Tracking FY26 Federal Funding for Healthy Homes

by Sarah Goodwin | Revised August 19

The changes happening in the federal government over the last several months make this year’s appropriations cycle more important than ever, as we’re looking to the President’s Budget and what Congress does to see what might be in store for healthy homes programs. In this blog, we track the development of federal funding levels for Fiscal Year 2026, and we will update it over the coming weeks as appropriations bills move forward or other news develops.

Key takeaways as of August 19, 2025: 

• The President’s Budget includes eliminations or significant cuts for many healthy housing programs—including those at HUD, CDC, and EPA—that would affect federal-, state-, and local-level work on lead poisoning prevention, radon, indoor air quality, and other healthy housing issues.  
• The House and Senate THUD bills include less funding than last year for the Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes, but both rejected the administration’s proposal to have no new funding for the office.
• The House Interior bill includes significant cuts to several programs that include funding for lead and indoor air quality work. The Senate Interior bill includes level funding or smaller cuts to these programs.
• The Senate Labor-HHS bill has level funding for lead, asthma, and environmental public health tracking programs at CDC. We are still waiting to see the House Labor-HHS bill.  

Budget Process Overview 

Every year, the federal funding process follows a similar format. First, the President’s Budget is released sometime in the spring. The President’s Budget is not a binding document and essentially just provides a recommendation or a request to Congress for what the White House would like the numbers to be.   

Next, the two chambers of Congress each release their appropriations bills, one subcommittee at a time. 

Congress has until October 1 to pass all the appropriations bills and send them to the president for signature. That has not happened on time since the late 1990s, so we usually see a continuing resolution (CR) extend the current funding levels until the new levels are agreed to. The October 1 deadline is because the federal government works in fiscal years rather than calendar years. The federal fiscal year starts on October 1 and runs through September 30 of the following year but is named for the year in which it ends. So Fiscal Year 2026 (often abbreviated as FY26) will begin on October 1, 2025, and end on September 30, 2026.  

Sometimes this will end up with Congress passing a full-year CR and skipping establishing new funding levels entirely, which just happened with FY25.  

What About the Reconciliation Bill? 

You have probably heard about the bill, just passed through Congress on July 3, that has been referred to as the reconciliation bill, “One Big Beautiful Bill,” the budget bill, or the tax bill and that contains both significant increases (e.g., for immigration enforcement) and decreases (e.g., for Medicaid and SNAP) in federal funding. This bill is separate from what we mean when we refer to the president’s budget and the appropriations bills in this blog post, and it doesn’t include any cuts or changes to the programs we are talking about here.¹ However, the funding and fiscal commitments and changes in the bill may have an overall impact on future funding years and negotiations.

So, Where Do We Stand?

In this section, we summarize congressional action as of August 19, 2025.

On July 13, the House released their THUD bill. It includes the following:

• $295.6 million for the Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes (OLHCHH), a decrease from $345 million last year.
  • $140.6 million for lead hazard control programs, a decrease from $200 million last year.
  • $152 million for healthy homes programs, an increase from $140 million last year. This increase includes $10 million for the National Lead Safe and Healthy Homes Fund.
  • $3 million for technical studies, level-funded from last year.
• There is also a recission of $417 million in past year funding from OLHCHH.

On July 21, the House released their Interior bill. Included in this bill is:

• $14 million for Indoor Air and Radiation, a decrease from $27.4 million in FY25. This is the umbrella program for the Reduce Risks from Indoor Air and Indoor Air: Radon programs discussed below.
• $81 million for Toxics Risk Review and Prevention, a significant decrease from almost $130 million in FY25. This is the umbrella program for the Lead Risk Reduction Program discussed below.
• The bill doesn’t specify which programs would be cut to accomplish these changes (the programs are so small that they never get their own line items in the appropriations bills), so this doesn’t necessarily translate to a sizeable cut to the indoor air, radon, and lead programs, but 48% and 37% reductions, respectively, to the umbrella programs  represents a significant threat.
• In better news, the lead and radon categorical grants are level funded.

