Every fall, thousands of nurse leaders leave their campuses, hospitals and offices to gather in conference rooms around the country—and, in some cases, around the world.

Most nurses will never attend these meetings. But what happens there can still reach their classrooms, workplaces and professional lives. Conference agendas help reveal which problems nursing’s major organizations consider urgent, which ideas are gaining momentum, and which voices are helping shape the profession’s response.

This fall’s calendar points to an unusually broad agenda:

• Advanced practice nursing’s global expansion.

• The growing power and risks of health data.

• Artificial intelligence.

• Workforce retention.

• Public health.

• Nursing education.

• Turning professional influence into action.

Most conferences below require paid registration. I’ve highlighted programs offering free or public access, virtual participation or an advocacy opportunity.

The Fall 2026 Nursing Leadership, Policy and Public Health Calendar

September

International Council of Nurses

14th ICN NP/APN Network Conference
September 14–17 | Nashville
Theme: Advanced Practice Nurses: United for Global Impact, Innovation, and CarePenn Nursing International Symposium
What to watch: How countries are expanding advanced practice roles to improve access to care—and what the United States might learn from them.
Registration Info

Becker’s 11th Annual Health IT + Digital Health + RCM Annual Meeting

September 14–17 | Chicago
Apply for complimentary registration now.
This major health-system leadership meeting focuses on AI, digital transformation, and health-care technology, with dedicated sessions on nursing informatics, virtual nursing, nurse-led technology design, automation, and nursing leadership in AI adoption.
Theme: AI, digital transformation, and the future of technology-enabled health care.
What to watch: Nurse-led AI adoption, virtual nursing, nursing informatics, automation, and how CNOs and CNIOs are shaping technology decisions.
Registration Info

AcademyHealth 2026 Health Datapalooza

September 24–25 | Washington
Government, health care, academic, technology and patient leaders will examine new uses of health data and emerging technology.
What to watch: Who controls health data, how AI is being incorporated into health care and whether nurses are sufficiently represented in those decisions.
Registration Info

American Nurses Association

Opportunity & Impact: From Intention to Action
Fall 2026 | Virtual
Free and open to all · Registration required · Free CNE for live sessions
A six-part webinar series examining how nursing can move from shared commitments to sustained action.
What to watch: Whether the series identifies concrete ways for nurses and institutions to carry those commitments into practice.
Registration Info

October

American Academy of Nursing (AAN)

Health Policy Conference
October 8–10 | Washington, D.C.
Theme: Digital Health: Promise, Responsibility
What to watch: Whether nursing moves beyond discussing technology’s effect on practice and asserts a larger role in shaping how digital health is designed, governed and regulated.
Registration info

National Academy of Medicine (NAM)

2026 Annual Meeting
October 17–19 | Washington, D.C. and online
Selected sessions open to the public · Online access planned
The annual meeting includes interest-group sessions, awards, the president’s address and a scientific program. Full 2026 registration details are still forthcoming.
What to watch: Which health and scientific issues NAM elevates—and which new members it elects.
Registration Info

Catalyzing Healthy Longevity: NAM Global Innovator Summit

October 20 | 8:30 a.m.–5 p.m. ET
2101 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20418
Public hybrid event (In Person & Virtual) · Registration details forthcoming
NAM describes it as the culmination of its seven-year Healthy Longevity Global Competition. Scientists, innovators, policymakers, investors and others will discuss aging, health-span, ethics, public trust and emerging science.
Program Info

American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN)

Academic Nursing Leadership Conference
October 25–27 | Washington, D.C.
Theme: Where Members Connect and Shape the Future of Nursing Education!
Members only · Registration required · Capitol Hill advocacy details pending
The meeting brings together deans, directors and other leaders from AACN member schools.
What to watch: How nursing schools respond to financial pressures, changes affecting graduate education and the need to prepare the future faculty and workforce.
Registration Info

American Nurse Credentialing Center (ANCC)

ANCC Magnet and Pathway Conference
October 29–31 | Chicago
Theme: The Power of Nurses® and advancing nursing excellence
What to watch: Whether health systems are moving from talking about nurse well-being and retention to making measurable changes in staffing and working conditions.
Registration Info

November

American Public Health Association (APHA)

Annual Meeting and Expo
November 1–4 | San Antonio
Theme: Together We Thrive: Health Across the Lifespan
Advocacy is woven throughout the conference, especially because APHA is deliberately meeting in Texas and supporting RAICES, a nonprofit organization providing legal aid, social services, and advocacy for immigrants, refugees, and asylum seekers in Texas and nationwide.
What to watch: How public-health leaders respond to changing federal policy, weakened trust in health institutions and renewed threats from preventable disease. Registration info

Magnet-Pathway4Europe Network Conference

November 10–11 | Charité, Berlin
What to watch: What the Magnet4Europe experience has taught participating hospitals about improving nurses’ work environments—and whether those lessons can be sustained and spread.
Registration info

December

AACN Transform 2026

December 3–5 | Indianapolis
Theme: Redefine the Future of Nursing Education
What to watch: How educators intend to prepare nurses for a health system being reshaped by technology, demographic change and persistent workforce instability.
Registration Info

Taken together, these meetings offer some clues about what nursing leaders will be thinking about, and preparing for, in the coming year.

Technology and health data will be part of the conversation, but so will more familiar concerns about education, staffing, working conditions, public health and access to care. The settings differ, but many of the questions overlap.

Of course, conferences are only a starting point. The more important question is what happens after everyone goes home.

• Which ideas will reach nurses outside the meeting rooms?

• Which will influence health systems, schools or public policy?

• And, will nurses continue pressing for change once the programs end?

Those are the questions I’ll be watching this fall.

Dr. Abdul El-Sayed’s victory in Michigan’s Democratic Senate primary put a national spotlight on a notable trend in this year’s elections: nurses and physicians are once again asking voters to send clinicians to Congress.

More than 30 nurses and physicians entered congressional races in 2026, according to Roll Call. They include incumbents, first-time candidates, former state legislators, public health officials and practicing clinicians.

They join a relatively small but influential group of health professionals who have taken clinical experience to Capitol Hill—and sometimes turned it into federal policy.

Research suggests that nursing can be useful preparation for political life. A 2022 Nursing Outlook study of elected and politically active nurses found that participants credited their education and practice with strengthening communication skills, confidence and knowledge of health systems.

Clinicians Who Turned Practice into Policy

Lois Capps, RN: Strengthening the Nursing Workforce

Before serving 20 years in Congress, Lois Capps worked as a nurse, nursing instructor and school nurse. Capps helped move the Nurse Reinvestment Act of 2002, enacted during another period of serious concern about the nursing workforce. The law expanded federal nursing scholarships and loan repayment programs and supported nursing education, recruitment and faculty development.

Eddie Bernice Johnson, RN: From the VA to Congress

Eddie Bernice Johnson was the first registered nurse elected to Congress. Before entering politics, she served as chief psychiatric nurse at the Dallas VA Medical Center. Among the legislation she successfully moved into law was the Dr. James Allen Veteran Vision Equity Act of 2007, which expanded eligibility for VA vision benefits. Johnson went on to serve three decades in Congress and eventually chaired the House Science Committee—giving a nurse a leadership role over federal science and research policy.

Bill Frist, MD: A Physician Helps Build the U.S. Response to Global AIDS

Before entering the Senate, Bill Frist was a heart and lung transplant surgeon. Elected from Tennessee in 1994, he later became Senate majority leader. Frist made global HIV/AIDS one of his major health-policy priorities. In 2002, he joined Democratic Sen. John Kerry in sponsoring bipartisan legislation that would substantially expand U.S. funding to fight HIV/AIDS overseas. That work helped build congressional support for what became the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR.

Frist’s role offers one of the clearest examples of a physician in Congress using both medical experience and political leadership to make global health a major U.S. policy priority.

Raul Ruiz, MD: Putting Clinician Burnout on the Federal Agenda

Emergency physician Rep. Raul Ruiz helped lead the Dr. Lorna Breen Health Care Provider Protection Act, enacted in 2022 following the suicide of emergency physician Lorna Breen during the COVID-19 pandemic. The law authorized federal programs and grants aimed at improving the mental health and well-being of health-care workers. It also helped move clinician burnout and mental health from an internal workforce concern into the realm of federal health policy.

Together, these examples show how nurses and physicians in Congress have shaped policy on the nursing workforce, veterans’ care, global health and clinician well-being. They have not shared one political agenda, but their careers show what can happen when clinical experience meets legislative opportunity.

Physicians on the November Ballot

El-Sayed is not the only physician advancing to November. In Arizona, former state Rep. Amish Shah, MD, an emergency physician, will face Republican Jay Feely for an open U.S. House seat. The matchup has an unusual connection: Shah previously served as a team physician for the New York Jets while Feely played for the team.

About 20 physicians currently serve in Congress, bringing a range of clinical backgrounds—and very different political perspectives—to Capitol Hill. The House physicians highlighted here are also in the 2026 election cycle.

House physicians have organized as well. The GOP Doctors Caucus and Democratic Doctors Caucus provide forums for physician-lawmakers to bring clinical perspectives to debates over health care and public policy. The GOP caucus, for example, is currently co-chaired by physicians Greg Murphy and John Joyce, while Kim Schrier chairs the Democratic group.

Rand Paul, MD, an ophthalmologist from Kentucky, remains one of the Senate’s most visible physician-lawmakers, particularly on public health, federal health agencies, and government oversight.

Bill Cassidy, MD, a gastroenterologist and longtime Senate health policymaker, represents another model of physician leadership in Congress. His departure at the end of the year will remove one of the Senate’s relatively few physicians—and one of its most experienced health-policy voices.

What Comes Next

November will determine not only which party controls Congress, but also whether the relatively small ranks of nurses and physicians serving there grow, shrink or simply change.

Clinical experience does not dictate a political philosophy, nor does it guarantee electoral success. But the careers of Capps, Johnson, Frist, Ruiz and others show that when clinicians do reach Congress, their professional experience can help shape the issues they choose to champion—and sometimes the laws that follow.

Now voters will decide which of this year’s clinician-candidates get that opportunity.

To me, Rep. Summer Lee epitomizes what it means to speak truth to power. She does not simply raise her voice or deliver a memorable line. She challenges the premises powerful people would prefer to leave unquestioned—and she brings evidence with her.

Last week, I saw that clearly while watching a House Education and Workforce Committee hearing provocatively titled “Training Activists, Not Physicians: The Impact of DEI on Medical Schools.” The title alone revealed how the committee majority had chosen to frame the discussion. But when Lee began questioning the witnesses, she refused to accept that framing. She redirected the conversation toward the racial disparities that persist in American healthcare, the patients affected by them, and the evidence showing why physician diversity matters.

Then she said it plainly: “Black doctors save lives.”

It was not only the force of the line that caught my attention. It was Lee’s willingness to say it in a congressional hearing at a moment when many institutions (and many individuals) have become increasingly hesitant to speak openly about racial disparities.

I stopped scrolling and listened. Then I wanted to know more about PA’s 12th Congressional District Congresswoman.

Who Is Rep. Summer Lee?

Before this week, I knew Summer Lee’s name, but I did not know much about the person behind it.

According to her congressional biography, Lee was born and raised in Pennsylvania’s Mon Valley region. She attended Woodland Hills public schools before graduating from Penn State and Howard University School of Law. Her biography describes her as an attorney, organizer, and legislator whose work has focused on racial and environmental justice, workers’ rights, and economic opportunity.

