American Cures Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Durbin, Richard J. [D-IL]
- Committees
- Appropriations Committee (primary)
- Last action
- May 12, 2026
Bottom line
The American Cures Act mandates substantial, sustained, and inflation-adjusted increases in federal biomedical research funding for over a decade, while shielding these investments from budget enforcement mechanisms.
What it actually does
This bill, the "American Cures Act," authorizes and directly appropriates significantly increased funding for key federal biomedical research agencies, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Department of Defense's health research program, and the Department of Veterans Affairs' medical and prosthetics research program. The funding levels are specified annually from fiscal year 2027 through 2036, with subsequent years adjusted for inflation. Crucially, the bill exempts these appropriations from sequestration and from statutory and Senate PAYGO rules, ensuring the funding increases are not subject to automatic cuts or offset requirements.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill provides essential long-term, predictable funding necessary to accelerate scientific breakthroughs, combat diseases, and maintain America's global leadership in biomedical innovation. They contend that sustained investment, free from annual budget uncertainties and automatic cuts, is critical for complex, multi-year research projects and for attracting and retaining top scientific talent. The inflation adjustment ensures that the purchasing power of research dollars is preserved over time.
Opponents contend
Opponents may argue that mandating such significant, long-term appropriations outside the regular budget process undermines congressional control over spending and could exacerbate the national debt. They might contend that exempting these funds from PAYGO rules and sequestration sets a dangerous precedent, potentially leading to similar demands from other sectors and making fiscal discipline more challenging. Concerns could also be raised about the specific allocation amounts and whether they represent the most efficient use of taxpayer dollars.
The bill is very short and clearly written, making it highly accessible for any reader to understand its core financial provisions and budget rule exemptions.
Section 2(a)(1)
Sustained Funding for National Institutes of Health
This provision authorizes and appropriates specific, increasing amounts of funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) starting with over $52 billion in fiscal year 2027 and rising to over $102 billion by fiscal year 2036. For fiscal year 2037 and beyond, the funding will be adjusted annually based on the Consumer Price Index for urban consumers. These funds are designated to remain available until expended.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that NIH is critical for advancing medical science and that this sustained, predictable funding will enable long-term research planning, foster innovation, and address major health challenges like cancer, Alzheimer's, and infectious diseases.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that while biomedical research is important, such a large, mandated increase for a single agency, outside the regular appropriations process, could distort research priorities or lead to less efficient spending without sufficient oversight.
Tradeoffs
The tension lies between the desire for stable, robust research funding and the need for flexible budgetary control and allocation across all federal priorities.
Section 2(a)(2)
Sustained Funding for Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
This provision authorizes and appropriates specific, increasing amounts of funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), beginning with nearly $10 billion in fiscal year 2027 and reaching over $19 billion by fiscal year 2036. Similar to NIH, funding for fiscal year 2037 and beyond will be adjusted annually based on the Consumer Price Index. These funds are designated to remain available until expended.
Section 2(a)(3)
Sustained Funding for Department of Defense Health Research
This provision authorizes and appropriates specific, increasing amounts of funding for the research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) program of the Department of Defense (DoD) health program. Funding starts at nearly $3 billion in fiscal year 2027, growing to over $5.7 billion by fiscal year 2036, with inflation adjustments thereafter. These funds are designated to remain available until expended.
Section 2(a)(4)
Sustained Funding for Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Research
This provision authorizes and appropriates specific, increasing amounts of funding for the medical and prosthetics research program of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Funding begins at over $1 billion in fiscal year 2027, rising to nearly $2 billion by fiscal year 2036, with inflation adjustments for subsequent years. These funds are designated to remain available until expended.
This provision amends the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act to exempt appropriations made under the "American Cures Act" from future sequestration orders. This means the mandated funding increases cannot be automatically cut if Congress fails to meet deficit reduction targets.
Section 2(d)
Why it matters:This is a standard legislative technique for modifying existing law, but its placement ensures the significant fiscal implications of the exemption are not immediately apparent alongside the funding amounts. It's a critical mechanism to guarantee the funding.
Case for: Supporters argue this exemption is vital to ensure the predictability and stability of biomedical research funding, protecting it from political gridlock and automatic budget cuts that could disrupt long-term scientific endeavors.
Case against: Critics contend that exempting specific spending from sequestration undermines fiscal discipline and the effectiveness of budget enforcement mechanisms, potentially leading to increased national debt or requiring deeper cuts in other, non-exempt programs.
Estimated impact: Ensures tens of billions of dollars in annual appropriations are protected from potential cuts, significantly increasing the reliability of these funds.
This provision states that the budgetary effects of the "American Cures Act" shall not be entered on either the statutory PAYGO scorecard or any Senate PAYGO scorecard. This means the significant spending increases mandated by the bill do not require offsets (spending cuts or revenue increases) to comply with "pay-as-you-go" rules.
Section 2(e)
Why it matters:This is a critical fiscal maneuver that allows for substantial new spending without requiring corresponding cuts elsewhere, a politically sensitive move that might be less scrutinized if not prominently highlighted.
Case for: Proponents argue that the long-term benefits of biomedical research justify treating these investments as an exception to PAYGO rules, as the societal and economic returns are substantial and not easily captured by short-term budget scoring.
Case against: Opponents argue that this exemption undermines fiscal responsibility and the integrity of budget rules designed to prevent deficit spending. They contend that all new spending should be offset, regardless of its perceived merit, to maintain fiscal discipline.
Estimated impact: Allows for over $100 billion in new appropriations by FY2036 without requiring corresponding offsets, significantly impacting the federal budget and national debt.