The Cease Animal Research Grants Overseas Act of 2025 would prohibit the Director of the National Institutes of Health from awarding any support for activities or programs that use live animals in research unless the research occurs in the United States. The bill adds the prohibition to the Public Health Service Act and defines United States to include each state and every territory or possession.
The motivation, as stated in the findings, is that foreign organizations have received substantive NIH funding for animal research and operate with limited external oversight, creating welfare and transparency concerns for projects funded by American taxpayers.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adds a prohibition to NIH funding for any live-animal research conducted outside the United States, applicable to grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and technical assistance.
Who It Affects
NIH grant applicants and recipients performing live-animal research; foreign laboratories that previously received NIH funds; domestic institutions coordinating overseas collaborations.
Why It Matters
It sets a geographic boundary on NIH-supported live-animal research and shifts potential compliance and welfare oversight toward domestically conducted projects, signaling a new baseline for welfare and transparency expectations.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The act introduces a new restriction to the Public Health Service Act that stops NIH from funding any project that uses live animals in research unless the work happens inside the United States. The prohibition covers all NIH funding tools—grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and technical assistance.
It also redefines the meaning of the United States to include states and all territories and possessions, ensuring the rule applies broadly. The rationale rests on concerns about overseas labs: the bill cites historical NIH support to foreign organizations totaling roughly $2.2 billion over a decade, the lack of independent inspections of those labs, and potential misrepresentation of animal-welfare data.
On its face, the policy would restrict overseas animal research funded by NIH and funnel or reallocate certain activities to U.S.-based facilities, with implications for international collaborations and the capacity of domestic labs to absorb any redirected resources. The text does not lay out an implementation timeline, nor does it create new oversight bodies; enforcement would hinge on NIH grant-making authority under the amended statute.
The Five Things You Need to Know
NIH may not award any support for live-animal research outside the United States.
The prohibition applies to grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, and technical assistance.
‘United States’ includes all states and every territory and possession.
Findings cite roughly $2.2 billion in NIH funding to foreign organizations (2011–2021) and lack of foreign inspections as rationale.
The act adds the prohibition under Section 495 of the Public Health Service Act.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title and citation
Part 1 establishes the act’s formal name, the Cease Animal Research Grants Overseas Act of 2025 (CARGO Act), and sets out how the law should be cited in subsequent references.
Findings
Section 2 articulates congressional findings about NIH funding levels going to foreign organizations for animal research, the absence of formal inspections of foreign labs, and the associated welfare and transparency risks when the research is funded by the American public.
Prohibition on NIH support for live-animal research outside the United States
Section 495 of the Public Health Service Act is amended by adding new subsection (f). It bars the Director of NIH from awarding any support—grants, contracts, cooperative agreements, or technical assistance—for any activity using live animals in research unless the research occurs in the United States. It also defines ‘United States’ to include each state and each territory or possession.
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.-based universities and medical research centers that conduct live-animal research domestically and rely on NIH funding, which remains available for approved domestic work.
- U.S. taxpayers funding NIH programs benefit indirectly through ensured domestic alignment of funded activities and potential welfare improvements.
- Domestic animal-welfare advocacy groups may gain from a policy that emphasizes welfare within U.S.-based labs.
- U.S.-based contract research organizations and compliant laboratories that perform NIH-funded domestic animal research.
- U.S. regulatory and oversight bodies responsible for animal welfare in research may see clearer boundaries for NIH-funded activities.
Who Bears the Cost
- Foreign organizations that historically received NIH funds for live-animal research outside the United States will lose access to those funds.
- Foreign laboratories conducting NIH-funded projects abroad may face reduced opportunities and require relocation or repurposing of research programs.
- NIH grant administrators and program offices will take on enforcement responsibilities to ensure compliance with the new prohibition.
- Domestic institutions expanding to absorb potential redirected overseas research funding may incur capacity and cost challenges to meet demand.
- Potential indirect costs to international collaborations that previously included live-animal components in NIH-funded work.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether protecting animal welfare and ensuring welfare oversight via a U.S.-centric funding rule justifies limiting foreign collaborations and potentially constraining global research networks.
The bill introduces a policy lever that can meaningfully reduce overseas live-animal research funded by NIH, but it raises important implementation questions. There is no explicit transition timeline, and the policy relies on NIH’s grant-making authority to enforce the prohibition across all funding mechanisms.
Practically, the prohibition could shift the geography of live-animal research, increasing domestic demand for suitable facilities and animal-care expertise, while potentially constraining international scientific collaborations that involve U.S. funding. The findings underscore welfare and oversight concerns without creating a parallel or enhanced enforcement framework, leaving questions about how to verify compliance across diverse foreign arrangements.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.