The CARGO Act of 2025 would prohibit the National Institutes of Health from providing federal support for any grant, contract, cooperative agreement, or technical assistance for research activities that use live animals unless the research is conducted in the United States. The bill amends Section 495 of the Public Health Service Act to add this restriction and defines “United States” to include the states, territories, and possessions.
The bill’s findings state that NIH provided roughly $2.2 billion from fiscal years 2011 through 2021 to foreign organizations for animal research, and that NIH does not directly inspect foreign organizations, relying instead on self-reported animal welfare information. Based on those findings, the bill is aimed at preventing federal funding from supporting animal research overseas where oversight is perceived to be weaker and where mistreatment of animals may be harder to detect.
Impact
If enacted, the bill would narrow NIH’s authority under the Public Health Service Act by barring federal support for live-animal research conducted outside U.S. jurisdiction. It would affect foreign institutions, U.S. researchers and universities collaborating internationally, and NIH grant and contract administration by requiring that covered animal research occur domestically in the United States, including U.S. territories and possessions.
Sentiment
There is no recorded committee debate or vote history in the provided materials, but the bill’s introduction by Senators Scott and Booker suggests bipartisan interest in restricting overseas animal research funding. The findings and title indicate a strong animal-welfare and oversight-focused rationale, with the bill framed as a response to concerns about accountability and humane treatment in foreign research settings.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely to be whether NIH should be prohibited from funding animal research abroad at all, versus allowing such funding with enhanced oversight or inspection requirements. Supporters are likely to emphasize animal welfare, transparency, and the inability of NIH to inspect foreign facilities, while opponents may argue the bill could limit scientific collaboration, reduce research flexibility, and interfere with international partnerships that use live animals.