Her path to Congress began with a grassroots campaign. After working as a labor and community organizer, Lee challenged a longtime incumbent for a seat in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives in 2018—and won.

In 2022, voters elected her to represent Pennsylvania’s 12th Congressional District, which includes Pittsburgh and communities across Allegheny and Westmoreland counties. As WHYY and other Pennsylvania news organizations reported, her victory made her the first Black woman elected to Congress from Pennsylvania.

Lee currently serves on the House Committee on Education and Workforce and the House Judiciary Committee. Through those assignments, she participates in congressional debates over education, workers’ rights, civil rights, the health care workforce, and the administration of federal law.

Her strong background helped me understand what I had heard.

Lee was not simply delivering an impassioned response. She appeared to have a firm command of the research—where disparities occur, what contributes to them, and why removing race and other demographic factors from medical school admissions would not make those disparities disappear.

Numerous studies have documented disparities in maternal mortality, access to high-quality care, environmental exposure, treatment within the health system, and outcomes from chronic illness. They do not treat race as a biological cause of poor health. Rather, they examine how unequal treatment, discrimination, neighborhood conditions, access to care, environmental exposures, and public policy can produce unequal risks and outcomes.

Why This Moment Stayed with Me

This is not meant as a political profile or endorsement. What stayed with me was something more specific: Lee’s willingness to speak directly about documented disparities and to ground her argument in evidence.

Sources and Further Reading

• The Research Behind Rep. Summer Lee’s Argument. Nurses on the Hill Substack Note, July 21, 2026

• House Committee on Education and Workforce: “Training Activists, Not Physicians: The Impact of DEI on Medical Schools,” July 14, 2026.

• Office of Rep. Summer Lee: Official biography and current committee assignments.

• WHYY: Coverage of Lee’s 2022 election and its historic significance.

• Inside Higher Ed: “House Hearing Puts Med Schools in DEI Hot Seat,” July 15, 2026. Independent reporting on the hearing, including the arguments presented by committee Republicans, committee Democrats, medical-school leaders, and National Medical Association President Roger A. Mitchell Jr.

• Keystone Newsroom: Video of Rep. Summer Lee speaking alongside nurses at UPMC Magee-Womens Hospital following their 2025 union vote.

The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is proposing government-wide changes to how federal grants are awarded and managed, according to a rule published in the Federal Register.

According to reporting by Science magazine and the Associated Press, one of the most consequential provisions would give political appointees greater influence over federal research awards. Scientific peer reviewers would continue to evaluate grant applications, but political officials would determine whether proposed awards advance the president’s priorities.

Researchers and scientific organizations, including the American Association for Cancer Research, have warned that the change could weaken the traditional role of independent peer review and make federal research funding more vulnerable to political influence.

How OMB Justifies the Change

OMB says the proposal would improve “transparency, accountability, and oversight” and prevent misuse of federal funds.

But the rule’s preamble also accuses the previous administration of using grants to promote a “woke” agenda and cites DEI initiatives, allegedly non-replicable research and gain-of-function studies as examples of waste. That language helps explain why researchers view the proposal as more than a financial-control measure.

Peer Review: A Long-Established Safeguard

As described in the 2024 review, The Peer Review Process: Past, Present, and Future, peer review has developed over several centuries into a central safeguard of modern science. It is used both to evaluate manuscripts before publication and to assess research proposals before public funds are awarded.

At NIH, outside scientific experts review grant applications for scientific and technical merit, followed by a second-level review by the relevant institute or center advisory council. NIH officials make the final funding decision, but peer review has traditionally provided the central independent assessment of a proposal’s scientific merit.

Peer review does not guarantee that a study is correct or that a proposal deserves funding. Its purpose is to bring relevant scientific expertise into the decision and reduce the risk that research is selected solely because it is politically or institutionally favored.

Why Nursing Science Is Exposed—and How Nursing Organizations Responded

The American Academy of Nursing is warning that the proposed rule could have direct consequences for nursing science.

In comments submitted to OMB on July 13, the Academy urged the administration to preserve scientific peer review as the primary basis for federal funding decisions. It warned that giving political appointees greater influence over grant awards could undermine scientific integrity, discourage innovation and weaken public trust in federally funded research. The concern is especially relevant to nurse researchers, whose work often addresses maternal health, rural access to care, health disparities, workforce conditions and the social and economic factors that influence health.

The Oncology Nursing Society raised similar concerns in its own comments. ONS warned that greater political scrutiny could push nurse researchers—particularly early-career investigators—to narrow their work toward perceived “preferred areas” rather than pursue innovative or patient-centered questions.

The nursing response was part of a much broader scientific and academic pushback.

AACN joined 322 other research, medical and higher-education organizations in a Research!America-led letter asking OMB to extend the public comment period, arguing that the proposed changes were too sweeping to evaluate adequately within the original timeframe.

What Happens Next?

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will now review the public comments and decide whether to revise, withdraw or finalize the proposed rule. OMB has said it intends to issue a final rule that takes effect by October 1, the beginning of the 2027 federal fiscal year. According to the proposal, that timing would allow one set of rules to govern federal awards made or amended during fiscal year 2027.

Until a final rule is published, the proposed changes do not alter the current grant process.

For nurse researchers, the next document to watch is the final rule itself—particularly any provisions governing political review of awards, termination of existing grants and the standards used to determine whether research serves the “national interest.”

Related Reporting from the week of July 9, 2026

• July 9, 2026 — The New York Times: “A Proposed Rule Would Politicize Medical Research. Scientists Are Not Happy.”
  Gift article—no subscription required.

• July 12, 2026 — The Washington Post: “Researchers Worry a Trump Rule Could End U.S. Scientific Dominance.”
  May require a subscription.

Nurses came to Washington with a focused federal agenda shaped by the pressures they see every day in hospitals, clinics, classrooms, and communities.

This year, they urged Congress to act on four priorities:

1. Improving access to care

2. Protecting nurses from workplace violence

3. Reauthorizing Title VIII Nursing Workforce Programs

4. Protecting graduate nursing education and professional-degree status

These issues span workplace safety, education, workforce capacity, and access to care—but they share one central question: whether federal policy will give nurses the tools and support needed to meet the country’s health care needs.

Public posts from ANA Hill Day showed nurses and nursing organizations arriving in Washington from across the country. The photos offered more than a record of attendance. They showed the reach of a profession bringing patient care, workforce safety, education, and access-to-care concerns directly to Congress.

1. Improving access to care

Nurses also urged Congress to remove federal barriers that prevent advanced practice registered nurses from providing the full range of services they are educated and licensed to deliver. These restrictions are felt most sharply in communities already struggling to find primary and specialty care.

When qualified advanced practice nurses are prevented from providing the full range of care they are trained and licensed to deliver, patients feel the consequences:

Fewer primary-care providers
Longer waits for appointments
Less access in rural and underserved communities

The bipartisan Improving Care and Access to Nurses Act, or ICAN Act, H.R. 1317/S. 575, would remove outdated Medicare and Medicaid barriers that prevent APRNs from practicing to the full extent of their education and training under federal programs. ANA Capital Beat

2. Protecting nurses from workplace violence

Nurses also urged Congress to strengthen protections against workplace violence, a threat that has become impossible to dismiss as simply part of the job.

For years, nursing organizations have called for enforceable prevention standards that require health care employers to assess risks, develop workplace-violence prevention plans, train employees, document incidents, and respond meaningfully when violence occurs.

That is the purpose of the Workplace Violence Prevention for Health Care and Social Service Workers Act, H.R. 2531/S. 1232, which would direct the Department of Labor to issue an OSHA standard requiring covered health care and social-service employers to develop and implement comprehensive workplace-violence prevention plans.

3. Protecting Title VIII nursing workforce programs.

Nurses also called on Congress to reauthorize the Title VIII Nursing Workforce Development Programs, which help educate and retain nurses, develop nursing faculty, diversify the workforce, and bring care to underserved communities.

The bipartisan Title VIII Nursing Workforce Reauthorization Act, H.R. 3593/S. 1874, would reauthorize federal nursing workforce programs that support nursing education, faculty development, retention, and care in underserved communities.

4. Graduate nursing education remains front and center

Nurses also urged Congress to protect graduate nursing education by recognizing post-baccalaureate nursing programs as professional degrees for federal student-loan purposes.

The issue took a dramatic turn on the eve of ANA’s 2026 Hill Day, when a federal judge blocked the Department of Education’s restrictive new definition of a professional degree. The ruling was an important victory, but the litigation continues, and Congress may still need to provide lasting clarity.

From Hill Day to lasting influence

Hill Day does not produce legislation by itself. But sustained advocacy can help create the pressure, visibility, and relationships that move nursing priorities through Congress.

In 2026, that same sustained pressure will be needed on the priorities nurses carried to Capitol Hill: improving access to care, protecting health care workers from violence, strengthening the nursing workforce pipeline, and preserving graduate nursing education.

That is how one day on Capitol Hill becomes lasting influence.

Related: For readers following the separate legal fight over graduate nursing education and professional-degree status, nursing is included in the Department of Education’s updated professional-degree list for now, but the case is still ongoing. I covered the latest ruling and what it means for graduate nursing students here:

Useful links for Workplace Violence updates:

• OSHA Overview:
  https://www.osha.gov/hospitals/workplace-violence

• BLS Workplace-Violence Fact Sheet:
  https://www.bls.gov/iif/factsheets/workplace-violence-2021-2022.htm

• ANA workplace-violence resource page:
  https://www.nursingworld.org/practice-policy/work-environment/wpv/

Nurses warned that the Department of Education was trying to rewrite the law. Now a federal judge has agreed.

Late Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell blocked the Department’s new, restrictive definition of a “professional degree” just days before it was scheduled to take effect on July 1.

The ruling is a major victory for graduate nursing students and for the nursing organizations that challenged the rule.

What the judge found

Congress created two new federal borrowing categories: one for graduate students and a higher one for students enrolled in professional-degree programs.

But instead of applying the longstanding definition of a professional degree, the Department of Education created new criteria and limited the category to a narrow group of programs. Graduate nursing, public health, physical therapy and several other health professions were left out.

The court found that the Department likely did not have the legal authority to do that.

Congress had expressly incorporated the existing regulatory definition of a professional degree. That definition included examples—but used the critical phrase “not limited to,” making clear that the list was never intended to be exhaustive.

The Department could not simply transform those examples into an exclusive list or add new restrictions that Congress had not authorized.

What this means for nursing students

The ruling blocks the Department’s narrower definition while the lawsuit proceeds.

That difference could determine whether many future nurse practitioners, nurse anesthetists, nurse educators, researchers and other advanced nurses are able to complete their education.

An important qualification

The court did not overturn the new federal loan caps themselves, and the case is not over.

Implementation guidance—and possibly an appeal—may follow. But this is an enormously important first victory.

Nursing organizations argued that the Department had exceeded its authority, ignored the law’s actual language and threatened the nation’s health-care workforce.

The court listened.

Graduate nursing education is professional education. Today, the law recognizes what nurses have been saying all along.

