acting-director-of-niaid

2. The new vision from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) - PMC, accessed February 14, 2026, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12820581/

3. The new vision from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), accessed February 14, 2026, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41545589/

4. Focusing on antimicrobial resistant infections –are we missing the forest for the trees and the patients for pathogens? - Frontiers, accessed February 14, 2026, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/antibiotics/articles/10.3389/frabi.2023.1329081/full

5. Congressional Justification FY 2026 - National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) - NIH, accessed February 14, 2026, https://www.niaid.nih.gov/sites/default/files/niaid-fy26-cj.pdf

6. HHS Public Health Policy Actions Under the Trump Administration ..., accessed February 14, 2026, https://www.kff.org/other-health/tracking-key-hhs-public-health-policy-actions-under-the-trump-administration/

7. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease Organizational Chart, accessed February 14, 2026, https://www.niaid.nih.gov/sites/default/files/NIAID-Organizational-Chart.pdf

8. Division of AIDS Overview | NIAID: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, accessed February 14, 2026, https://www.niaid.nih.gov/about/division-aids-overview

9. Aligning HIV/AIDS Receipt Dates with General Standard Receipt Dates to Simplify Application Processes and Reduce Burden for Researchers, accessed February 14, 2026, https://grants.nih.gov/news-events/nih-extramural-nexus-news/2026/01/aligning-hivaids-receipt-dates-with-general-standard-receipt-dates-to-simplify-application-processes-and-reduce-burden-for-researchers

10. HPTN Manual of Operations (MOP) Summary of Changes 31 July 2025, accessed February 14, 2026, https://www.hptn.org/sites/default/files/inline-files/Combined%20MOP%20-%2031Jul2025_0.pdf

11. NIH Announces Restructured HIV Clinical Trials Networks, accessed February 14, 2026, https://www.hiv.gov/blog/nih-announces-restructured-hiv-clinical-trials-networks

12. Office of AIDS Research Advisory Council (OARAC) 68th Meeting, accessed February 14, 2026, https://www.oar.nih.gov/sites/default/files/OARAC-68th-Meeting-Minutes-FINAL-508.pdf

13. The FDA's misguided thinking on antibiotics - National Center for Health Research, accessed February 14, 2026, https://www.center4research.org/the-fdas-misguided-thinking-on-antibiotics/

14. Final FY 2026 appropriations bill sustains ID funding, holds Administration accountable, accessed February 14, 2026, https://www.idsociety.org/news--publications-new/articles/2026/final-fy-2026-appropriations-bill-sustains-id-funding-holds-administration-accountable/

15. Improving the Safety and Security of Biological Research - The White House, accessed February 14, 2026, https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/05/improving-the-safety-and-security-of-biological-research/

16. Oversight of Gain-of-Function Research with Pathogens: Issues for Congress, accessed February 14, 2026, https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R47114

17. Rep. McClain Delaney and Senator Van Hollen Lead Maryland Delegation Members in Demanding Answers on Research Pause at NIAID Lab in Fort Detrick, accessed February 14, 2026, https://mcclaindelaney.house.gov/media/press-releases/rep-mcclain-delaney-and-senator-van-hollen-lead-maryland-delegation-members

18. ASM Statement on Removal of NIH & NIAID Leadership - American Society for Microbiology, accessed February 14, 2026, https://asm.org/press-releases/2025/april/asm-statement-on-removal-of-nih-niaid-leadership

19. buildings and facilities - NIH Office of Budget, accessed February 14, 2026, https://officeofbudget.od.nih.gov/pdfs/FY26/inst-submissions/B&F_FY26_CJ_Chapter.pdf

20. Federal Cuts Ripple Through a Bioscience Hub in Rural Montana - KFF Health News, accessed February 14, 2026, https://kffhealthnews.org/news/article/rocky-mountain-laboratories-hamilton-montana-nih-funding-research-rural/

21. Roughly 50,000 could lose federal workforce protections under new OPM rule | FedScoop, accessed February 14, 2026, https://fedscoop.com/federal-employees-lose-workforce-protections-under-opm-rule/

22. Improving Performance, Accountability and Responsiveness in the Civil Service - Federal Register, accessed February 14, 2026, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/02/06/2026-02375/improving-performance-accountability-and-responsiveness-in-the-civil-service