The BIRD Health Act of 2025 directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to form a cooperative agreement with the Binational Industrial Research and Development (BIRD) Foundation to establish the BIRD Health Program: a U.S.–Israel bilateral effort to fund joint research, commercialization, and deployment of health technologies. The program mirrors previous BIRD models in energy and cyber and is governed jointly by HHS and the Israeli Ministry of Health, with coordination from the Department of Commerce.
The bill authorizes $10 million annually for fiscal years 2026 through 2032, specifies program goals (R&D, commercialization, telemedicine, disease prevention, and biological product manufacturing), sets project selection criteria, requires reporting to Congress, and mandates timelines for program framework and proposal solicitation. For health‑care companies, research institutions, and government agencies engaged in cross‑border medical innovation, the Act creates a new federal funding channel and a forum for coordinated U.S.–Israel activity — with unresolved questions about data‑sharing, IP, oversight, and the modest scale of funding relative to stated ambitions.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires HHS to enter a cooperative agreement to establish the BIRD Health Program administered through the BIRD Foundation, jointly governed with Israel, to fund U.S.–Israel projects in medical devices, biologics, digital health, telemedicine, AI, vaccines, and epidemiology.
Who It Affects
Affected parties include U.S. and Israeli startups and established companies in medtech and biopharma, academic and clinical research centers conducting joint projects, the BIRD Foundation as program administrator, and HHS and Commerce as federal overseers responsible for framework, reporting, and oversight.
Why It Matters
This creates a designated, federally authorized vehicle specifically focused on bilateral health innovation with explicit support for joint manufacturing and data‑sharing frameworks — a formal channel for commercialization and cross‑border deployment that can accelerate clinical trials, manufacturing resilience, and market access in both countries.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The Act instructs HHS to formalize a cooperative agreement that establishes the BIRD Health Program and to coordinate that effort with the Secretary of Commerce and the BIRD Foundation’s executive director. Rather than creating a new federal bureaucracy, the bill places program administration with the BIRD Foundation and requires joint governance with the Israeli Ministry of Health; HHS and Commerce retain oversight roles.
That structure follows existing BIRD models used for energy and cyber collaborations.
Program activities are broad: the statute lists R&D grants for joint U.S.–Israel projects (including early‑stage clinical work), efforts to strengthen startup ecosystems and tech transfer, telemedicine and interoperability initiatives, disease prevention and vaccine work, and a distinct emphasis on biological product manufacturing — explicitly authorizing support for joint manufacturing facilities located in the United States. It also calls for developing a framework for sharing health data for research and “encouraging cybersecurity standards” and privacy protections in marketplace uptake activities.Funding is modestly quantified: the bill authorizes $10 million per year from 2026 through 2032 and directs that funds be administered via the BIRD Foundation under the cooperative agreement with HHS and Commerce oversight.
HHS must report to Congress on program framework within 180 days of enactment and the program is to begin accepting proposals no later than one year after the framework is established. Annual reports and a comprehensive triennial program review are required, with project selection based on technical merit, commercial potential, bilateral relevance, partnership strength, and potential to meet unmet medical needs.Several implementation levers are intentionally left to the cooperative agreement and program governance: the bill delegates detailed criteria for project funding, the mechanics of joint manufacturing ventures, IP and licensing arrangements, and the precise architecture for cross‑border data sharing to program rules.
That delegation is efficient but shifts many consequential decisions to the implementing bodies rather than statute.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill authorizes $10,000,000 per year for fiscal years 2026–2032 to support the BIRD Health Program, with funds administered through the BIRD Foundation under HHS and Commerce oversight.
HHS must enter a cooperative agreement that places program administration with the BIRD Foundation and establishes joint governance with Israel’s Ministry of Health; HHS and Commerce retain oversight roles.
The statute explicitly permits funding for joint biological product manufacturing and authorizes supporting U.S. facilities developed in partnership with Israeli entities to strengthen supply‑chain resilience.
HHS must deliver a report on program framework to Congress within 180 days of enactment, and the program must start accepting proposals no later than one year after the framework is established.
Project selection criteria include technical merit, commercial potential, alignment with both governments’ health priorities, strength of the U.S.–Israel partnership, and potential to address unmet medical needs.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Establishes the Act’s formal name — the United States‑Israel Bilateral Innovation for Research and Development in Health Act of 2025, or the BIRD Health Act of 2025. This is a housekeeping provision but signals Congressional intent to tie the program explicitly to the BIRD brand and its binational model.
Findings and legislative context
Summarizes background: the BIRD Foundation’s history, the share of prior projects touching health, a 2016 U.S.–Israel health cooperation agreement, and a prior $2 million Congressional allocation in 2020. These findings frame the program as an extension of prior binational activity and provide statutory support for using the BIRD governance model rather than creating an independent federal office.