For additional reading and background:

1. Nursing is a Professional Degree, AACN webpage dedicated to breaking news on the case titled, American Association of Nurse Practitioners et al. v. McMahon et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-01780, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

2. Read the lawsuit in the Memorandum Opinion.

3. Federal Court Blocks Department of Education Definition of “Professional Degree,” June 25, 2026, AACN (American Association of Colleges of Nursing)

4. Challenging Unlawful Student Loan Restrictions That Target Nurses, Counselors, Public Health Professionals, and Educators, May 21, 2026, Democracy Forward

5. Follow AACN’s weekly Policy Watch.

6. If your institution has information or developments to share, please reach out to the Government Affairs & Policy team.

From Nurses on the Hill archives.

On June 9, 2025, hundreds of NIH employees took an extraordinary step: they publicly warned that the nation’s biomedical research agency was being pushed away from its mission to generate and apply scientific knowledge that improves health, lengthens life, and reduces illness and disability.

Their warning became known as the Bethesda Declaration.

It was not written as a nursing document, and the consequences it described were never confined to nursing. They reach across medicine, public health, biomedical research, clinical trials, and the federal workforce responsible for protecting the nation’s health.

But for nurse scientists, public-health nurses, research nurses, faculty, students, and nursing leaders, it was never someone else’s story.

NIH decisions shape cancer and Alzheimer’s studies, maternal-health surveillance, addiction treatment, infectious-disease research, health-disparities science, nursing research, and the evidence that eventually reaches clinical practice.

Now the declaration has a one-year follow-up.

In The Bethesda Declaration: One Year Later, current and former NIH staff argue that the concerns raised in 2025 remain unresolved — and that the consequences for research, peer review, workforce stability, public trust, and scientific independence are still unfolding.

Their original warning asked the public to pay attention before the damage became visible.

One year later, the question is what nurse scientists, public-health nurses, research teams, faculty, and nursing leaders should do with the evidence now in front of them.

Related video: A brief legal and federal-workforce perspective on the Bethesda Declaration, one year later.

In short

NIH leadership says this is reform.

The Bethesda Declaration says this is institutional damage.

Nurse scientists and public-health nurses need to understand the distance between those two accounts — because it is already reshaping the conditions under which research is funded, conducted, protected, and translated into practice.

Coming Next

This is the first in a Nurses on the Hill series examining what the changes at NIH mean beyond the headlines.

In the weeks ahead, we’ll look more closely at:

• Who decides which research gets funded — and how changes to peer review may affect nursing and public-health science

• What the new scrutiny of health-disparities research means for investigators and the communities they study

• How funding disruptions and halted trials can become ethical and patient-safety events

• Why international research partnerships are becoming harder to sustain

• What nurse scientists, public-health nurses, research teams, faculty, and nursing leaders can do now

The Bethesda Declaration sounded the warning.

The next question is how the research community responds.

Background

• The original Bethesda Declaration https://www.27unihted.org/bethesdadeclaration2025

• Original host page from Stand Up for Science:
  https://www.standupforscience.net/bethesda-declaration

• Open Letter in Support of the Bethesda Declaration https://actionnetwork.org/forms/add-name-bethesda-declaration

• The Bethesda Declaration: One Year Later - https://www.27unihted.org/bethesda-declaration-one-year-later

• NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya’s congressional testimony https://docs.house.gov/meetings/AP/AP07/20260317/119055/HHRG-119-AP07-Wstate-BhattacharyaJ-20260317.pdf

Related NIH statements and policy documents

• NIH unified funding and research strategy - https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/nih-director/statements/advancing-nihs-mission-through-unified-strategy

• Accelerated public access to NIH-funded research - https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/nih-director/statements/accelerating-access-research-results-new-implementation-date-2024-nih-public-access-policy

• Centralization of NIH peer review - https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-centralizes-peer-review-improve-efficiency-strengthen-integrity

• Simplified peer-review framework - https://grants.nih.gov/news-events/nih-extramural-nexus-news/2025/06/progress-on-implementation-of-the-simplified-review-framework

• NIH policy on foreign subawards - https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-25-104.html

• Guidance for active foreign human-subjects projects - https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-25-130.html

• New structure for international research collaborations
  https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-25-155.html

From the Nurses on the Hill archive

More coverage of federal research policy, NIH funding, and the consequences for nursing science and public health:

What began as a technical policy change surfaced broader concerns about access to nursing education, workforce implications, and ultimately patient care.

With the rule now in place, the policy direction is set—despite extensive public comment raising concerns about access and workforce implications.

For those looking to understand how this unfolded or just want a recap see below.

Part 1: The proposed rule

Part 2: Early response and concerns

Part 3: Public comments and what they revealed

In two hearings on Capitol Hill Wednesday, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. faced sustained questioning from senators. He testified before the Senate Finance Committee and the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP), where lawmakers pressed on the administration’s health policy priorities and their real-world implications.

Several themes emerged that are directly relevant to nursing practice: rural health funding, prevention policy, research infrastructure, and persistent health disparities. While many proposals remain in early stages, the exchanges offer a clear view into how federal priorities are taking shape.

1. Research funding is a nursing issue

Senators focused heavily on changes to NIH funding, including fewer grants, delays in funding, and proposals to alter how research infrastructure is supported.

For nurses, this is not abstract. Nursing research has helped shape widely accepted health care policy and quality frameworks, most notably the Magnet Recognition Program®, administered by the American Nurses Credentialing Center, which grew out of research on hospitals able to attract and retain nurses and is now a national benchmark for nursing excellence and patient care quality.

Changes here affect academic medical centers, clinical trials, and the pipeline of nurse scientists. The discussion suggests that the debate is not only about how much funding is available, but how the research enterprise itself is structured and sustained.

2. Women’s health and disparities remain a central concern

One line of questioning raised concerns about declines in research focused on women’s health and how changes in grant criteria could affect the study of health disparities.

Nurses are often at the front line of these issues—particularly in maternal health, chronic disease management, and community-based care. The availability of research in these areas shapes clinical guidelines, care models, and public health interventions. Resources from the Office on Women’s Health continue to document these disparities, underscoring how closely outcomes are tied to sustained research and policy support.

The hearing underscored an open question: how disparities will be addressed if the mechanisms that have traditionally supported that research begin to shift.

3. Prevention is the priority—but implementation is the test

The administration’s emphasis on prevention—chronic disease, nutrition, and children’s health—was clear. Senators, however, pressed on how that agenda is being carried out.

Questions around flavored e-cigarettes, tobacco control, and the practicality of guidance on “ultra-processed foods” pointed to a broader issue: whether prevention-focused messaging is aligned with regulatory decisions and usable in everyday care. Recent action from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration includes an open public comment period.

For nurses, prevention is already part of daily practice. The question is whether federal policy will support that work with clear, consistent, and actionable guidance—or add complexity without practical tools.

4. Existing programs may be as important as new priorities

Several exchanges focused not on new initiatives, but on the status of existing programs—such as the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline and other public health efforts supported through agencies like CDC and SAMHSA.

These programs form the backbone of referral networks and public health infrastructure that nurses rely on every day. Questions about funding, scope, and compliance suggest that maintaining these systems may be as consequential as introducing new ones.

For nurses, the impact here is immediate: changes in these programs translate directly into changes in patient access and support.

5. Key areas to watch: rural health and access to care

The hearing reinforced two areas that remain highly relevant to nursing practice: rural health and access to care.

While the administration highlighted a $50 billion investment in rural hospitals, senators repeatedly returned to the impact of Medicaid reductions on rural communities, where the program remains a primary source of coverage and reimbursement.

The exchange underscored a central question: whether new funding can offset losses in a core financing stream for rural care.

These dynamics are directly tied to staffing, care delivery, and patient outcomes—particularly in underserved communities.

The Rural Health Information Hub, funded by the Federal Office of Rural Health Policy, serves as a national clearinghouse for rural health data and policy updates, offering a practical way to track how these decisions are unfolding across communities.

The Bottom Line from the Senate Hearing Room

The hearing did not resolve the direction of HHS policy—but it clarified where the pressure points are.

• Research and evidence
• Disparities and access
• Prevention and patient education
• The programs that support care on the ground

As federal priorities evolve, the question is no longer only what is being proposed — but how those proposals will be carried out in the systems nurses work in every day.

For nurses, the more useful question is simpler:
What do these moments reveal about where federal health policy is heading—and what may be shifting underneath?

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. testified before lawmakers on Trump administration policies on April 16, 2026.

Based on that testimony, several signals are beginning to come into focus.

1. Chronic Disease Is Being Elevated as the Master Frame

A consistent theme throughout the hearing was the elevation of chronic disease as the central problem in U.S. health care. The argument, stated plainly, is that if chronic disease is addressed, many downstream pressures—cost, utilization, and outcomes—will improve.

That is not entirely new territory. Federal programs aimed at diabetes prevention, cardiovascular risk reduction, tobacco control, and maternal health—including efforts to address hypertension, cardiovascular risk, and disparities in pregnancy outcomes—have existed for years. What appears to be changing is not the existence of chronic-disease work, but its elevation into the administration’s central health-policy frame.

Signals for nurses:
This approach shifts attention toward prevention, nutrition, and long-term population health. But it can also de-center more immediate system pressures, including staffing, burnout, and hospital capacity.

2. Communications Signals: The Rise of the MAHA Framework

One of the more notable undercurrents in the testimony was not tied to a single policy, but to a broader shift in how health is being framed.

Across multiple exchanges, the language aligned with what has been emerging as the administration’s MAHA (Make America Healthy Again) framework—an approach that centers health policy around chronic disease, nutrition and food systems, and prevention at the individual and family level.

Rather than traditional public health vocabulary—such as vaccination infrastructure, preparedness, or workforce capacity—the emphasis was consistently placed on root causes, particularly diet and long-term health patterns.

Signal for nurses:
This is less about a single initiative than about a communication strategy becoming policy direction. Health is being presented less as a system to be managed and more as a condition shaped by personal, environmental, and behavioral factors.

MAHA is less a single policy initiative than a way of organizing the conversation about health—and that conversation is now showing up consistently across federal messaging.

3. Medicare Advantage: Higher Payments, Higher Costs, and More Pressure in the Middle

Secretary Kennedy pointed to Medicare Advantage as an area of continued growth, noting that plan payments are increasing even as beneficiaries are expected to pay more. That combination highlights a familiar tension: more money flowing through the program does not necessarily make care easier for patients to navigate.

What this signals:
Cost pressure may be shifting to patients. Even modest increases can mean higher premiums, greater out-of-pocket spending, and harder choices about when to seek care or fill prescriptions. Nurses often see the effects first: delayed follow-up, medication concerns, and patients trying to manage more with less.

At the same time, Medicare Advantage continues to shape how care is organized. As the program grows, it influences networks, utilization rules, and access pathways—affecting care coordination, discharge planning, and how nurses help patients understand their coverage.

Administrative friction remains part of the story. Greater reliance on prior authorization, utilization management, and documentation means more time navigating approvals, clarifying coverage, and advocating for patients within a system structured around control points.

What to watch next:
Whether these pressures lead to further changes in Medicare Advantage policy, reimbursement, or oversight. The signal in the hearing was not that Medicare Advantage is going away, but that cost, access, and administration are becoming more tightly linked—and nurses are often the ones managing those tensions in practice.

4. Rural Health Is a Clear Priority — and the Pressure Is Structural

In the portions of the hearing reviewed for this piece, rural health emerged as one of the clearest priorities. The discussion centered on access, reimbursement, and the challenge of keeping care available in underserved communities.