On July 25, 2025, the Senate released its Interior bill, which includes the following:

• A very minor cut to Indoor Air and Radiation (about $550,000).
• $113 million for Toxics Risk Review and Prevention, a $17 million cut over last year. As with the House bill, we don’t know where exactly these cuts would fall and if the lead program would be impacted.
• Level funding for the Children and Other Sensitive Populations program (the House didn’t break out funding for this program, so it’s hard to compare them).
• Level funding for the lead and radon categorical grants.
• The Senate bill also includes $40 million for environmental justice grants, down from about $94 million previously (the House zeroed out this program).

On July 25, 2025, the Senate also released their HUD bill, which includes the following details:

• The Senate allocates $295.6 million for OLHCHH. This is the same amount as the House bill but with some differences in how the funding is allocated.
  • The Healthy Homes program remains at $140 million, the same as last year; $30 million of that total is for the aging in place grants, which the House didn’t include.
  • The Senate bill doesn’t include any specific funding for technical studies.
  • The funding provided last year for radon grants in public housing is transferred to the Public Housing Fund. There is no new funding for this program in FY26. (The House didn’t include this program, either.)
• The Senate also included lengthy report language about programs in the OLHCHH, including about the aging in place program and environmental review processes. To read this language, you can start on page 150 here.
• Elsewhere in the bill, there is about a million dollars less than last year for salaries and expenses in the OLHCHH budget ($10.2 million versus $11.2 million). The House provided $11.3 million.

On July 31, 2025, the Senate released their Labor-HHS bill. It includes:

• Level funding for the Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program, National Asthma Control Program, and the Environmental Public Health Tracking Network, as well as the Climate and Health program, all within the National Center for Environmental Health.
• Some report language about the reversed RIFs at the lead program, excerpted here: Additionally, the Committee is disappointed by the recent upheaval in the Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program, caused by the terminations of the entire branch’s staff, before those terminations were reversed months later. The funding provided in this act is intended to support the program’s activities as they existed in fiscal year 2024.
• Bill language about staffing levels and reorganization of CDC programs:
  • SEC. 238. The Department of Health and Human Services shall support staffing levels necessary to fulfill its statutory responsibilities including carrying out programs, projects, and activities funded in this title of this Act in a timely manner: Provided, That the Secretary shall submit a detailed plan and justification to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate, and make publicly available to allow for an independent review not less than 60 days prior to initiating the execution of any reorganization moving functions, pursuant to any authorities otherwise provided, carried out by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to another component of the Department of Health and Human Services, relative to how such functions are funded in this Act.

At this point, we are just waiting on the Labor-HHS bills from the House. The House is now recessed until September 2, so we probably won’t see anything before then.

What’s in the President’s Budget? 

The president’s “skinny budget” came out in early May and the full budget at the very end of May and beginning of June, with individual agency budgets accompanying it or following in June.

The President’s Budget contains significant and harmful cuts and changes to the programs that support healthier housing nationwide. To fully convey the impact of what this budget proposes, we’re presenting it first by agency, then by topic, and then by state. 

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) 

For the Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes (OLHCHH), the administration is not requesting any new funds in FY26. The budget request indicates that OLHCHH had or has $697.8 million resources available for 2025 and beyond, including both the final FY25 appropriation and carryover from previous years. Of that funding, the administration estimates that funding will be available for lead hazard reduction, lead hazard reduction demonstration, healthy homes, healthy homes and weatherization cooperation, aging in place modification, and radon testing and mitigation grants. The document also mentions that technical studies grants would continue to be used in 2026. Overall, it seems that the only current program with no funding available in 2025 or 2026 is the Lead Hazard Reduction Capacity Building Grant Program.  

So, what does this mean if you have a lead or healthy homes grant or were hoping to get one soon? Honestly, we’re not sure. If Congress were to pass this budget with no new funding for OLHCHH, it doesn’t mean that grants would stop immediately given the carryover available. On June 30, HUD announced a NOFO for lead hazard control and accompanying healthy homes supplemental funding totaling $364.5 million. The President’s Budget also indicates that they will use $273.2 million to issue grants in 2026. We don’t know what specific grant programs any NOFOs will fall under or if all of the programs with funding available will actually have an open application process this year or next year.  

But, a lack of new funding might limit HUD’s ability to expand and innovate within this work, a challenge that would be compounded by decreasing staff levels at OLHCHH and across the agency. When fewer dollars are available for grant awards, communities are more likely to miss out on an opportunity to secure funds to fix homes, at a time when more production and resources are needed nationwide to address housing quality. Here is the amount of awards OLHCHH has awarded over the last couple years: 

• In 2023, HUD announced $199 million in awards. 
• In 2024, HUD announced $529 million in awards.  
• In early 2025, HUD announced $226 million in awards. 

