The Fogarty International Center (FIC) is the part of the National Institutes of Health dedicated specifically to global health research and to training researchers — in the United States and in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) — to conduct it. It funds a portfolio of international research-training mechanisms, including D43 international training grants and K43 career-development awards, and coordinates NIH’s international research partnerships more broadly. For FY2025, FIC was funded at roughly $95 million.
The FY2026 elimination proposal
The White House’s detailed Fiscal Year 2026 discretionary budget request, released May 30, 2025, proposed eliminating the Fogarty International Center entirely as part of a broader set of NIH restructuring proposals that also included consolidating NIH’s institutes and centers from 27 down to 8 — a separate proposal covered in our status update on that consolidation effort. Advocacy and policy organizations tracking the global health implications of the FY2026 request, including KFF and AVAC, flagged FIC’s proposed elimination as one of the more consequential single-line items for international research capacity-building, given that FIC’s training grants are a primary US government mechanism for building sustained research infrastructure in LMICs.
What Congress actually enacted
Congress did not eliminate FIC. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2026, signed February 3, 2026, funded the Fogarty International Center at $95 million — flat with the FY2025 enacted level, and effectively a full rejection of the elimination proposal. This mirrors what happened to the administration’s other major NIH restructuring proposals for FY2026: Congress also declined to enact the proposed 27-to-8 institute consolidation and rejected a proposed roughly 40% cut to NIH’s overall budget, instead funding NIH at approximately $48.7 billion for the year. Appropriations, not the President’s budget request, is what actually determines agency funding — a distinction worth keeping in mind whenever a proposed-elimination headline circulates; see our guide to how the federal budget and appropriations process affects grant award timing for how that process works more generally.
Where things stand now
Formally, FIC is funded and operating. Its leadership also changed hands in mid-2026: Dr. Peter Kilmarx, who had served as deputy director since 2015 and as acting director since 2025, was succeeded by Dr. Steven Schiff, who became FIC’s ninth director and NIH’s Associate Director for International Research, joining NIH on June 4, 2026 from a faculty position at Yale. FIC’s own newsletter described the change under the heading “Transformation at Fogarty,” though the content of that announcement is about the leadership transition specifically, not a described organizational restructuring.
Separately, at least one industry publication tracking NIH’s FY2026 restructuring fights has characterized FIC as “operationally sidelined” despite its congressionally-enacted funding — grouped alongside other institutes where Congress preserved a budget line but where the administration is reported to have used non-appropriations administrative levers (staffing, review timelines, priority-setting) to narrow an institute’s practical scope. That characterization is worth flagging to anyone tracking FIC closely, but as of this writing it is not independently corroborated with specifics (no named staffing cuts, program terminations, or review-timeline changes have been documented in primary NIH or FIC sources), so it should be treated as a reported signal to watch rather than a settled fact.
What this means for research administrators
- Existing and pending FIC awards: FY2026 appropriations funded FIC at its prior-year level, so there is no appropriations-driven basis to expect blanket termination of active D43, K43, or other FIC-funded training and research awards. Standard NIH payline and funding-cycle uncertainty still applies, as it does across NIH more broadly in 2026.
- New applications: Institutions planning FIC-funded international training programs should confirm current funding-opportunity announcements directly on FIC’s own site rather than assuming continuity of any specific mechanism, given the leadership transition and the broader climate of proposed-then-rejected restructuring across NIH this cycle.
- Institutional risk communication: Because “proposed for elimination” and “actually eliminated” are functionally different events that get conflated in both media coverage and internal institutional messaging, grants offices communicating with PIs about FIC-funded projects should be precise about which stage — presidential budget request, congressional appropriation, or agency implementation — any given report is describing.
- Watch the FY2027 cycle: The elimination proposal for FIC was one input into a pattern repeated across several NIH institutes and centers in the FY2026 budget fight (proposed elimination or consolidation, followed by congressional rejection). Whether similar proposals recur for FY2027 is a live question administrators of internationally-focused research programs should continue monitoring rather than treat as resolved by the FY2026 outcome alone.
Frequently asked questions
Was the Fogarty International Center actually eliminated?
No. The White House’s FY2026 budget request proposed eliminating it, but Congress rejected that proposal. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2026 funded FIC at $95 million, the same level as FY2025.
Is Fogarty funding guaranteed for future years?
No. FY2026 appropriations only cover FY2026. The proposed elimination could recur in a future budget cycle, and institutions with FIC-funded international research or training programs should continue monitoring both the President’s budget requests and enacted appropriations each cycle rather than assuming the FY2026 outcome sets a permanent precedent.
Does Congress rejecting the elimination proposal mean nothing has changed at Fogarty?
Not necessarily. Funding was preserved, and FIC has a new director as of June 2026, but at least one industry source has described the center as facing administrative headwinds separate from its appropriations status. That characterization currently lacks independent, specific corroboration and should be treated as a signal to watch, not a confirmed fact.