That urgency is not theoretical. More than 190 rural hospitals have closed or converted over the past two decades, and hundreds more are considered financially vulnerable. A significant share of rural hospitals now operate at a loss, underscoring how fragile access to care can be in many communities.

What stood out was not just the emphasis on rural need, but the suggestion that the policy response is already taking shape across several fronts. CMS has launched a $50 billion Rural Health Transformation Program aimed at strengthening access, workforce, technology, and care models across all 50 states. Telehealth pathways for Rural Health Clinics and Federally Qualified Health Centers have also been extended through 2026, and federal rural workforce programs continue through HRSA.

But that investment now sits alongside much deeper Medicaid reductions that could hit rural providers hard. Independent analysis projects that federal Medicaid changes could reduce rural Medicaid spending by $137 billion over ten years, while shrinking hospital revenue and increasing uncompensated care. In that context, the new rural fund looks less like a simple expansion than a partial counterweight to losses the law itself may create.

Kennedy also indicated that his team is examining payment differences between rural and urban clinicians, suggesting reimbursement may become part of the administration’s rural-access strategy. That is a meaningful signal. It suggests rural health is being approached not as a single-program issue, but as a problem tied to payment, workforce, care infrastructure, and Medicaid financing all at once.

5. Home- and Community-Based Services (HCBS): Oversight and Rhetoric Are Colliding

HCBS care emerged as a sharp point of contention in the hearing, especially around programs that allow family members to be paid caregivers. Oversight in these programs is a legitimate policy issue. But the rhetoric went further, casting paid family caregiving itself as suspect.

What this signals:
The issue is not simply tougher oversight. It is that home-based care—especially paid family caregiving—may be entering a period of intensified scrutiny, with real consequences for access, administration, and how this model is publicly understood.

6. Vaccination: What Was Said at the Hearing — and What Is Actually Happening

Vaccination surfaced in the hearing mostly through criticism rather than as a central administration talking point. Democratic members pressed Kennedy over vaccine policy and public-health messaging, including the decision to end a CDC pro-vaccine campaign. In response, Kennedy defended the administration’s overall handling of communicable disease and pointed to measles trends abroad, framing outbreaks as part of a broader global problem rather than as a uniquely American failure.

Measles outbreaks are a global issue, as Kennedy suggested. But that does not resolve questions about U.S. vaccine policy or federal public-health messaging. WHO and UNICEF reported nearly 34,000 cases in Europe and Central Asia in 2025, following more than 127,000 cases in 2024.

What is actually happening in policy is more consequential than the hearing exchange itself. Since Kennedy took office, HHS has ended at least one CDC vaccine-promotion campaign, and his broader effort to reshape federal vaccine policy has included attempts to narrow childhood vaccine recommendations and remake the CDC’s vaccine advisory process. In March, a federal judge blocked major parts of that effort, including changes to the childhood immunization schedule and key moves involving the CDC’s vaccine advisory committee. More recently, HHS revised the rules governing that advisory committee in ways critics say could widen the path for Kennedy allies to serve on it.

What this signals:
The hearing made vaccination sound like a messaging dispute. In practice, it is a governance issue. The real story is not only what Kennedy says about vaccines, but how federal vaccine guidance, advisory structures, and public communication are being altered around him. For nurses, that matters because instability at the federal level eventually shows up in patient questions, clinical counseling, and trust at the point of care.

In closing

This is only the first round of testimony, and additional themes may emerge as hearings continue across committees. But even at this stage, the direction is becoming clearer.

For nurses, the value is not in tracking every exchange, but in understanding the pattern beginning to take shape—and how it may shape the environment in which care is delivered.

Source trail / Further reading

• HFMA: Medicare payment policy implications from HHS testimony

• Medicare Advantage - Federal Register: Medicare and Medicaid Programs; Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; Interoperability Standards and Prior Authorization for Drugs for Medicare Advantage Organizations, Medicaid Managed Care Plans, State Medicaid Agencies, Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Agencies and CHIP Managed Care Entities, and Issuers of Qualified Health Plans on the Federally-Facilitated Exchanges

• Vaccination Policy HHS: The New Federal Vaccine Schedule for Children: What Changed and What Are the Implications?

Federal health and education policy is shifting quickly, and many of the most important signals for nursing are arriving before the final policy picture is set. They are emerging in proposed rules, agency announcements, court decisions, and other policy moves already beginning to shape what comes next. In this edition, I pull together several of those signals, from student-loan policy and long-term care staffing to vaccine guidance, AI in health care, and measles preparedness.

Department of Education

• The rule is not final, but the warning lights are on

The Department of Education’s proposed student loan rule, published in late January, would create a new borrowing structure for graduate and professional students, including new loan limits and the phaseout of Graduate PLUS.

For nursing and other health professions, the key question is straightforward: which programs will still be treated as professional education for federal borrowing purposes, and which will not? That is why the proposal has drawn so much attention across higher education and the health professions.

The January proposal did not stand alone. On February 18, the Department issued guidance urging colleges and universities to adopt best practices to reduce default rates and reminded institutions of their shared responsibility under Title IV to support borrowers through repayment.

Education Secretary Linda McMahon and the Treasury Department announced a new Federal Student Assistance Partnership last week to reshape how federal student aid programs are administered, including defaulted loan collections. Taken together, these steps suggest a broader federal shift toward tighter oversight of borrowing, repayment, and institutional accountability.

DOE source trail:

• Proposed Rule from Federal Register

• DOE-Treasury partnership

• Fact Sheet for the Federal Student Assistance Partnership

• “Myth vs. Fact” on professional degrees

Department of Health & Human Services (HHS)

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

• Inside the CDC, and Why Nurses Should Read This
  The New York Times Magazine this week published a major reported account of turmoil inside the CDC under Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., based on interviews with 43 current and former agency employees. From a nursing lens, the story matters because breakdowns in federal public-health credibility do not stay in Washington. They land in clinics, hospitals, schools, and community settings, where nurses are often the ones patients trust to explain risk, answer vaccine questions, and make sense of shifting guidance.

• The story lands at a moment of unusual instability in federal vaccine policy.

  The timing is especially striking. The New York Times briefing (gifted here) arrives as a federal judge has temporarily blocked major HHS-backed changes to vaccine policy, a sign that some of the administration’s public-health moves are now running into open legal conflict.

• A related CDC read
  NPR also recently examined whether the CDC workforce can recover after firings, funding cuts, and a shooting in Atlanta. Paired with the New York Times Magazine investigation, it offers another lens on the same larger issue: what prolonged instability inside the country’s leading public-health agency means for the people expected to carry out its mission.

• For more on issues with the CDC check out my earlier story (below).

• A measles resource worth knowing about
  CDC’s current case page reports 1,487 confirmed U.S. measles cases in 2026 as of March 19, with most linked to outbreaks. With cases rising again, one useful CDC resource is its Be Ready for Measles toolkit, which brings outbreak-response and communication materials together in one place.

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)

Just weeks after the federal minimum staffing rule was repealed, CMS launched a national Nursing Home Staffing Campaign aimed at bringing more nurses into nursing homes and into the state survey agencies that inspect facilities for safety and quality.

For background: CMS repealed the federal nursing home minimum staffing standards through an interim final rule with comment period late last year. After the change took effect, the agency still invited comments, leaving room for a later final step after the record is reviewed.

It is a notable shift: the staffing mandate is gone, but the staffing problem clearly is not. The new campaign suggests the administration still sees workforce capacity in long-term care as a live issue.

National Institutes of Health (NIH)

• National Institutes of Health Director Testifies at Oversight Hearing

Jay Bhattacharya’s March 17 appearance before the House Appropriations subcommittee did not produce a splashy headline, but it did offer a clearer sense of how NIH is trying to frame this moment.

In his written testimony and exchanges with lawmakers, he emphasized restoring trust in science, speeding up grant approvals, strengthening replication and reproducibility, and assuring Congress that NIH will spend its full FY2026 budget rather than leave funds sitting on the table. The hearing landed amid visible concern about delayed grantmaking. Lawmakers from both parties pressed Bhattacharya on the pace of awards, while he responded that the grants are moving and that NIH intends to fully use the $48.7 billion Congress provided for FY2026.

• An AI tool aimed at earlier intervention

NIH highlighted new research on an AI-based clinical decision-support tool designed to identify patients at risk of intimate partner violence (IPV) earlier than they might otherwise come to clinical attention. The goal is not to replace clinician judgment, but to give care teams another way to spot risk and intervene sooner.

For nurses, it is a reminder that some of the most immediate AI applications in healthcare may be less about novelty than about earlier detection, safer conversations, and better timing of support.

• Meanwhile, beyond Washington

Not every Artificial Intelligence (AI) signal is coming from a federal agency. At HIMSS 2026, agentic AI was one of the dominant themes, but health system leaders told Becker’s that it remains largely on the administrative side for now — handling phone calls, routine questions, scheduling, and pre-visit tasks, while humans stay in the loop on care decisions.

In that context, Arizona State University’s recent description of an “agentic nurse assistant” feels less like an isolated headline and more like part of a broader push to move AI closer to patient-facing work. That may be one reason nursing leaders are pushing back on the term “AI nurse” even before the technology fully arrives.

In closing

None of these stories stands alone, and not all of them are final. But together they offer a clearer sense of where federal policy may be heading on education, staffing, public health, and research — and what the nursing field may want to keep in view as those signals become decisions.

Reading the public comments uplifted me in a way I did not expect.

Part of that was seeing how strongly nursing was represented. But even more striking was the depth of feeling in the responses overall. People took the time to explain, in passionate, knowledgeable, and deeply heartfelt terms, why these proposed changes could have serious consequences.

In the roughly 175 comments I reviewed, only three supported the new definitions. The rest came from nurses at every career stage, patients, parents, retired clinicians, social workers, counselors, educators, and other concerned members of the public who shared a sincere plea: keep the rules as they are.

I’ve already written about the policy itself and the broader background of the professional degree debate (linked at the bottom). What I want to share here is something more personal: what it was like to read the comments themselves. Again and again, I found not only frustration, but clarity. Not only argument, but conviction. And in a moment when so much public discourse can feel thin or performative, these comments felt grounded, informed, and deeply human.

Subscribe now

* * *

What nursing said

If there was one thing nurses made clear in the public comments, it was this: nursing is a profession.

Not a technical field. Not a fallback category. Not a degree program to be quietly edged out by a narrower definition of what counts as “professional.” A profession — licensed, rigorous, practice-based, and essential to the functioning of the health care system.

“Registered nurse since 2004. This is a profession.”

Nurses wrote as educators, students, advanced practice clinicians, nurse managers, long-term care nurses, psychiatric nurses, nurse anesthetists, faculty members, and leaders. They described graduate nursing education not as an optional credential, but as the pathway to becoming the nurse practitioners, faculty, researchers, executives, and clinical leaders the country urgently needs.

Again and again, the comments returned to the same reality: these policy choices would not remain abstract. They would shape who can afford to advance, who can afford to teach, who can afford to remain in the pipeline, and who will still be there to care for patients in hospitals, rural clinics, maternity settings, mental health systems, nursing schools, and community practices.

“For many nurses, federal loan support is not supplemental; it is essential.”