Many OLHCHH grants operate on three-year timeframes. If, for example, just about everyone who received a grant in 2023 applied again in 2026, that leaves about $74 million available to bring new communities on board. Not an immediate catastrophe in the short term, perhaps—but not a picture that points to the significant growth we need to see in these programs to meet demand for these services. And, of course, cutting off new funding also runs the risk that it will not be restored in a future appropriations year, which would ultimately lead to the cessation of the programs and loss of services in the 48 states, DC, and one territory that have received funding from this office since 2023. 

It’s also important to remember that these are voluntary grants that states and localities choose to apply for, and that uncertainty can be a powerful factor in the planning process that these agencies need to do when deciding how to run their programs. If it’s unclear if the grants will remain in the future, communities may choose not to spend the time applying, or individuals may seek job opportunities that appear more stable. 

The President’s Budget also requests to eliminate funding for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program and the HOME Investment Partnerships Program. 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) 

The administration is proposing a drastic reorganization of HHS, including CDC. This comes after all or nearly all staff at many key CDC and HHS programs were fired earlier this spring, including at the National Center for Environmental Health (NCEH).  

In the President’s Budget, NCEH is eliminated from CDC entirely. The budget proposes to create a new agency called the Administration for a Healthy America (AHA). Some of the environmental health activities at CDC are moved to the new AHA, including the Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program and the Flint Lead Exposure Registry, which would both be level funded at $51 million and $5 million, respectively.  

The budget eliminates the National Asthma Control Program and the National Environmental Public Health Tracking Network and does not move them (or any equivalent programs) to the new AHA. 

You may have heard the news about CDC firing (in April) and then reinstating (in June) staff for many programs, including all of the programs listed here. That reversal was a significant victory, but it is unrelated to the cuts proposed in this budget. The RIFs in April were an attempt to interfere with the functioning of the programs now, but the proposed eliminations in the FY26 budget are an attempt to stop the programs functioning in the future.²  

Elsewhere in HHS, the President’s Budget also eliminates funding for the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). Within the Department of Energy, the budget eliminates funding for the Weatherization Assistance Program.  

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

The President’s Budget includes an overall 55% reduction at EPA. Among other things, this means that the following programs are eliminated:  

• Indoor Air: Radon 
• Lead Risk Reduction Program 
• Radon Categorical Grants 
• Lead Categorical Grants 
• Environmental Justice 

These programs are level or nearly level funded: 

• Children and Other Sensitive Populations (level funded at $6.3 million) 
• Reduce Risks from Indoor Air (small decrease to $11.6 million). This program includes work on asthma.  

Overall, the President’s Budget proposal represents a net loss of $405.1 million in investment in healthier homes for residents across the country.  

Program Affected	Reduction Proposed in President’s Budget	Cut or Eliminated?
HUD Office of Lead Hazard Control and Healthy Homes (OLHCHH)	Budget decreased by $261.3 million3	New funding eliminated; carryover funding continued
CDC NACP	Budget decreased by $33.5 million	Eliminated
CDC Environmental Public Health Tracking (EPHT)	Budget decreased by $34 million	Eliminated
CDC Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program	Level funded, but moved to a new agency	Level funded
EPA Indoor Air: Radon	Budget decreased by $3.1 million	Eliminated
EPA Reduced Risk from Indoor Air	Budget decreased by $850,000	Cut
EPA Lead Risk Reduction Program	Budget decreased by $14 million	Eliminated
EPA Lead Categorical Grants	Budget decreased by $15 million	Eliminated
EPA Radon Categorical Grants	Budget decreased by $9.1 million	Eliminated
EPA Children and Other Sensitive Populations	Level funded	Level funded

 

For another way of looking at it, here is how these impacts break down by topic.

Lead:

• HUD may continue to operate lead hazard control grants but has no new funding to do so, operating on carryover only in 2025 and 2026.
• CDC’s lead poisoning prevention work would continue to operate but would be located within an entirely new agency.
• EPA’s lead work, including grants to states, would be eliminated.⁴

Asthma and Indoor Air Quality:

• CDC’s asthma control program would be eliminated.
• EPA’s indoor air quality program would continue with reduced funding.

