Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2026
- Sponsor
- Sen. Capito, Shelley Moore [R-WV]
- Committees
- Appropriations Committee
- Last action
- Jul 31, 2025
Bottom line
This omnibus appropriations bill funds critical federal government operations and programs across labor, health, and education sectors for FY2026, while also enacting specific policy changes through its various provisions.
What it actually does
This bill provides appropriations for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and several related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2026. It allocates significant funding across a wide range of federal programs, including workforce development, public health, medical research, social services, and education. The bill also includes numerous policy riders and general provisions that modify existing law or direct agency actions beyond mere funding allocations.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue that the bill responsibly funds essential government functions and invests in vital programs that support American workers, improve public health, advance medical research, and strengthen educational opportunities. They would highlight specific increases in areas like mental health services, cancer research, and workforce training as crucial investments in the nation's future and well-being, reflecting a balanced approach to national priorities.
Opponents contend
Opponents might contend that the bill either spends too much, contributing to the national debt, or too little in critical areas, failing to adequately address pressing societal needs. They may also criticize the inclusion of numerous policy riders, arguing that such provisions should be debated and voted on as standalone legislation rather than being attached to a must-pass appropriations bill, thereby circumventing regular order and transparency.
The bill is exceptionally long and complex, requiring significant time for a thorough review. Given its omnibus nature and the inclusion of numerous policy riders, the time typically allotted for public and congressional review of such a measure is often insufficient for a comprehensive understanding of its full implications.
Title I, Department of Labor
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) Funding
This provision appropriates nearly $4 billion for various workforce development programs under WIOA, including grants to states for adult, youth, and dislocated worker employment and training activities, as well as national programs like dislocated workers assistance, Native American programs, migrant and seasonal farmworker programs, YouthBuild, and ex-offender activities. It specifies availability periods for these funds, often extending into FY2027.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that these investments are crucial for equipping the American workforce with the skills needed for a competitive economy, helping dislocated workers re-enter the labor market, and providing opportunities for underserved populations.
Critics contend
Critics may argue about the efficiency and effectiveness of specific WIOA programs, suggesting that some funds could be better utilized or that the programs do not adequately address the root causes of unemployment or skill gaps.
Tradeoffs
The bill balances the need for broad workforce development with targeted support for specific vulnerable populations. There's a tension between funding formula grants to states and discretionary national programs, each with different administrative overheads and flexibilities.
Title I, Department of Labor, Sec. 108
FLSA Exemption for Disaster Claims Adjusters
This section amends the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to exempt certain employees who adjust or evaluate claims resulting from a major disaster from overtime provisions for a period of two years after the disaster. The exemption applies to employees of non-insurance underwriting companies who meet specific compensation and duty requirements, and who are properly licensed.
Title II, Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration
Primary Health Care Funding
This section appropriates over $1.8 billion for primary health care services, including funding for community health centers and programs under the Native Hawaiian Health Care Act. It includes provisos for continuation awards and administrative claims, ensuring ongoing support for essential health services.
Title II, Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health
National Cancer Institute Funding
This provision appropriates over $7.3 billion for the National Cancer Institute (NCI) for cancer research, including specific allocations for facilities repairs, the Childhood Cancer Survivorship, Treatment, Access, Research (STAR) Act, and the Childhood Cancer Data Initiative. This significant funding aims to advance understanding, prevention, and treatment of cancer.
Title II, Department of Health and Human Services, Sec. 231
Unaccompanied Alien Children Facility Licensing Requirements
This section mandates that funds for housing unaccompanied alien children (UAC) cannot be obligated to facilities that are not State-licensed, with an exception for temporary influx or emergency situations. Even in such cases, unlicensed facilities operating for more than six months must comply with requirements similar to licensed placements, including specific staffing ratios. It also establishes waiver and monitoring requirements.
Title III, Department of Education, Education for the Disadvantaged
Title I-A Grants for Disadvantaged Students
This provision appropriates over $19 billion for programs under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), with significant portions dedicated to basic grants, concentration grants, targeted grants, and education finance incentive grants. These funds are primarily for supporting educational services for low-income students.
Title III, Department of Education, Special Education
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Funding
This section appropriates over $15.5 billion for programs under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), supporting special education services for children with disabilities. It includes specific allocations for grants to states, preschool grants, and programs for infants and toddlers with disabilities, with funds becoming available across multiple fiscal years.
Title III, Department of Education, Student Financial Assistance
Pell Grant Funding and Maximum Award
This section appropriates over $24.6 billion for student financial assistance programs, including a significant portion for Pell Grants. It sets the maximum Pell Grant for the 2026-2027 award year at $6,335, providing direct financial aid to low-income undergraduate students.