Some comments were deeply personal. One nurse wrote that they were currently working on a DNP and would absolutely not be able to complete it without student loans. Others described thousands of hours of training, the demands of advanced clinical education, the impossibility of working enough to pay out of pocket, and the insult of seeing nursing treated as somehow less than professional.

Some comments were analytical and precise. They pointed to faculty shortages, enrollment concerns, workforce projections, debt burdens, and the domino effect that reduced borrowing limits could set in motion.

“Decreasing borrowing limits will start a domino effect that will slowly reduce the nursing workforce.”

Again and again, commenters tied nursing education to patient care. They were not simply defending a title. They were defending a chain of care: the nurse who advances, the faculty member who teaches, the student who trains, the clinician who stays in the field, the patient who is seen in time.

“Access to higher education in nursing is not just a professional issue, it is a patient care issue.”

What stayed with me was how often nurses moved beyond themselves. Yes, there was anger. Yes, there was disbelief. A few comments were blunt to the point of fury. But beneath the outrage was something steadier: an insistence that redefining nursing in this way would not just harm nurses. It would place patients, families, and communities at risk.

“Nurses are the backbone of our health care system.”

That phrase surfaced again and again, and not only from nurses themselves. In these comments, it did not read like a slogan. It read like a warning.

* * *

What the public understood clearly

Patients, parents, family members, and other concerned citizens often saw the stakes with remarkable clarity. In truth, those categories overlap. Most of us are patients at one time or another, and many commenters seemed to understand instinctively that limiting educational pathways for nurses and other health professionals will eventually be felt in the exam room, the hospital, the clinic, and at home.

“Where I live in Vermont if I get sick I will need to wait 6 weeks to see my primary care doctor.”

These comments were often simpler than the professional ones, but no less powerful. People did not need to parse federal language or loan formulas to understand what this proposal could mean. They recognized it as a change that could make it harder for nurses and nurse practitioners to train, advance, and remain within reach of the communities that depend on them.

“This change would be absolutely devastating to the healthcare industry.”

Some wrote as parents with children in graduate school, fully aware that without federal loans, many students simply could not continue. Others wrote as people already living with long waits, thin provider networks, or a heavy dependence on nurse practitioners and other clinicians for routine care.

“This change would have significant negative consequences for the healthcare workforce and for the communities that rely on NP-provided care.”

What struck me was how quickly people connected education policy to everyday care. They were not speaking in abstractions. They were thinking about the next appointment, the next hospital stay, the next moment a loved one needs help and no one is available.

“You don’t want just anybody poking you in the hospital. You want a trained, competent professional like we currently have.”

Others widened the frame even further.

“YOU will eventually become a patient and require the care of someone in this field.”

That line stayed with me because it cut through everything else. The public comments kept returning to the same plain fact: these are not abstract workforce categories. These are the people who care for us.

And people reading this proposal through the lens of lived experience could see immediately what was at stake.

* * *

What other care professions warned

Across the comments, social workers, counselors, physical therapists, occupational therapists, speech-language pathologists, physician assistant students, marriage and family therapy supporters, and others made a strikingly similar case: these are not fringe occupations or optional credentials. They are licensed, clinically intensive professions that require advanced education, supervised training, and deep responsibility to the people they serve.

“Public policy should strengthen, not weaken, pathways into essential helping professions.”

What changed from field to field was the setting. A counseling student wrote about the impossibility of working full time while completing required graduate training and unpaid clinical hours. Social work commenters warned that reducing access to MSW education would widen workforce shortages, limit crisis services, and harm vulnerable populations. Physical therapy educators wrote about the real cost of clinically intensive doctoral programs and the effect these loan caps could have on patient access, especially in rural states. Speech-language pathologists described the breadth and complexity of their field. Physician Assistant students wrote about application costs, relocation, and the financial precarity of entering a demanding clinical pathway.

“Removing social work from eligibility for federal student loans would reduce access to the profession, worsen workforce shortages, and harm vulnerable populations.”

Again and again, the pattern was the same. Commenters were not asking to be praised. They were asking policymakers to recognize reality.

“This undermines the credibility and professional standing of tens of thousands of licensed counselors who have completed rigorous, clinically intensive graduate training and hold active state licensure.”

They described professions already under strain, already facing shortages, already asking students to take on years of schooling, clinical supervision, unpaid placements, and licensure requirements. Narrowing the definition of “professional” would not make those demands disappear. It would simply make the path harder to afford.

“Importantly, limiting access to physical therapy does not reduce costs—it shifts and often increases them.”

That point surfaced in different forms across many professions. Restricting access to federal loans would not eliminate the need for these workers. It would shift the burden elsewhere: onto private debt, onto students with family wealth, onto underserved communities, and eventually onto patients who can no longer access timely care.

“This policy change would directly affect not only my future, but also the patients and communities that need more competent and accessible healthcare professionals.”

Some comments focused on the insult of exclusion. Others focused on the practical damage. Together, they made something unmistakable: this was not a narrow objection from one profession protecting its own turf. It was a broader warning about what happens when policy stops recognizing how care is actually delivered.

“Any effort to ‘reimagine and improve’ education must expand access to essential professions, not restrict it through arbitrary classifications and reduced financial support.”

By the end of these comments, the pattern was impossible to miss. Weakening one pathway does not weaken one profession alone. It weakens the larger fabric of care.

* * *

What themes kept surfacing again and again

By the time I finished reading, certain themes were impossible to miss.

• Access to Care - the fear that fewer students would be able to enter or complete advanced training without adequate federal loan support.

• Workforce Shortages - commenters across professions understood that narrowing educational pathways would worsen shortages that are already affecting care.

• Dignity and Professional Recognition - many objected not only to the financial consequences of the proposal, but to the implication that these fields could be treated as somehow less professional than others, despite the training, licensure, and responsibility they require.

• The public consequences of narrowing educational pathways - underlying all of it was a larger concern about care itself — who will be there for patients, families, and communities if the path into these professions becomes harder to afford.

Read together, the comments became something more than a collection of objections; they became a warning about what happens when essential pathways into care are narrowed.

* * *

A Final Thought

What stayed with me, in the end, was not just the volume of the response (87k comments in all), but the care behind it.

People took this seriously. They wrote with urgency, but also with thoughtfulness, experience, and a clear sense of responsibility to others. Even when they were angry, they were trying to protect something larger than themselves.

That was the most striking part of reading these comments: how many people were willing to stop, think, and speak up for the future of professions they believe the public cannot afford to weaken.

Source: Public Comments Section of the Federal Register: https://www.regulations.gov/document/ED-2025-OPE-0944-0001/comment

Federal health policy doesn’t always announce itself loudly.

Sometimes it shows up in committee summaries, line items, and appropriations negotiations. This year’s federal health funding decisions offer a useful snapshot of where national priorities currently stand — and what nurse scientists should watch next.

On February 3, 2026, the President signed the Labor–Health and Human Services–Education appropriations bill into law. That legislation finalized funding for key federal health agencies, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Beyond its grants portfolio, NIH functions as the federal framework that sets research priorities, defines review standards, and signals national scientific direction. Its annual budget decisions influence not only what research gets funded, but how scientific agendas are framed nationwide.

Inside the FY2026 LHHS Bill NIH Funding: Cuts Rejected, Structure Preserved

• Provides approximately $48.7 billion in discretionary funding for NIH — about $400 million above last year’s level.

• Rejects earlier proposals that would have significantly reduced NIH funding.

• Maintains NIH’s full 27-Institute structure, including the National Institute of Nursing Research (NINR). The other agencies at-risk were: the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH), the Fogarty International Center (FIC), and the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD).

• Directs targeted increases to research areas such as Alzheimer’s disease, cancer, and ALS.

Nursing Workforce Programs: Continued Federal Support

According to the American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN), the FY2026 appropriations bill maintains funding for the Title VIII Nursing Workforce Development Programs at approximately $305 million. A previous version of the Labor-HHS-Education spending bill in the U.S. House of Representatives would have cut roughly $47 million from Title VIII by eliminating funding for the Nurse Faculty Loan Program and the Nursing Workforce Diversity Program.

For schools of nursing and health systems navigating workforce shortages, continued federal support for education and training remains a stabilizing factor.

Who Went to Bat for Nursing Science — and Who Will Do It Again in FY2027?

When elimination of NINR appeared in the federal budget proposal, nursing’s advocacy infrastructure responded quickly — and publicly. This outcome was not accidental. It reflects sustained advocacy by national associations, specialty groups, and coalition partners working the federal budget process where decisions are made. Nurses may not always see their collective influence in real time. This is what it looks like.

• The American Nurses Association (ANA) issued a public statement underscoring why nursing-specific science matters and warning against eliminating NINR.

• The American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN) opposed the proposed cuts and positioned nursing research and education as core national infrastructure.

• The Nursing Community Coalition (NCC) submitted sign-on letters urging Congress to fund Title VIII programs and preserve NINR as an independent NIH Institute.

What’s Happening Now?

Based on publicly available NIH policy updates, funding data, and conversations within academic research communities, several themes are emerging in 2026.

Clear alignment with published Institute priorities matters.
NIH’s agency-wide strategic plan and individual Institute funding announcements emphasize alignment with mission-driven priorities, including implementation science, health equity, data science, and workforce impact. Funding opportunity announcements increasingly reflect these cross-cutting themes.

The strategic plan was launched in July 2021 and is being implemented through September 2025. NIH is currently updating the strategic plan to ensure it is aligned with the current Administration’s priorities and complies with this Administration’s Executive Orders. The updated version will be posted once available.

Engagement with program officers is encouraged.
NIH grants guidance explicitly advises applicants to contact program staff prior to submission to ensure alignment with Institute priorities and funding mechanisms.

Competitive success rates require persistence.
According to NIH RePORT Data Book statistics, success rates for major mechanisms such as the R01 remain competitive across Institutes. Many applicants plan for resubmission as part of a longer funding trajectory.

Administrative expectations are clearly defined.
NIH policies on rigor and reproducibility, along with the Data Management and Sharing Policy, require detailed documentation within applications. Budget justification and methodological transparency remain focal points of review.

What to Watch in the Next Six Months

Budget cycles move quickly. So do federal priorities.

Several developments over the next quarter will help clarify whether FY2026 stability signals continuity — or simply a pause.

The FY2027 Budget Request
When the next federal budget proposal is released, pay close attention not only to topline NIH numbers but also to how smaller Institutes — including NINR — are described in narrative language. Budget text often signals policy direction before structural changes appear.

NIH Peer Review & Administrative Policy Updates
Watch for any modifications to peer review criteria, scoring guidance, or study section structure. Even subtle shifts in language around impact, innovation, or rigor can influence proposal strategy.

NINR Strategic Priorities
NINR’s current Strategic Plan (2022–2026) outlines the Institute’s research priorities, cross-cutting themes, and areas of emphasis. Monitoring how new funding announcements and initiatives align with this framework can provide early insight into where the Institute intends to concentrate resources.

Congressional Oversight Activity
Hearings involving NIH leadership can signal congressional appetite for structural reform, consolidation, or targeted funding directives.

Institute Structure & Consolidation Signals
Proposals to reorganize or consolidate smaller NIH Institutes have surfaced in past budget cycles. Even informal discussions are worth monitoring.