Establishment of the BIRD Health Program
Requires HHS to enter a cooperative agreement to establish the program and names the BIRD Foundation as the implementation partner. It specifies joint governance with the Israeli Ministry of Health, lists program goals spanning R&D to commercialization and ecosystem building, and enumerates program components (R&D, innovation ecosystem support, telemedicine, disease prevention, and biological manufacturing). Practically, this delegates design and operational detail to the cooperative agreement, giving implementers discretion over eligibility, evaluation, and day‑to‑day administration while locking in high‑level scope and governance.
Funding and implementation timeline
Authorizes $10 million annually for 2026–2032 and requires that funds be administered through the BIRD Foundation with HHS and Commerce oversight. It sets two timing milestones: a 180‑day deadline for HHS to report to Congress on the program framework and a one‑year deadline after that framework for the program to open for proposals. The authorization level is modest relative to large federal R&D programs, which will shape the size and number of awards and the program’s operational scale.
Reporting and evaluation requirements
Mandates an annual report to Congress beginning within a year of enactment describing funded projects’ progress, economic and scientific benefits, and policy recommendations. It also requires a comprehensive program review every three years with recommendations for renewal or expansion. These statutory reporting requirements create accountability touchpoints but leave metric selection and evaluation methodology to HHS and the program governance structure.
Definition of health technology
Defines ‘health technology’ broadly to include medical devices, pharmaceuticals, digital health solutions, AI‑driven diagnostics, and biologics. The definition narrows potential argument over covered projects and clarifies that AI applications and biologics fall squarely within program scope, which matters for eligibility and prioritization.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Healthcare across all five countries.
Explore Healthcare in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- U.S. and Israeli startups and mid‑sized companies in medtech and biopharma — gain access to matched, binational funding, Israeli market pathways, and potential U.S. manufacturing partnerships to accelerate commercialization.
- Academic medical centers and clinical researchers — receive new channels for early‑stage clinical trials and cross‑border collaborative research, including access to shared epidemiological data if the program’s data‑sharing framework is implemented.
- U.S. biomanufacturing firms and contract manufacturers — stand to win investment and partnership opportunities through the bill’s explicit support for joint manufacturing facilities located in the United States.
- Innovation hubs and accelerators — can leverage program support to create market entry programs, tech‑transfer pipelines, and cybersecurity/privacy practices to facilitate cross‑border deployments.
Who Bears the Cost
- U.S. taxpayers — the bill authorizes $10 million per year from 2026 to 2032; appropriations and ongoing budget choices will determine the program’s actual scale and continuation.
- The BIRD Foundation and implementing agencies (HHS/Commerce) — will assume administrative, oversight, and reporting responsibilities, which may require staffing, compliance, and audit resources not covered by the authorization.
- Participating companies and institutions — will likely need to provide cost‑share, meet cybersecurity and privacy expectations, and navigate regulatory and IP negotiations inherent in cross‑border projects, adding compliance and legal expenses.
- HHS and Commerce — must develop the program framework, evaluation metrics, and interagency coordination mechanisms; insufficient resources or unclear authority could slow rollout and create implementation risk.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The Act pits two legitimate goals against each other: accelerating bilateral commercialization and supply‑chain resilience through permissive, market‑oriented cooperation, versus protecting patient privacy, national security, and taxpayer stewardship through stricter statutory controls. Speed and openness favor innovation and quicker deployment; tighter statutory rules favor oversight and risk containment — the bill delegates many of those trade‑offs to implementers, forcing choices that have real technical, legal, and political consequences.
The bill sets an ambitious, wide‑ranging agenda but funds it at a modest level. $10 million per year will support pilot projects and ecosystem activities but will not underwrite large clinical programs or multiple full‑scale manufacturing plants; program leaders will need to prioritize small, high‑leverage projects or assemble substantial co‑funding from private partners. That gap between stated scope and appropriations creates a predictable tension in selecting which projects receive support.
Crucial implementation details are delegated to the cooperative agreement and program governance rather than specified in statute. The Act requires a framework for health‑data sharing and ‘encouraging cybersecurity standards,’ but it does not define data governance, permissible transfers, alignment with HIPAA and Israeli privacy law, or ownership of datasets.
Similarly, while it endorses joint manufacturing facilities in the U.S., it is silent on IP allocation, cost‑sharing, export controls, regulatory harmonization with the FDA and Israel’s regulators, and long‑term ownership structures. Those omissions create legal and operational uncertainty for companies considering participation.
Finally, the default implementation channel—the BIRD Foundation—brings experience but also raises questions about federal oversight of a private binational entity administering taxpayer‑authorized funds. Auditing, conflict‑of‑interest rules, and compliance with federal grant requirements will require clear terms in the cooperative agreement to avoid accountability gaps.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.