Title IV, Related Agencies, Corporation for National and Community Service
AmeriCorps and National Service Trust Funding
This section appropriates over $975 million for the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) to carry out the Domestic Volunteer Service Act and the National and Community Service Act, including AmeriCorps programs. It also provides $180 million for the National Service Trust, which funds educational awards for AmeriCorps participants.
Title IV, Related Agencies, Social Security Administration
Limitation on Administrative Expenses (SSA)
This section sets a limit of over $14.7 billion on administrative expenses for the Social Security Administration (SSA), to be derived from the Social Security trust funds. It includes specific allocations for continuing disability reviews, redeterminations of eligibility, cooperative disability investigation units, and fraud prosecution, with some funds available through March 31, 2027.
Title V, General Provisions, Sec. 506 & 507
Abortion Funding Restrictions (Hyde Amendment)
These sections prohibit the use of funds appropriated in this Act, or transferred to any trust fund, for abortion services or for health benefits coverage that includes abortion. Section 507 provides exceptions for cases of rape, incest, or when the life of the woman is in danger. It also clarifies that states or private entities can use non-federal funds for abortion coverage.
Title V, General Provisions, Sec. 508
Human Embryo Research Restrictions
This section prohibits the use of funds for the creation of human embryos for research purposes or for research in which human embryos are destroyed, discarded, or subjected to risks greater than those allowed for research on fetuses in utero. It defines 'human embryo or embryos' broadly to include organisms derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis, cloning, or other means from human gametes or diploid cells.
Title V, General Provisions, Sec. 514
Reprogramming of Funds Restrictions
This section establishes strict rules for reprogramming funds within the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and related agencies. It requires 15 days advance consultation and 10 days written notification to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees for any reprogramming that creates new programs, eliminates existing ones, increases funds for denied projects, relocates offices, reorganizes programs, or contracts out federal functions. A lower threshold ($500,000 or 10%) applies to augmenting or reducing existing programs.
Title V, General Provisions, Sec. 529
Rescission from Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) Funds
This section rescinds $11,661,000,000 from unobligated balances made available under section 10301(1)(A)(iii) of Public Law 117-169, which is the Inflation Reduction Act. This represents a significant clawback of previously appropriated funds.
Amends the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to exempt certain disaster claims adjusters from overtime pay for two years following a major disaster, provided they meet specific compensation and licensing requirements and are employed by non-underwriting entities.
Title I, Department of Labor, Section 108
Why it matters:While common to include policy riders in appropriations bills, this specific exemption could be controversial if debated as standalone legislation, as it impacts worker protections. Its placement in an omnibus bill allows it to pass with less individual scrutiny.
Case for: Proponents argue it streamlines disaster response by allowing claims adjusters to work extended hours without prohibitive overtime costs for employers, ensuring faster processing of claims for disaster victims.
Case against: Critics contend it erodes worker protections, potentially leading to exploitation of adjusters who work long hours in stressful post-disaster environments, and could set a precedent for other industries seeking similar exemptions.
Estimated impact: Potentially impacts thousands of disaster claims adjusters and their employers nationwide following major disaster declarations, affecting their compensation and labor costs.
These sections introduce several changes to the H-2B nonimmigrant visa program. Section 109 provides flexibility for seafood industry employers to bring H-2B workers into the U.S. within a 120-day period, with new labor market assessment requirements after 90 days. Section 110 modifies prevailing wage determination, allowing private wage surveys. Section 111 prohibits enforcement of certain definitions ('corresponding employment', 'three-fourths guarantee rule') and specifies the definition of 'temporary need'.
Title I, Department of Labor, Sections 109, 110, 111
Why it matters:These are significant policy changes that benefit specific industries (e.g., seafood, seasonal businesses) that rely on H-2B workers. They are often included in appropriations bills as riders because they are difficult to pass as standalone immigration reform due to broad disagreements on immigration policy and worker protections.
Case for: Proponents argue these changes provide necessary flexibility for seasonal industries, reduce bureaucratic burdens, and ensure a reliable workforce when domestic workers are unavailable, thereby supporting critical sectors of the economy.
Case against: Critics contend these provisions weaken worker protections, potentially leading to lower wages and poorer working conditions for both H-2B visa holders and domestic workers, and that they circumvent the intent of existing labor laws.
Estimated impact: Impacts thousands of H-2B visa workers and hundreds of employers in seasonal industries, particularly the seafood industry, affecting labor costs, worker rights, and the availability of seasonal labor.