For Researchers: Navigating NIH Right Now

• NIH Grants & Funding Portal: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/oer.htm

• Early-Stage Investigator Policies: https://grants.nih.gov/policy/early-investigators/index.htm

• Peer Review Process Overview: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/peer-review-process.htm

• NINR Funding Opportunities: https://www.ninr.nih.gov/researchandfunding/fundingopportunities

• NIH Nexus Blog (OER): https://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/

NIH Guidance for the Public

• NIH News Releases: https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases

• Research Matters: https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters

• NIH Health Information Portal: https://www.nih.gov/health-information

• MedlinePlus: https://medlineplus.gov/

• ClinicalTrials.gov: https://clinicaltrials.gov/

Related Reading from the “Nurses on the Hill” archives

In this issue

1. Advocacy in Action: Vermont nurses at the Statehouse (Feb 2–3, 2026)

2. What’s Ahead: Nurse advocacy, training & action (Feb–Aug 2026)

3. Current Actions: Honor Alex Pretti + RN Action + public comment (due Mar 2)

Advocacy in Action: Vermont Nurses at the Statehouse, Feb 2–3, 2026

This section was provided by the Communications Director Dr. Amy Martone, ANA Vermont Interim Executive Director

The Vermont Nurse and Nurse Practitioner Coalition wrapped up its third Annual Conference and Advocacy Day at the Capitol in Montpelier today. The event brought 150 nurses, nurse practitioners, and nursing students from across the state to join in two full days of learning, networking, and advocacy. The Annual Conference opened with a keynote address from Healing Politics co-founder, Dr. Lisa Summers, and included learning sessions on legislative priorities and message development led by nurses with expertise and experience in legislation.

Nurses, organizers, and advocates together: Dr. Lisa Summers (second from right), Executive Director of Healing Politics, served as keynote speaker at this week’s Vermont Nurses Association event, February 2, 2026.

On Day Two, also known as Advocacy Day, attendees met with legislators and committees at the State House to talk about the issues that are impacting the profession most. This included Workforce Development & Education, Nurses on Healthcare Boards, Workplace Violence, Full Practice Authority, and the Impact of H.R.1 on Healthcare Delivery in Vermont. Attendees also received special recognition of Vermont nurses and the nursing profession in the House of Representatives.

The Vermont Nurse and Nurse Practitioner Coalition was formed in 2024 as a partnership between the American Nurses Association-Vermont, Vermont Emergency Nurses Association and Vermont Nurse Practitioners Association when the state chapters recognized that nursing advocacy in a small state like Vermont requires alignment for nurse practice priorities and teamwork to move initiatives in health policy forward.

Coalition impact: In 2025, the Coalition celebrated its first success when their proposal to address workplace violence—H.259: An act relating to preventing workplace violence in hospitals—passed both the House and Senate and was signed into law by Governor Phil Scott and made effective on July 1, 2025, resulting in the development and implementation of safety measures to prevent violence against healthcare workers in Vermont. More

🗓️ What’s Ahead: Nurse Advocacy, Training & Action

On the Calendar (February–August 2026)

Spring is one of the busiest seasons for nurse advocacy, with legislative sessions underway, national organizations convening policy forums, and many events timed around National Nurses Week.

February 2026

• Feb 5 — 38th Annual National Black Nurses Association Black Nurses Day on Capitol Hill (Washington, D.C.) — Link

• Feb 8–10 — AANP Health Policy Conference (Washington, D.C.) — Link

• Feb 12–14 — Opportunity & Impact in Nursing Summit (Washington, D.C.) — Link

• Feb 25 — Front-Line Defense: Nurse Leadership Strategies for Strengthening Drug Diversion (Virtual) — Link

March 2026

• Mar 3 — Compassion as Strategy: Leadership Approaches Impacting Workforce & Care (Virtual) — Link

• Mar 18 — ANA/California Nurses in Media Day 2026 (Virtual) — Link

• Mar 25 — Nurses Day at the Capitol (Springfield, Illinois) — Link

• Mar 28 — “No Kings” National Demonstrations (Nationwide) — Link

• Mar 29–Apr 1 — AONL 2026: Inspiring Leaders (Chicago) — Link

• Mar 30–31 — Social Mission Alliance National Conference (Los Angeles, CA) — Link

April 2026 — Advocacy in Full Swing

• Apr 7 — World Health Day — Link

• Apr 14 — ANA/California Political Action Day (Sacramento, CA | Webinar) — Link

• Apr 28–29 — Emergency Nurses Association Day on the Hill (Washington, D.C.) — Link

May 2026 — Nurses Week & National Visibility

• May 6–12 — National Nurses Week — Link

• May 7 — Nurses Shift Change “Report for Duty Rally” (Nationwide) — Link

• May 8 — National Student Nurses Day — Link

• May 17–20 — AACN National Teaching Institute & Critical Care Exposition (San Diego, CA) — Link

• May 31–June 1 — AONL Advocacy Academy (Washington, D.C.) — Link

June 2026

• June 2 — AONL Advocacy Day (Washington, D.C.) — See above link.

• June 8–9 — ANNA Advocacy Forum (Washington, D.C.) — Link

July/August 2026

July 30–August 2 — Healing Politics Campaign School for Nurses & Midwives (Durham, NC) — Link

Current Actions and Advocacy Items

Engagement is surging: the Federal Register docket already shows 1,698 comments received, and the ANA RN Action petition was at 300,000+ signers when I signed last week—plus nurses are reporting replies from congressional offices all week.

Nursing-community actions to honor Alex Pretti.

A flyer shared by Jennifer Mensik Kennedy on LinkedIn offers “10 ways to honor Alex” as civic responsibility, not partisanship. Pick one action to do this month — then help someone else do the same.

ANA / RN Action: “Demand truth for Alex Pretti”

The American Nurses Association has an RN Action alert open calling on Congress to act, including an independent investigation and oversight. Use the RN Action petition link in this newsletter to send a message to your Senators and Representative (it takes just a couple of minutes).

Public comments now open: “professional degree” definition

Public comments are now open on the U.S. Department of Education proposed rule that includes the Department’s proposed approach to the “professional degree / professional student” definition. Comments must be submitted via Regulations.gov under Docket ID ED-2025-OPE-0944 by March 2, 2026.

A Note on Participation

Not every nurse will attend every event — and that’s okay. Advocacy takes many forms, from direct legislative engagement to staying informed and lending your voice when opportunities arise. Each action helps strengthen nursing’s collective impact.

I’ve been following the tragic events surrounding Alex Pretti. And I keep coming back to one simple truth: nursing is a tight-knit community in a way most people don’t fully understand. I don’t know a single nurse—anywhere in this country—who went to sleep Saturday night untouched by this. Not because we all knew Alex personally, but because we recognized him instantly: an ICU nurse. The kind of person who runs toward what’s hard. The kind of person patients and families remember decades later. The kind of person who shows up.

In moments like this, nurses look for two things: truth and solidarity. Here are the public statements nursing organizations, healthcare workers, political leaders, and nurse advocacy groups have issued so far—so you can quickly see whether your organization has taken a stance.

Nursing Organizations Speak Out on the Killing of ICU Nurse Alex Pretti

The American Nurses Association (ANA) called the death “deeply disturbing,” extending condolences to Pretti’s family and urging a full, transparent investigation. ANA avoided assigning blame but emphasized the profession’s ethical obligation to protect nurses’ safety and human dignity. ANA also directed nurses to RNAction.org to take action by sending a letter to Congress calling for an independent, transparent investigation and stronger oversight.

The American Nurses Association – Ohio (ANA-Ohio) has sent a letter to Ohio’s U.S. Senators regarding the tragic death of ICU nurse Alex Pretti, urging them to engage with the issue at the federal level.

The American Nurses Association – California (ANA-California) posted that its “hearts are heavy” as the profession processes the “profound tragedy” of ICU nurse Alex Pretti’s killing.

The American Association of Critical-Care Nurses (AACN) echoed that call, expressing grief and solidarity while stressing the need for a complete and transparent inquiry into what happened.

The Nurses Organization of Veterans Affairs (NOVA), which represents VA nurses, mourned the death of Minneapolis VA ICU nurse Alex Pretti and called for transparency and a full accounting of what happened. NOVA also underscored the safety stakes for nurses caring for veterans in federal health settings.

Several state-level organizations went further. The Washington State Nurses Association (WSNA) described the killing as outrageous and called for accountability, framing the incident as a human-rights issue and invoking nurses’ ethical duty to speak out when violence occurs.

The Massachusetts Nurses Association (MNA) similarly condemned the shooting, labeling it unwarranted and brutal, and urged elected officials to pursue oversight and accountability.

“As an ICU nurse, Alex worked in the space between life and death—giving patients time, chance, or dignity. In his final recorded act, he stepped into that space again to protect others.” —Massachusetts Nurses Association, January 25, 2026

The Association of Women’s Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses (AWHONN) issued a statement of sorrow while emphasizing that nurses deserve protection from violence both inside and outside healthcare settings.

Global Responses from International Nursing Organizations

The International Council of Nurses (ICN) issued a statement mourning the killing of ICU nurse Alex Pretti on LinkedIn and expressing solidarity with U.S. nurses and the broader global nursing community. Link to public statement.

The European Federation of Nurses Associations (EFN) joined international nursing voices in condemning the killing, called for a full transparent investigation, and stressed that violence against nurses is unacceptable and undermines human dignity.

“European nurses stand with U.S. colleagues in solidarity and the pursuit of truth. The EFN supports initiatives to protect the safety and rights of nurses and healthcare professionals everywhere.”

Advocacy & Political Organizations: Public Statements

National Nurses United (NNU) condemned Alex Pretti’s killing as a “cold-blooded murder” by immigration agents and framed aggressive enforcement as a “dire” public-health threat.

Week of Actions: Union nurses are holding a week of actions to honor Alex and others killed by ICE. If you want to participate or amplify, start here.

Nurses SHIFT Change condemned the federal enforcement operation that led to Alex Pretti’s death, calling it state violence with serious public-health consequences. They also launched a petition urging U.S. Senators to adopt public health and human rights safeguards in immigration enforcement.

RNAction.org is the American Nurses Association’s online grassroots advocacy hub, run through ANA’s policy/government affairs team. It’s designed to help nurses take quick action on federal and regulatory priorities.

Truth About Nursing condemned the killing of nurse Alex Pretti and criticized what it described as abusive and racist practices by ICE and CBP. Citing nurses’ ethical obligations to preserve life and protect human dignity, the group called on Congress to withhold ICE funding.

Statements from Co-Workers and Former Colleagues

In the hours after Alex Pretti’s death, the words from people who knew him have been strikingly consistent. They are the kind of descriptions nurses recognize immediately: steady under pressure, generous in small moments, and deeply oriented toward service

• A former colleague who worked with Alex at the Minneapolis VA spoke at a vigil and described him as the kind of person you’d want caring for your family—reliable, principled, and quietly brave. STAT.

• A former colleague/mentor shared a public remembrance that centered on his compassion and sense of civic duty—someone who showed up for people, even when it was hard. X

For nurses reading this, those are not “nice words.” They are a professional testament—and they matter as the facts are established and accountability is pursued.

For more: read the comprehensive Morning Briefing. from KFF Health News, titled
“VA Workers Say Vets Lost a Champion of Their Care After Minn. Nurse Killed.”

• Statement from Alex Pretti’s parents

“Please get the truth out about our son.”