Radon:

• EPA’s radon work, including grants to states, would be eliminated.

Other Healthy Homes:

• HUD may continue to operate healthy homes grants but has no new funding to do so, operating on carryover only in 2025 and 2026.
• CDC’s environmental public health tracking, which covers many different environmental health topics, would be eliminated.

When looking at this list, it may be tempting to note the overlapping topic areas and assume that there may be similar services offered between the programs or that the continuation of one program helps ease the impact of the deletion of another. This is a dangerous and incorrect assumption. Each of these programs plays a unique and specific role, and every one is an important part of the healthy homes movement and infrastructure.

What Does This Mean for My State?

If this budget was enacted as written, every state in the country would lose funding, much of which goes to state and local governments to support public and environmental health infrastructure. This table presents the amount of annual current grant funding that would cease to be supported under this budget. (Note that the total economic impact of removing these programs would be far greater, given all of the benefits they provide to a state’s residents.)

State or Territory	CDC NACP	CDC EPHT	EPA Lead Categorical Grants5	EPA Radon Categorical Grants5	Total Funding Lost
Alabama	–	–	$343,241	$420,350	$763,591
Alaska	–	–	–	*	$0
Arizona	–	$615,000	–	$353,740	$968,740
Arkansas	–	–	$188,213	–	$188,213
California	$684,729	$690,000	$375,039	$465,000	$2,214,768
Colorado	–	$615,000	$253,047	*	$868,047
Connecticut	$520,228	$615,000	$241,502	$365,037	$1,741,767
Delaware	$449,728	$570,000	$280,058	$200,000	$1,499,786
District of Columbia	$649,728	–	$184,420	$325,000	$1,159,148
Florida	$684,728	$690,000	–	$851,556	$2,226,284
Georgia	$614,228	–	$368,949	$713,500	$1,696,677
Guam	–	–	–	*	$0
Hawaii	–	–	$254,493	–	$254,493
Idaho	–	–	–	$165,000	$165,000
Illinois	$837,729	–	$348,728	$1,169,748	$2,356,205
Indiana	$567,229	$309,290	$283,821	$393,809	$1,554,149
Iowa	–	$615,000	$334,312	$469,658	$1,418,970
Kansas	–	$600,000	$295,822	$499,658	$1,395,480
Kentucky	$520,229	$615,000	$287,644	$806,142	$2,229,015
Louisiana	$520,229	$615,000	$288,849	–	$1,424,078
Maine	$473,228	$550,000	$182,010	$120,000	$1,325,238
Maryland	–	$615,000	$271,176	*	$886,176
Massachusetts	$567,229	$615,000	$349,081	$370,000	$1,901,310
Michigan	$614,229	$690,000	$401,526	$328,653	$2,034,408
Minnesota	$567,228	$615,000	$259,455	$955,024	$2,396,707
Mississippi	–	–	$279,359	–	$279,359
Missouri	$567,229	$615,000	$324,011	$469,658	$1,975,898
Montana	$473,228	–	–	*	$473,228
Nebraska	–	$570,000	$211,792	$488,321	$1,270,113
Nevada	–	–	–	$809,650	$809,650
New Hampshire	$473,228	$550,000	$174,077	$240,000	$1,437,305
New Jersey	$614,228	$615,000	$321,673	*	$1,550,901
New Mexico	$473,229	$615,000	–	*	$1,088,229
New York	$684,729	$690,000	–	$1,028,860	$2,403,589
North Carolina	–	$710,000	$356,202	$312,474	$1,378,676
North Dakota	–	–	$132,187	*	$132,187
Ohio	$614,228	–	$343,205	$395,051	$1,352,484
Oklahoma	–	–	$273,305	*	$273,305
Oregon	–	$615,000	$268,027	$126,700	$1,009,727
Pennsylvania	$637,729	$710,000	$344,833	$1,205,355	$2,897,917
Puerto Rico	$520,228	–	$247,490	–	$767,718
Rhode Island	$473,228	$550,000	$271,952	$370,000	$1,665,180
South Carolina	–	$635,000	–	*	$635,000
South Dakota	–	–	–	*	$0
Tennessee	–	$460,710	$292,815	$800,000	$1,553,525
Texas	$684,728	–	$358,999	$150,000	$1,193,727
Utah	$520,228	$615,000	$259,915	*	$1,395,143
Vermont	$449,729	$550,000	$178,825	$374,608	$1,553,162
Virginia	–	$635,000	–	$166,667	$801,667
Washington	–	$615,000	$318,947	$134,300	$1,068,247
West Virginia	$473,228	–	$182,511	*	$655,739
Wisconsin	$567,228	$615,000	$343,486	$644,312	$2,170,026
Wyoming	–	–	–	$45,000	$45,000

x

What Does Congress Care About?

