Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Aderholt, Robert B. [R-AL-4]
- Committees
- Appropriations Committee
- Last action
- Sep 11, 2025
Bottom line
The bill funds essential government operations while implementing substantial conservative policy changes and rescinding billions in previously appropriated funds, setting the stage for significant political and legal challenges.
What it actually does
This bill appropriates funds for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and several related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2026. It includes numerous specific funding allocations, transfers, and significant rescissions of prior year funds. Additionally, the bill contains a wide array of policy riders addressing social issues, labor regulations, education policies, and healthcare access, often imposing new restrictions or altering existing statutory provisions.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill responsibly funds critical government services, promotes fiscal discipline through targeted rescissions, and addresses key national priorities by advancing conservative policy positions on issues ranging from labor regulations and immigration to healthcare, education, and social programs. They assert that the policy riders reflect the will of the people and ensure that federal funds are not used for activities deemed inappropriate or wasteful.
Opponents contend
Opponents contend that the bill's numerous policy riders are highly controversial, undermine public health, education, and civil rights, and represent an overreach into executive branch functions. They argue that the significant rescissions could harm vital programs and that the bill's provisions on issues like abortion, gender identity, and climate change are discriminatory or counterproductive, potentially leading to legal challenges and disruptions in service delivery.
The bill is exceptionally long and dense, packed with detailed appropriations and complex policy riders. A thorough understanding requires significant time and expertise, far exceeding what a typical stakeholder or legislator might have during a rapid legislative process.
Title I, Department of Labor
Department of Labor Appropriations
This title appropriates over $5.5 billion for various Department of Labor programs, including workforce training, Job Corps, unemployment benefits, veterans' employment services, and regulatory agencies like OSHA and MSHA. It also includes rescissions of prior year funds for employment and training services.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that these appropriations ensure the continued operation of vital workforce development and worker protection programs, supporting economic growth and worker safety. The rescissions are presented as a measure to reduce wasteful spending and improve fiscal efficiency.
Critics contend
Opponents may argue that some funding levels are insufficient to meet demand or that the rescissions could undermine critical services for vulnerable populations. They might also criticize specific policy directives embedded within the appropriations.
Tradeoffs
The bill balances the need to fund essential labor programs with a desire to reduce overall spending and implement specific policy changes, potentially leading to reduced flexibility for states or altered program priorities.
Title I, Sec. 108
FLSA Exemption for Disaster Claims Adjusters
This section amends the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to exempt certain disaster claims adjusters from overtime pay requirements for a period of two years after a major disaster. The exemption applies to adjusters employed by entities not engaged in underwriting insurance, who meet a minimum weekly compensation, and whose duties involve claims adjustment activities related to a major disaster.
Title I, Sec. 113
DOL Secretary Security Detail Authority
This section amends the Act of March 4, 1913, to authorize the Secretary of Labor to employ law enforcement officers or special agents to provide protection for the Secretary and Deputy Secretary, including continuous protection if there's an articulable threat. It also allows for protection of other senior officers and nominees under similar threat conditions, granting these agents authority to carry firearms, conduct investigations, and make arrests.
Title II, Department of Health and Human Services
Department of Health and Human Services Appropriations
This title appropriates over $1.7 trillion for various Department of Health and Human Services programs, including health resources, disease control, National Institutes of Health research, substance abuse and mental health services, Medicare, Medicaid, and child and family services. It also includes significant rescissions from prior year funds and numerous policy riders.
Title II, Sec. 238
Prohibition on Funding for Certain Entities Performing Abortions
This section prohibits federal funds from being made available to certain entities that perform abortions, with exceptions for rape, incest, or life-endangering physical conditions. The prohibition applies to 501(c)(3) organizations primarily engaged in family planning and reproductive health that received over $23 million in Title X funds in FY2016 and perform abortions beyond the specified exceptions. An entity can regain eligibility by certifying it will not perform such abortions.
Title II, Sec. 244
Prohibition on Funding for Gender-Affirming Care Interventions
This section prohibits the use of funds made available by this Act for any social, psychological, behavioral, or medical intervention performed to intentionally change an individual's body (including development, natural functions, or appearance) to no longer correspond to their biological sex.
