H.R.1085 - Cease Animal Research Grants Overseas Act of 2025; CARGO Act of 2025 (119th Congress)
Summary
H.R.1085, also known as the Cease Animal Research Grants Overseas Act of 2025 or CARGO Act of 2025, aims to amend the Public Health Service Act. The bill seeks to prohibit the National Institutes of Health (NIH) from awarding support for research activities or programs that involve live animals, unless the research is conducted within the United States. This legislation was introduced in the House of Representatives on February 6, 2025.
The bill is motivated by concerns that the NIH has provided significant funding to foreign organizations for animal research without adequate oversight. Congress believes this lack of oversight has led to the mistreatment of animals in research projects funded by American taxpayers.
The proposed changes would redirect NIH funding to domestic research institutions, potentially impacting international collaborations and research outcomes.
Expected Effects
If enacted, H.R.1085 would restrict NIH funding for animal research to projects conducted within the United States. This would likely lead to a decrease in NIH-funded research conducted overseas.
Domestic research institutions could see an increase in funding opportunities. Foreign research institutions that rely on NIH funding for animal studies would likely experience a reduction in their research budgets.
Potential Benefits
- Increased Oversight: Ensures that animal research funded by the NIH is subject to US regulations and oversight, potentially improving animal welfare.
- Domestic Investment: Redirects research funding to US institutions, potentially stimulating the domestic research sector.
- Transparency: May improve transparency and accountability in animal research funded by US taxpayer dollars.
- Public Trust: Could increase public trust in NIH-funded research by addressing concerns about animal welfare in foreign institutions.
Most Benefited Areas:
Potential Disadvantages
- Limited Collaboration: May hinder international research collaborations, potentially slowing down scientific progress.
- Reduced Access to Expertise: Could limit access to unique research opportunities or expertise available only in foreign institutions.
- Increased Costs: Research in the US may be more expensive than in some foreign countries, potentially reducing the overall scope of research.
- Scientific Impact: Restricting research to the US may limit the diversity of research approaches and potentially impact scientific outcomes.
Most Disadvantaged Areas:
Constitutional Alignment
The bill appears to align with the general welfare clause of the Constitution (Preamble), as it aims to ensure responsible use of taxpayer money and promote ethical research practices. Congress's power to regulate spending is derived from Article I, Section 8, which grants them the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States.
However, the bill does not directly implicate any specific constitutional rights or freedoms. The restrictions on funding do not appear to infringe upon individual liberties or state powers.
Impact Assessment: Things You Care About ⓘ
This action has been evaluated across 19 key areas that matter to you. Scores range from 1 (highly disadvantageous) to 5 (highly beneficial).