Pretti’s parents condemned what they described as false official claims and asked the public to help ensure a full, truthful accounting of what happened. CBS News

Public Health Leaders: Oversight & Accountability.

Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) — Duckworth condemned the killing of Alex Pretti and urged independent investigations into federal agents’ use of excessive and deadly force, arguing that stronger oversight and transparency are essential when civilians are harmed or killed. Read the senator’s full statement here.

Senator Bill Cassidy (R-LA) — A physician, Cassidy called the Minneapolis killing of VA ICU nurse Alex Pretti “incredibly disturbing,” warned that the credibility of ICE and DHS is at stake, and called for a full joint federal–state investigation and public transparency. Read coverage of Cassidy’s comments here. Newsweek

Editor’s note: Nurses on the Hill reached out to Reps. Jennifer Kiggans and Lauren Underwood requesting public comment. As of publication, we have not received a response.

It’s too early to predict outcomes. What we can track—starting now—are the facts, the oversight actions, and whether the institutions responsible meet the public with transparency.

Related content

Nursing Groups, Colleagues Speak Out on Killing of ICU Nurse in Minnesota

— “We are all Alex Pretti”

January 26, 2026 | MedPage Today

Nursing Voices in the US Immigrant Crisis | Nursology, January 26, 2026 / Peggy L Chinn

The below linked episode from Nursing the Nation adds helpful context and reflection (embedded below).

Nursing the Nation Podcast

The Cost of Compassion

We are so sad. Frankly, there is so much to say and yet sometimes not enough. Today Jamie and Melissa Anne address the escalating violence in the US and the tragic loss of Alex Jeffrey Pretti, a VA ICU nurse who was killed by ICE agents on Saturday, January 24, 2026, in Minnesota. Speaking not just as nurses, but as witnesses to the "best and worst of …

Read more

7 months ago · 4 likes · 1 comment · Nursing The Nation

As 2026 approaches, federal health policymaking is resuming through oversight hearings, agency actions, and regulatory processes that rarely produce immediate decisions—but do reveal where attention is being focused. This issue highlights several areas where federal activity is underway or unresolved, with particular relevance to nursing, research, and care delivery.

Below are the federal health, workforce, and science signals—along with selected advocacy and engagement pathways—most relevant to nurses heading into January 2026.

Federal Oversight and Workforce Conditions

The VA in Focus: Electronic Health Records and Oversight Signals: A House Veterans’ Affairs subcommittee held an oversight hearing this week on the Department of Veterans Affairs’ transition to a new electronic health record system, as the department prepares to resume phased deployment following a pause to address critical issues. Lawmakers raised questions about system costs—cited in the billions—as well as data safety, end-user training, and contingency planning. No new deployment timelines or final decisions were announced. Watch hearing on C-SPAN.

Education and Workforce Pipelines (DOE)

Department of Education (DOE): Graduate Professional Degree & Title IV Rulemaking. Negotiated rulemaking at the DOE continues into the new year, with implications for how graduate and professional programs are defined for purposes of federal student aid. January meetings may offer clearer signals about how clinical pathways are being understood—though no final rules are expected yet.

A quiet but important point: negotiated rulemaking language often travels unchanged into final rules, meaning early phrasing can have long-term consequences (Federal Register rulemaking process).

Related Nurses on the Hill coverage:

HHS: Federal Health Leadership & Direction

For nurses, these developments reflect how federal systems are managing risk and care delivery rather than announcing new policy. The federal nursing home minimum staffing rule finalized in 2024 was rescinded before taking effect, removing a new national staffing mandate. CMS, however, continues to shape nursing home operations through existing Conditions of Participation, state oversight, and Payroll-Based Journal staffing data, making enforcement signals more likely than new rulemaking in the near term. (CMS Payroll-Based Journal documentation; GAO reporting).

For readers looking for the research behind nurse-to-patient ratios in nursing homes, a concise reading list is included in an attached Note.

FDA: Regulatory Signals

The Food and Drug Administration continues to adjust regulatory guidance across several public health and clinical areas as the new year approaches. While no major nursing-specific actions have been finalized, recent discussions and policy signals suggest an ongoing reassessment of agency priorities and risk thresholds.

Recent FDA decisions in the news:

• FDA has no plans to put most serious warning on COVID vaccines. (Reuters)

• FDA launches new safety scrutiny of RSV therapies for infants (Reuters)

CDC: Public Health Infrastructure

The graphic above summarizes the CDC-related issues nurses are most likely to encounter through surveillance, guidance, and public health infrastructure in 2026

Research Funding: What We’re Watching

At this point, there are no new public announcements from the National Institutes of Health or the National Institute of Nursing Research that materially alter the current research funding landscape. Budget discussions and priority-setting processes are underway but signals specific to nursing research remain limited.
(NIH strategic planning materials and prior NINR funding announcements).

Nurse Advocacy in 2026: Advocacy, Engagement, and Leadership Pathways

Advocacy & Engagement: What’s on the Calendar

• American Nurses Association (ANA) — Federal Advocacy & Workforce Policy
  The ANA coordinates federal advocacy linking nurses with policymakers, with a key focus on reauthorizing and funding Title VIII Nursing Workforce Development Programs.

• Nurses Shift Change. A national march focused on nurse staffing, working conditions, and patient safety, reflecting growing public visibility of nurse workforce concerns. Save the date: May 7, 2026

• Emergency Nurses Association (ENA) — Day on the Hill. Structured advocacy engagement bringing emergency nurses to Washington, D.C. to advance policy priorities related to workforce safety and care delivery.

• National Black Nurses Association (NBNA) — National Black Nurses Day On Capitol Hill. Advocacy efforts centering equity, representation, and community health outcomes within workforce and policy discussions. NBNA Day On Capitol Hill, February 5, 2026.

• Healing Politics — Civic Leadership Training for Nurses. Healing Politics is a nonpartisan organization that provides training and support for nurses interested in running for public office, focusing on campaign readiness, governance, and ethical leadership.

What to Watch Next

January does not deliver answers—but it does establish direction. The issues that surface now, the language under consideration, and the debates deferred all point to where federal health and workforce policy may move in the months ahead. As 2026 unfolds, Nurses on the Hill will continue tracking these developments, documenting when early signals turn into action—and when inaction itself becomes a policy choice.

The Department of Education has published the full roster of AHEAD Committee members for the 2025 negotiated rulemaking cycle. To help readers understand who will be shaping the discussions, this issue highlights eight negotiators whose organizations sit at the center of higher education policy, workforce pathways, accreditation, and federal oversight. These brief profiles draw from publicly available information and are intended as a quick guide—not comprehensive biographies.

⭐ A Notable Gap in Representation

The committee’s stakeholder distribution reveals a significant omission:
no nurses, nursing students, or representatives from licensure-based health professions were appointed to the AHEAD negotiating committee.

This mirrors the pattern seen in the RISE Committee—the negotiated-rulemaking body for loan reforms under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA)—which also lacked representation from nursing and other health-care programs directly affected by the proposed reclassification. As the American Nurses Association noted on November 26, 2025, nursing programs are among those most impacted by these changes, yet their professional perspectives are not present at the table.1

• Full AHEAD Committee Roster (Federal Register)

AHEAD Committee Members to Watch

1. Kristin Hultquist

Role: Primary Negotiator
Category: Public Institutions of Higher Education
Affiliation: HCM Strategists

What the Organization Does:
HCM Strategists is a national policy and advocacy consulting firm that partners with states, institutions, and foundations on improving postsecondary outcomes, student success, and workforce alignment.

Relevance to the Committee:
Because HCM works directly on higher education policy design, implementation, and evaluation—especially at the intersection of college pathways and workforce preparation—the organization brings a perspective informed by national education reform efforts and state-level policy initiatives.

• LinkedIn — Website

• Publications / Public Work:

  • Beyond Sticker Prices: How States Can Make Postsecondary Education More

  • Doing Better for More Students

2. Aaron Lacey

Role: Primary Negotiator
Category: Private Nonprofit Institutions
Affiliation: Thompson Coburn LLP

What the Organization Does:
Thompson Coburn’s Higher Education Practice advises colleges and universities on federal regulatory compliance, Title IV eligibility, accreditation, and institutional governance.

Relevance to the Committee:
Given the firm’s role helping higher education institutions navigate federal rules, the organization contributes a compliance-focused perspective grounded in how regulations are interpreted, operationalized, and implemented across nonprofit colleges.

Profile(s): Website — LinkedIn

Publications / Public Work:
ED’s new rule to decide and disclose the “financial value” of every Title IV program at every school, Blogs, REGucation, Aaron D. Lacey, Hope A. Watson, May 25, 2023,

3. Jeff Arthur

Role: Primary Negotiator
Category: Proprietary Institutions of Higher Education
Affiliation: ECPI University

What the Institution Does:
ECPI University is a proprietary (for-profit) institution offering career-oriented programs in technology, health sciences, business, and applied fields, including certificate and degree pathways aligned with workforce needs.

Relevance to the Committee:
As a proprietary institution with career-focused programs, ECPI operates within the regulatory frameworks most directly affected by Pell eligibility, program integrity rules, and performance metrics. The institution therefore brings the perspective of career schools navigating federal requirements for workforce-aligned training.

Profile(s): LinkedIn — NASFAA

Publications / Public Work:
Nursing and Health Science Programs Licensure or Certification, ECPI University

4. Rachael Parker

Role: Primary Negotiator
Category: State Workforce Agencies
Affiliation: Maryland Governor’s Workforce Development Board

What the Organization Does:
The Maryland Workforce Development Board guides statewide workforce strategy, coordinates employer engagement, assesses labor market needs, and oversees alignment among education, training providers, and economic development priorities.

Relevance to the Committee:
State workforce boards are responsible for identifying in-demand occupations and evaluating credentialing pathways. As such, the organization provides a state-level workforce policy perspective focused on labor market relevance, credential value, and employer-driven training needs.

Profile (s): LinkedIn — Website

Publications / Public Work:
Interagency Pathway Development and Implementation Plan, MSDE, MHEC, GWDB CTE Committee

5. Randy Stamper

Role: Primary Negotiator
Category: State Higher Education Executive Officers / Authorizing Agencies
Affiliation: Virginia Community College System

What the Institution Does:
The Virginia Community College System administers a statewide network of public community colleges offering academic transfer programs, workforce training, and stackable credentials designed to meet regional and state economic needs.

Relevance to the Committee:
Community college systems play a central role in delivering short-term workforce programs. The organization brings insight into how statewide two-year institutions develop, approve, and deliver workforce-aligned credentials that may fall under Workforce Pell.

Profile (s): LinkedIn — Website

Publications / Public Work:
Value of Community College Short-Term. Credentials. Washington, D.C. Association of Community College Trustees. (2021)

6. Preston Cooper

Role: Primary Negotiator
Category: Organizations Representing Taxpayers & Public Interest
Affiliation: American Enterprise Institute (AEI)

What the Organization Does:
AEI is a public policy think tank that conducts research on education finance, student aid, labor markets, program accountability, and economic mobility.

Relevance to the Committee:
Through its research on education outcomes, returns on investment, and federal financial aid policy, AEI contributes an analytical perspective grounded in evaluating credential value, program effectiveness, and taxpayer impact.

