Last week, ASPPH submitted comments to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in response to the proposed NIH-Wide Strategic Plan Framework for Fiscal Years 2027–2031. Developed with input from the ASPPH Research Advisory Committee, the comments emphasized the critical role public health research plays in advancing prevention, strengthening research infrastructure, and sustaining the nation’s scientific workforce. The recommendations come amid growing concerns about instability in federal research funding and delays in NIH grant disbursement.

 What’s happening:

• ASPPH commended NIH’s focus on foundational science, prevention, workforce sustainability, infrastructure, stewardship, and public trust, while encouraging greater emphasis on implementation science, public health systems research, environmental health, and community-engaged research.
• The comments also highlighted concerns about disruptions to the research and training pipeline, particularly for early-stage investigators and prevention scientists, as NIH continues to slow grant disbursements and forward-fund many research awards.

Why it matters for academic public health:

• Academic public health institutions rely heavily on NIH funding to support research, workforce training, and scientific innovation. Ongoing funding instability and delays could weaken institutional research capacity and disrupt the development of the next generation of public health scientists.
• ASPPH also urged NIH to continue investing in public health data systems, scientific integrity, interdisciplinary collaboration, and evidence-based applications of artificial intelligence to strengthen the nation’s long-term public health research infrastructure and preparedness capacity.
• Stay up to date on ASPPH written Policy & Advocacy efforts on our webpage.

Late last month, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) announced that negotiators reached consensus on a proposed regulatory framework to reform the nation’s higher education accreditation system under the Accreditation, Innovation, and Modernization (AIM) rulemaking process. According to ED, the proposed changes are intended to increase competition among accreditors, reduce administrative burdens, strengthen transfer credit policies, and place greater emphasis on student outcomes and academic freedom. The effort is part of the Trump administration’s broader higher education reform agenda.

 What’s happening:

• The proposed framework includes changes aimed at streamlining transfer credit policies, reducing barriers for new accreditors, strengthening conflict-of-interest rules, and emphasizing student outcomes such as graduation rates, licensure results, and post-graduation earnings.
• Earlier this year, ASPPH led several health professions education organizations in expressing concerns about the AIM negotiated rulemaking process, particularly the lack of meaningful voting representation for programmatic and degree-granting accreditors on the rulemaking committee.

Why it matters for academic public health:

• Accreditation plays a central role in ensuring quality and accountability across schools and programs of public health that prepare the nation’s public health workforce. Public health leaders have emphasized that accreditation policies should reflect the realities of workforce preparation and professional training.
• This new rule will have an impact on the Council on Education for Public Health (CEPH), but it’s not clear yet how that will impact schools and programs of public health. 
• ASPPH will continue monitoring how the proposed changes affect accreditation standards, workforce preparation, and institutional oversight.

Last week, Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. defended the department’s decision to extend liability protections for manufacturers and distributors developing treatments for the Andes hantavirus strain. The protections, issued under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act, apply to the experimental antiviral drug favipiravir and are tied to a recent outbreak linked to the cruise ship M/V Hondius. The move drew criticism from some “Make America Healthy Again” activists who have opposed the use of PREP Act authorities.

 What’s happening:

• HHS extended PREP Act liability protections through July 18 for manufacturers and distributors involved in the development and use of favipiravir for individuals potentially exposed to the Andes virus linked to the cruise ship outbreak.
• Kennedy defended the decision publicly, stating the action was intended to support research and outbreak response efforts and does not apply to vaccines or create broader pharmaceutical liability protections.

Why it matters for academic public health:

• The Andes hantavirus outbreak highlights the continued importance of rapid public health response tools, including emergency authorities that support research, treatment development, and outbreak containment during emerging infectious disease events.
• Public health leaders continue to emphasize the need for sustained investment in infectious disease preparedness, surveillance, and research infrastructure as officials respond to growing concerns about Ebola, hantavirus, and other emerging health threats.

The Senate recently rejected a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution seeking to overturn the Trump administration’s final rule modifying the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program. The regulation changes which employers qualify for the loan forgiveness program by excluding organizations deemed to have a “substantial illegal purpose.” Democrats opposing the rule argued that the language is overly broad and could politicize eligibility for federal student loan forgiveness.

 What’s happening:

• The Senate failed to advance a resolution led by Sens. Tim Kaine (D-VA), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), and Cory Booker (D-NJ) that would have repealed the Department of Education’s revised PSLF rule.
• The Trump administration defended the regulation, stating it is intended to prevent federal loan forgiveness from supporting organizations engaged in illegal activities.

Why it matters for academic public health:

• PSLF is an important support for many public health professionals working in government, nonprofit, and community-based roles.
• Public health leaders continue to emphasize that stable loan forgiveness programs help strengthen recruitment and retention across the public health workforce.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) last week released a proposed government-wide rule that would revise how federal grants and cooperative agreements are administered across agencies, including the Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health (NIH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Science Foundation (NSF), and Department of Education (ED). The proposal is framed as an effort to strengthen transparency, accountability, and oversight of federal funding, while also ensuring that federal grant programs align with administration priorities and policies.

 What’s happening:

• OMB is proposing revisions to the government-wide Uniform Guidance that governs federal grants, emphasizing greater oversight of discretionary awards and requiring agencies to ensure grant programs and funding decisions align with statutory purposes and applicable Executive Branch priorities.
• The proposal would expand agencies' flexibility to suspend or terminate discretionary awards that are determined to no longer support agency priorities or the federal government's interests. It also emphasizes merit-based award selection and enhanced scrutiny of applicants and recipients.
• The rule states “peer review remains advisory and does not replace agency discretion,” which has been the case for some time, but it also makes it clear that political appointees will make the ultimate decision regarding which grants or contracts are funded.

Why it matters for academic public health:

• Schools and programs of public health rely heavily on competitive federal grants to support research, workforce development, training, and community health initiatives. The proposed changes could increase the influence of administration priorities on funding decisions and ongoing grant oversight across federal agencies.
• The rule would remove references to diversity, equity, and inclusion-related activities from the federal grants framework and reinforce the administration's emphasis on merit-based funding decisions. If finalized, the changes could affect how public health institutions design, compete for, and manage federally funded projects.
• ASPPH will colaborate with other higher education associations to respond to this proposed rule.

While we encourage your sharing of our Policy & Advocacy newsletter by forwarding it, those interested in receiving it can also sign up via this form.