Authorizes the Secretary of Labor to employ law enforcement officers or special agents to provide protection for the Secretary, immediate family members, and the Deputy Secretary or other senior officers under specific threat conditions. These officers are granted authority to carry firearms, make arrests, perform protective intelligence work, and initiate criminal investigations.
Title I, Department of Labor, Section 113
Why it matters:Expanding law enforcement powers for a civilian agency can be controversial and might face scrutiny regarding scope, accountability, and potential mission creep if debated as standalone legislation.
Case for: Proponents argue it is necessary to ensure the safety and security of the Secretary of Labor and other senior officials, particularly in an environment of increasing threats against public figures, allowing them to perform their duties without fear.
Case against: Critics may raise concerns about the militarization of civilian agencies, the potential for abuse of power, and whether such functions are best handled by existing federal law enforcement agencies rather than creating new internal capabilities within DOL.
Estimated impact: Establishes a new law enforcement capability within the Department of Labor, impacting agency structure, budget, and the scope of federal protective services.
Authorizes the Secretary of Labor to dispose of or divest, by any means deemed appropriate, all or a portion of the real property on which the Treasure Island Job Corps Center and the Gary Job Corps Center are situated. This disposition is explicitly exempted from various federal laws and regulations relating to real property disposition and federal procurement. Net proceeds are to be transferred to the Secretary and available until expended for Job Corps Programs in those areas.
Title I, Department of Labor, Section 114
Why it matters:Waiving federal property disposition and procurement laws is a significant carve-out that could be controversial due to transparency and fair competition concerns. Placing it in an appropriations bill avoids standalone scrutiny.
Case for: Proponents argue this provides necessary flexibility to modernize or relocate Job Corps centers, ensuring that facilities are appropriate for current training needs and that proceeds can be reinvested directly into the programs, bypassing bureaucratic hurdles.
Case against: Critics might argue that waiving standard federal property and procurement laws reduces transparency, could lead to sweetheart deals, and potentially undervalues public assets, undermining public trust and accountability.
Estimated impact: Affects the future of two Job Corps centers, potentially leading to new construction or relocation, and impacts the value realized from federal property sales.
Directs that for a specific period (November 1, 2015, to January 1, 2028), any law referring to current recommendations of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) for breast cancer screening, mammography, and prevention shall be administered as if it refers to the recommendations last issued before 2009. This applies to any screening mammography modality under section 1861(jj) of the Social Security Act.
Title II, Department of Health and Human Services, Section 223
Why it matters:This provision addresses a specific controversy regarding breast cancer screening guidelines. Embedding it in an appropriations bill avoids a direct legislative debate on medical guidelines, which can be politically sensitive and complex.
Case for: Proponents argue that reverting to earlier guidelines ensures broader access to mammography for women under 50, which they believe is crucial for early detection and saving lives, especially given concerns that newer guidelines might lead to under-screening.
Case against: Critics argue that overriding current scientific recommendations with legislative mandates undermines evidence-based medicine and could lead to over-screening, false positives, and unnecessary procedures, increasing healthcare costs without clear benefit.
Estimated impact: Affects millions of women eligible for breast cancer screening under federal programs, potentially increasing the number of screenings for younger women and impacting healthcare costs.
Requires institutions receiving NIH funds to complete harassment investigations even if the individual under investigation leaves. It also allows the NIH Director to decline grant transfers if harassment concerns are unresolved and to share investigation reports with other institutions.
Title II, Department of Health and Human Services, Section 237
Why it matters:While widely supported in principle, specific mandates on institutional HR practices and data sharing can be complex and might face resistance from universities concerned about autonomy or legal liability. Inclusion in an appropriations bill ensures its enactment.
Case for: Proponents argue this is crucial for combating harassment and fostering safe research environments, ensuring accountability for misconduct, and protecting vulnerable researchers across institutions.
Case against: Some institutions might express concerns about the administrative burden, legal implications of sharing investigation reports, or the potential for NIH to overstep its role in institutional governance, though direct opposition is unlikely.
Estimated impact: Strengthens accountability for harassment in federally funded research, impacting universities, research institutions, and individual researchers nationwide.
Directs the Secretary of Education to use $2.3 million from Student Aid Administration funds to conduct outreach to borrowers of Direct Loans who may qualify for Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF), specifically targeting those who have made payments under non-qualifying plans. It mandates communication of full PSLF requirements and improved electronic certification processes.
Title III, Department of Education, Section 308
Why it matters:While the intent is widely supported, specific operational directives for federal agencies are often included in appropriations bills to ensure implementation and accountability, bypassing the slower authorizing committee process.
Case for: Proponents argue this is essential to ensure that eligible public service workers receive the loan forgiveness they are entitled to, addressing past administrative failures and improving access to a critical program.