Title II, Sec. 252
Civil Action for Certain Healthcare Discrimination Violations
This section amends the Public Health Service Act to create a new civil action mechanism. It allows the Attorney General, state attorneys general, or any adversely affected person or entity to obtain relief for actual or threatened violations of federal funding conditions that prohibit discrimination against healthcare entities for not providing, paying for, covering, or referring for abortions. This action can be commenced without exhausting administrative remedies and allows for injunctive relief, declaratory relief, compensatory damages, and attorneys' fees, even against governmental entities.
Title III, Department of Education
Department of Education Appropriations
This title appropriates over $50 billion for various Department of Education programs, including elementary and secondary education, special education, vocational and adult education, and higher education student financial assistance. It includes significant rescissions of prior year funds and several policy riders related to education and student aid.
Title III, Sec. 312
Prohibition on Enforcement of Title IX Interpretations Related to Gender Identity
This section prohibits the Department of Education from using funds to enforce specific rules or interpretations related to Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 concerning discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. This includes a final rule on nondiscrimination based on sex, a proposed rule on sex-related eligibility criteria for athletic teams, and a 2021 notice of interpretation regarding Bostock v. Clayton County.
Title III, Sec. 314
Prohibition on Enforcement of Student Debt Relief and Income-Driven Repayment Regulations
This section prohibits the Department of Education from using funds to implement, administer, or enforce several specific regulations related to student debt discharge, income-based repayment, borrower defense to repayment, the 90/10 rule, financial value transparency, gainful employment, and a proposed rule on student debt relief for various federal loan programs.
Title III, Sec. 315
Renaming Workforce Pell Grants to 'Trump Grants'
This section mandates that the Workforce Pell Grants, authorized under section 401(k) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, shall hereafter be known and designated as 'Trump Grants'.
Title IV, Related Agencies
Related Agencies Appropriations
This title appropriates funds for several independent agencies, including the America First Corps (formerly CNCS), the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (with a directive for closure), the Institute of Museum and Library Services, and the Social Security Administration. It also includes the renaming of CNCS and AmeriCorps to 'America First Corps'.
Title V, Sec. 506 & 507
Hyde Amendment and Related Abortion Restrictions
These sections prohibit the use of funds appropriated in this Act for abortions or for health benefits coverage that includes abortion, with exceptions for cases of rape, incest, or when the woman's life is in danger. Section 507(d) further prohibits federal agencies or governments from discriminating against any institutional or individual healthcare entity that does not provide, pay for, cover, or refer for abortions.
Title V, Sec. 534 & 535
Prohibition on Diversity, Equity, Inclusion (DEI) and Critical Race Theory (CRT) Initiatives
These sections prohibit the use of appropriated funds for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, training, programs, offices, officers, or policies. They also ban funding for any program, project, or activity that promotes or advances Critical Race Theory (CRT) or associated concepts, including ideas that condone discrimination based on race or sex, cause psychological distress based on race or sex, or regard one race as inherently superior.
Title V, Sec. 537
Prohibition on Funding for Certain Foreign Entities and Gain-of-Function Research
This section prohibits funds from being used to directly or indirectly support the Wuhan Institute of Virology, EcoHealth Alliance, Inc., any laboratory owned or controlled by governments deemed foreign adversaries (e.g., China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia, Venezuela), or gain-of-function research.
Amends the Fair Labor Standards Act to exempt certain disaster claims adjusters from overtime pay for two years after a major disaster, provided they meet specific compensation and duty criteria.
Title I, Sec. 108
Why it matters:Potentially evasive. Attaching a substantive labor policy change to an appropriations bill allows it to bypass the typical committee process for standalone legislation, where it might face more scrutiny and debate from labor groups and worker advocates.
Case for: Supporters argue it allows for more efficient and rapid processing of insurance claims after major disasters by reducing labor costs and administrative burdens for employers, ensuring a quicker recovery for affected communities.
Case against: Critics contend it erodes worker protections by denying overtime pay to individuals working long hours in challenging conditions during disasters, potentially leading to exploitation and reduced compensation for essential recovery work.
Estimated impact: Could affect thousands of claims adjusters and significantly reduce labor costs for insurance-related companies during major disaster events, potentially impacting the speed and cost of disaster recovery.