Profile(s): LinkedIn — Website

Publications / Public Work:

• Don’t Write Off Workforce Pell Grants: By Preston Cooper, AEIdeas, Nov. 25, 2024

• Short-Term Workforce Education Boosts Earnings—but Field of Study Matters, AEI, Preston Cooper, Dec. 1, 2025

7. J. Ritchie Morrow

Role: Primary Negotiator
Category: State Grant Agencies, and Other State and Non-Profit Higher Education Financing Organizations
Affiliation: Nebraska Coordinating Commission for Higher Education (CCPE)

What the Organization Does:
The Nebraska Coordinating Commission for Higher Education oversees statewide higher education planning and administers state financial aid programs, supporting student access and affordability.

Relevance to the Committee:
As a state entity responsible for financial aid policy and coordination, the organization contributes a perspective on how federal definitions and eligibility criteria interact with state grant programs and affordability frameworks.

Professional Profile: LinkedIn — Contact

Publications / Public Work:
Morrow among financial aid leaders to visit White House, Nebraska’s Coordinating Commission for Postsecondary Education. In 2017, Morrow joined a national delegation of aid leaders invited to the White House during the NASSGAP annual conference.

8. Michale McComis

Role: Primary Negotiator
Category: Accrediting Agencies
Affiliation: Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and Colleges (ACCSC)

What the Organization Does:
ACCSC is a national accrediting agency recognized by the U.S. Department of Education, overseeing accreditation for career-oriented institutions and programs.

Relevance to the Committee:
Accrediting agencies evaluate program quality, institutional effectiveness, and student outcomes. ACCSC’s role in setting and enforcing accreditation standards provides a quality-assurance perspective relevant to program eligibility under Workforce Pell.

Profile(s): Website — LinkedIn

Publications / Public Work:

• Testimony of Dr. Michale S. McComis, Executive Director, Accrediting Commission of Career Schools and Colleges (ACCSC)

• The ACCSC standards of accreditation

⭐What Comes Next

The AHEAD Committee will begin negotiations on Monday, December 8, 2025, opening formal discussion on definitions, eligibility criteria, and program accountability measures. The outcomes of these sessions will help determine how various degree pathways, including those in the health professions, are classified and funded moving forward. Additional updates will follow as the rulemaking process continues.

Background materials, including the full set of documents released earlier by the Department of Education, can be found in the previous newsletter.

The DOE has now posted the official details for the AHEAD Committee’s negotiated-rulemaking sessions. These meetings are part of the larger federal process to revise Title IV regulations — including definitions that may shape how graduate programs in nursing, public health, psychology, and allied health are categorized.

If you’d like background on how this issue first surfaced, my earlier newsletter is here:

Here’s what’s now official for the upcoming AHEAD sessions (below):

📅 Session 1 — December 8–12, 2025

9:00 a.m.–12:00 p.m. and 1:00 p.m.–4:00 p.m. ET
Location: U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Ave. SW, Washington, DC
Auditorium opens: 8:30 a.m.

Registration (in person & livestream):
https://cvent.me/XOYav1

Notes for Attendees:
C Street or Maryland Ave entrance • Government-issued ID required • Security screening • No food/drink • No banners or signs

Pre-Session Materials (New):
Committee Member List* • Committee Protocols • Committee Agenda • Discussion Draft and Amendatory Text

📅 Session 2 — January 5–9, 2026

Same daily schedule:
9:00 a.m.–12:00 p.m. and 1:00 p.m.–4:00 p.m. ET
Additional details forthcoming.

📣 Public Debrief Sessions Hosted by Committee Chair Aaron D. Lacey

For those who cannot watch the full weeklong negotiations, the Committee Chair will hold two public sessions summarizing each week’s discussions. Follow the below links to register for the debrief session(s).

• December 16, 2–3 p.m. CT
  AHEAD December Committee Debrief
  https://event.on24.com/wcc/r/5145405/9ADD7286D9CA947DBE53419339E9D2B0

• January 13, 2–3 p.m. CT
  AHEAD January Committee Debrief
  https://event.on24.com/wcc/r/5145422/D2AE467E660B3BA447458DF807A8219E
  

  For additional assistance with these webinars, please contact webinarinquiries@thompsoncoburn.com.

🔗 Where to Find All DOE Meeting Links & Documents

The Department’s rulemaking page will host meeting materials, agendas, livestream access, and all updates as they are released:

https://www.ed.gov/laws-and-policy/higher-education-laws-and-policy/higher-education-policy/negotiated-rulemaking-for-higher-education-2025-2026

One more thing before you move on to something else…

The rulemaking process moves quickly, and details often appear with little notice. I’ll keep following developments closely and pass along the next round of updates as soon as they land. If you think someone in your network is tracking these developments, you’re welcome to share this update with them.

As someone who has spent years working in academic and research communications, I find the disappearance of federal health websites deeply troubling. I know how much time and precision it takes to build a single page that the public can trust — the reviews, the data checks, the language tuned for clarity. These sites represent the best of our collective effort to make evidence accessible.

Today, restoring trust requires more than hoping the pages come back. It requires understanding what was lost — and how to safeguard the truth in the meantime.

What We Know So Far

In early 2025, thousands of public-facing pages and datasets were removed or altered across federal health agencies after new orders targeting “gender ideology” and DEI — affecting HIV/AIDS, adolescent and reproductive health, clinical-trial diversity, and other population-level data. More than 8,000 pages and 3,000 datasets were impacted. 1

A federal judge ordered key pages restored, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has agreed to reinstate over 100, but progress has been uneven, and new issues continue to surface. 2 3

A Real-Time Example: When Website Changes Create Confusion (CDC)

Last month, the CDC quietly updated a webpage on vaccines and autism with language implying that vaccines may cause autism - contradicting decades of evidence showing no causal link.

As Dr. David Mandell, professor of Psychiatry and director of the Penn Center for Mental Health, explains:

“Fifteen studies using the CDC’s own data show that vaccines don’t cause autism. Another dozen studies from other countries show the same.”

Mandell noted that the two studies cited were from a discredited father–son team - one who lost his medical license and the other without medical credentials. Whether the update was accidental or incomplete, the result was the same: confusion spread quickly, forcing nurses to re-verify even long-settled scientific facts.45

Last week, a coalition of major West Coast health systems publicly protested the CDC’s updated vaccine-autism language, urging the agency to correct the page and reaffirm the decades of evidence showing no causal link.

Measles Alert, 2025

As of November, the U.S. has logged nearly 1,800 confirmed measles cases across 43 jurisdictions. According to public-health experts, if sustained outbreaks continue, the country risks losing its decades-old “measles-free” designation.6

FDA: Guidance Removed, Pages Altered, and New Questions About Transparency

The FDA has also faced disruptions to its public information. In early 2025, it removed or altered pages on clinical-trial diversity and equity in drug and device trials. After Doctors for America sued, a judge ordered many of the pages restored in February, though some remain altered or incomplete. A May review cited staffing cuts, slower internal pipelines, and delays in posting safety updates, and recent internal communication lacking supporting data has only heightened concerns about inconsistent information.

For nurses, FDA guidance remains essential, but the agency’s online pages may not always reflect the most complete or current information.

Why This Matters for Nursing and Healthcare

• Missing federal pages mean nurses lose essential information for teaching and patient care.

  

• When trusted sources go dark, confusion grows - and misinformation fills the space.

• In these moments, nurses help steady the system by sharing accurate information and advocating for transparency.

Meanwhile Back in DC: The HHS Restoration Is Not Complete

HHS has begun restoring removed webpages, but it’s still uncertain which are fully back, which remain altered, and which may not return. The process has been described as uneven and “scatter-shot.”

For nurses, educators, and researchers, the blackout hasn’t ended - it has shifted into a period of watchful monitoring, where verifying data is now part of everyday work.

How to Verify What a Webpage Looked Like Before a Change

If you want to check how a federal webpage looked before it was altered or removed, the easiest tool is the Wayback Machine. Paste the URL of the page, choose a date from the calendar and compare snapshots side-by-side. It’s a quick way to confirm whether a line, dataset, or table was there before the recent updates.

Finding the Truth: Trusted Health Data Sources

Even when front-facing federal pages shift or go offline, the underlying datasets remain intact within federal repositories and independent research archives. To make it easier to find stable, verified sources, I’ve compiled a list of federal, nonprofit, and academic data resources. 👉 For the full resource list, follow this link.

• Federal RepositoriesHealthData.gov — https://healthdata.gov

• National Library of Medicine (NLM) — https://www.nlm.nih.gov

• NIH Office of Data Science Strategy — https://datascience.nih.gov

• National Archives / U.S. Web Archive — https://archive-it.org/organizations/1068

A Closing Thought

Years in this work have taught me how much care goes into every line of a public-health page. When those pages vanish, it isn’t just code that disappears - it’s confidence, context, and information people rely on. By sharing and safeguarding reliable sources, we help keep the focus on evidence and those who depend on it.

Footnotes

As Nurses on the Hill crosses a new milestone this week — more than 500 readers and a growing community of subscribers — I’ve been thinking about how I got here. And why this work means so much to me.

Before I ever set foot in a nursing school, my world was research and medical education. I knew the value of evidence, the power of data, and the quiet rigor that moves health care forward. What I didn’t know was how profoundly nurses shape that progress.

Once I started working with nurse scientists and leaders, it became clear almost immediately: everything I had learned in my career (from communication and research translation to how policy actually gets made) would now serve their work and their mission.

And what a mission it is.

Nurses are the ones who insist that care be safer, that policy be grounded in truth, and that communities be heard. They build the evidence. They protect it. They speak up when it matters and stay steady when the politics around them get loud.

I have spent years watching nurse leaders move the needle in ways most people never see but everyone benefits from. I’m also grateful for the mentors and trailblazers whose partnerships quietly shaped the science behind better care, seeing that kind of leadership up close has been one of the privileges of my career.

To everyone reading: thank you for being part of this community. Your leadership, your curiosity, and your belief in evidence give me hope. And they give this newsletter its purpose.

Wishing you a warm and peaceful Thanksgiving,
Andrea

A Few Things I Hope Every Nurse Carries into the New Year

After a year spent watching nurses shape the world around us, here are a few hopes I carry for the year ahead.

Your expertise is needed.
Policy debates are noisier and more polarized than ever, and too often they’re shaped by people far from the realities of care. Nurses bring clarity where others bring heat — grounding conversations in what patients actually need, what safe staffing truly looks like, and how policy decisions play out on the ground. In a climate where misinformation spreads fast, the nursing perspective is one of the few steadying forces left.

Your stories matter.
Nurses carry evidence in two forms: the rigor of research and the lived truth of what happens at the bedside. Legislators remember both. The data moves policy forward, but the stories give it urgency — the kind that cuts through partisan noise and reminds policymakers that every line item affects a real person in a real bed cared for by a real nurse.

Your voice is already shaping what comes next.
Your voice is already holding the line in a difficult moment. Even as politics create headwinds for staffing standards, research priorities, and federal health data, nurses continue to show up — in meetings, in communities, at the bedside, and in the evidence — making sure the lived reality of patients and care teams isn’t lost.

A Final Thought

Before I close, I want to offer one small nudge to the nurses reading — and to those who support them. This has been a year when your expertise mattered more than ever.

From new staffing legislation gaining traction in statehouses, to federal agencies restoring the health data researchers rely on, to national surveys capturing real bedside conditions, nursing voices are shaping the policy conversation in ways impossible to ignore.