Case against: No specific opposition is typically raised against improving PSLF outreach. Any critiques might be about the adequacy of the funding or the effectiveness of the proposed outreach methods.
Estimated impact: Aims to increase the number of borrowers successfully enrolling in and receiving Public Service Loan Forgiveness, potentially impacting billions in federal loan forgiveness over time.
Prohibits the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) from using funds to issue any new administrative directive or regulation that would provide employees any means of voting through electronic means in an election to determine a representative for collective bargaining.
Title IV, Related Agencies, Section 409
Why it matters:This provision is highly contentious, reflecting a long-standing debate over union election procedures. It is included as a rider to prevent the NLRB from implementing a policy that would likely face strong opposition if debated as standalone legislation.
Case for: Proponents argue that electronic voting could compromise the integrity and security of union elections, making them vulnerable to coercion or fraud, and that traditional in-person voting methods are more reliable.
Case against: Critics contend that prohibiting electronic voting is an outdated restriction that hinders modernization, makes union elections less accessible, and is designed to suppress union organizing efforts by making voting more difficult.
Estimated impact: Prevents the NLRB from exploring or implementing modern voting methods for union representation elections, maintaining traditional, often in-person, voting processes.
Expands the prohibitions on using federal funds for publicity or propaganda to include any activity to advocate or promote any proposed, pending, or future Federal, State, or local tax increase, or any proposed, pending, or future requirement or restriction on any legal consumer product, including its sale or marketing, including but not limited to the advocacy or promotion of gun control.
Title V, General Provisions, Section 503(c)
Why it matters:This provision is a policy rider that limits the speech and advocacy activities of federal grantees and agencies on politically sensitive topics. It is included in an appropriations bill to ensure its passage without standalone debate on free speech or lobbying restrictions.
Case for: Proponents argue it prevents taxpayer money from being used to lobby for policies that may be unpopular or controversial, ensuring that federal funds are not used to advocate for specific political agendas, such as tax increases or gun control.
Case against: Critics contend this is a 'gag order' that restricts the ability of federal agencies and grantees to provide information or engage in public discourse on important policy issues, potentially undermining public health and safety initiatives, and infringing on free speech.
Estimated impact: Limits the advocacy and communication activities of federal agencies and grantees on a wide range of policy issues, potentially impacting public health campaigns, environmental regulations, and economic policy discussions.
Prohibits the use of funds to promulgate or adopt any final standard under section 1173(b) of the Social Security Act providing for, or providing for the assignment of, a unique health identifier for an individual (except in an individual's capacity as an employer or a health care provider), until legislation is enacted specifically approving the standard.
Title V, General Provisions, Section 510
Why it matters:This provision addresses privacy concerns related to a national patient identifier. It is a recurring rider that prevents the executive branch from moving forward on a policy that has faced significant political opposition due to privacy implications, without explicit legislative approval.
Case for: Proponents argue it protects individual privacy by preventing the creation of a national patient identifier that could be misused or lead to security breaches, ensuring that such a sensitive system is only implemented with explicit Congressional approval.
Case against: Critics contend that the lack of a unique health identifier hinders efforts to improve patient safety, reduce medical errors, and streamline healthcare data exchange, arguing that it is a necessary tool for modernizing the healthcare system.
Estimated impact: Prevents the implementation of a unique health identifier for individuals, impacting healthcare data interoperability, patient safety initiatives, and privacy protections.
Prohibits the use of funds to purchase sterile needles or syringes for the hypodermic injection of any illegal drug. It includes an exception: funds can be used for other elements of a program (not the purchase itself) if a state or local health department, in consultation with CDC, determines there's a significant increase or risk of hepatitis or HIV outbreak due to injection drug use, and the program complies with state and local law.
Title V, General Provisions, Section 526
Why it matters:This provision is a policy rider reflecting a contentious debate over harm reduction strategies, particularly needle exchange programs. Its inclusion in an appropriations bill allows it to pass as part of a larger package, avoiding a direct, potentially divisive, standalone vote.
Case for: Proponents argue that prohibiting the direct purchase of needles with federal funds prevents taxpayer money from being used to facilitate illegal drug use, aligning with a moral stance against drug abuse.
Case against: Critics contend that the restriction, even with the exception, hinders effective public health interventions, as needle exchange programs are proven to reduce the spread of HIV and hepatitis, and that it prioritizes moral objections over evidence-based public health.
Estimated impact: Limits federal funding for direct purchase of sterile needles for harm reduction programs, potentially impacting public health outcomes related to infectious disease transmission among people who inject drugs.