Amends the Act of March 4, 1913, to authorize the Secretary of Labor to employ law enforcement officers for personal protection, including carrying firearms, conducting criminal investigations, and making arrests, with continuous protection for the Secretary and Deputy Secretary under articulable threat.
Title I, Sec. 113
Why it matters:Potentially evasive. Creating a new law enforcement function within a non-traditional agency like the Department of Labor, with significant powers, might face more public and congressional scrutiny if introduced as standalone legislation.
Case for: Proponents argue it's a necessary security measure for high-ranking officials facing increasing threats, ensuring their safety and the continuity of government operations. It provides the flexibility to address specific security needs directly within the department.
Case against: Critics may question the necessity of establishing a dedicated law enforcement arm within DOL, arguing that existing federal protective services could fulfill this role. Concerns about mission creep, potential for misuse of authority, and the cost implications may be raised.
Estimated impact: Establishes a new, potentially costly, law enforcement capability within the Department of Labor, expanding its operational scope beyond traditional labor functions and impacting the safety protocols for its leadership.
Amends the Community Services Block Grant Act to remove a paragraph limiting the use of funds for construction and rehabilitation, and adds new provisions allowing funds to be used for financing construction, rehabilitation, loans, or investments in private business enterprises, and allowing grantees to retain intangible assets and program income after a period.
Title II, Sec. 233
Why it matters:Standard legislative practice for technical adjustments, but the substantive expansion of permissible uses for CSBG funds and the change in asset retention rules could be significant policy shifts that might warrant more direct attention.
Case for: Proponents argue these changes provide greater flexibility for community development corporations to invest in their communities, fostering economic growth and self-sufficiency. Allowing retention of assets incentivizes long-term planning and sustainable development.
Case against: Critics might raise concerns about the potential for misuse of funds if oversight is not robust, especially with expanded authority for investments in private enterprises. They might also question whether these changes divert funds from direct social services.
Estimated impact: Could significantly alter how Community Services Block Grant funds are utilized, potentially shifting focus towards economic development and infrastructure projects, and empowering local entities with greater financial autonomy over program-generated assets.
Creates a new civil action in the Public Health Service Act, allowing the Attorney General, state attorneys general, or any adversely affected person/entity to sue federal agencies or recipients of federal assistance for discrimination against healthcare entities that do not provide, pay for, cover, or refer for abortions. It explicitly abrogates state immunity and allows for compensatory damages.
Title II, Sec. 252
Why it matters:Potentially evasive. This provision creates a powerful new legal tool with broad implications for healthcare policy and state sovereignty, which would likely face intense scrutiny and opposition if debated as standalone legislation. Attaching it to an appropriations bill limits debate.
Case for: Proponents argue it provides a robust enforcement mechanism for conscience protections, ensuring that healthcare providers and entities are not coerced into participating in abortion-related services against their moral or religious beliefs. It gives individuals and states a direct path to seek justice.
Case against: Critics contend this provision could be weaponized to challenge a wide range of healthcare policies, potentially limiting access to care, particularly reproductive health services. They raise concerns about the abrogation of state immunity and the potential for increased litigation and legal costs for states and federal agencies.
Estimated impact: Significantly alters the legal landscape for healthcare entities and governments regarding abortion-related services, potentially leading to increased litigation, challenges to existing healthcare mandates, and a chilling effect on policies that might be perceived as infringing on conscience rights.
Mandates that Workforce Pell Grants, authorized under section 401(k) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, be renamed 'Trump Grants'.
Title III, Sec. 315
Why it matters:Potentially evasive. Renaming a federal grant program after a political figure is a highly symbolic and partisan act. Placing it in an appropriations bill, rather than a standalone bill focused on program naming or higher education policy, allows it to be enacted with less direct debate on its merits as a branding exercise.
Case for: Proponents argue it appropriately recognizes the contributions of a former president to workforce development and serves as a symbolic gesture to align federal programs with a specific political vision.
Case against: Critics contend that renaming a federal grant program after a political figure is an inappropriate politicization of a non-partisan program, potentially creating confusion and alienating beneficiaries or administrators who do not share the political affiliation.
Estimated impact: Primarily symbolic. It changes the official name of a federal grant program, requiring administrative updates to documentation and branding, but does not alter the program's funding, eligibility, or purpose.