In May and June, relevant committees in both the House and Senate held hearings on the President’s Budget proposal and invited administration members to testify. While we don’t know yet what the chambers will propose, the questions members ask at the hearings can indicate their priorities. We noted the following moments of interest at some of these hearings (times are approximate):

Category	Congressmember	Topic	Approximate Timestamp
Senate Appropriations Labor-HHS Subcommittee (HHS and CDC) | Watch	Senator Baldwin	Lead program and the situation in Milwaukee	58:30 and 2:20:24
	Senator Collins	Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)	43:19
	Senator Reed	Lead program	1:11:00
House Appropriations Labor-HHS Subcommittee (HHS and CDC) | Watch	Representative DeLauro	Lead program and asthma	14:29 and 2:17:20
	Representative Watson Coleman	Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)	1:29:00
House Appropriations Interior-Environment (EPA) | Watch	Representative Pingee	Categorical Grants	36:25
	Representative McCollum	Environmental Justice Grants	49:20
House Energy and Commerce Environment Subcommittee (EPA) | Watch	Representative Griffith	Environmental Justice Grants	41:30
	Representative Schakowsky	budget increased by $538,000; obligations increased by $2.5 million	1:07:20
	Representative Soto	EnergyStar program	1:37:40
	Representative Landsman	ORD’s role in Flint and East Palestine	2:24:50
	Representative Dingell	Lead and Copper Rule improvements	2:47:40
Senate Appropriations Interior-Environment (EPA) | Watch	Senator Murkowski	Community change grants, state drinking water, revolving funds	24:00, 26:00, 43:50
	Senator Merkley	Environmental justice grants, wildfires	31:30, 1:45:00
	Senator Murray	Categorical grants, wildfire preparedness	1:04:20
	Senator Baldwin	Drinking water, lead service lines	1:15:20
House Appropriations THUD | Watch	Representative Womack	Home-based hazards (mention), Community Development Block Grants (CBDG)	3:30
	Representative Gonzales	Community Development Block Grants (CBDG)	42:00
	Representative Watson Coleman	Office of Lead Hazard Control (mention)	48:40
	Representative Torres	Community Development Block Grants (CBDG) and CBDG-DR	56:50
	Representative Espaillat	NYCHA capital needs and condition	1:00:09
	Representative Joyce	Community Development Block Grants (CBDG)	1:13:10
Senate Appropriations THUD | Watch	Senator Murray	Green and Resilient Retrofit program	59:00
	Senator Coons	CBDG and HOME	1:05:00

x

What Can I Do? (As of August 19, 2025)

The administration gets to propose a budget, but Congress actually writes and passes the budget. As we continue through appropriations season, it’s important for our policymakers and elected officials to continue to hear about how important these programs are to protecting healthy housing across the country. And we know that speaking up can have an impact—I am sure that all the discussion and press attention on the impact of the CDC layoffs was one reason that decision was reversed, and that the lead poisoning prevention program was preserved in the President’s Budget.

Iif you want to contact your members of Congress and voice opposition to the President’s Budget and support for these programs, you can:

• Use the call scripts at the bottom of this post (these were written in response to the CDC layoffs, but you can use the same format and substitute in the proposed cuts to any specific program you’d like to talk about).
• Use our state fact sheets to talk about the impact of these federal programs in your state.
• Refer to the NSHHC FY26 asks and talking points for where these programs should be.

Notes

¹ This is not to say that the reconciliation bill has no indirect impact on healthy housing as a whole—in particular, the cuts to healthcare, environment, and other benefits will only place additional burdens on populations who are in many cases already struggling with poor quality housing that impacts their health.

² We know that many programs are still waiting on information about the upcoming year of funding they are due from CDC or other agencies. In many cases, that funding should be coming out of the FY25 budget, meaning that the president’s proposal for FY26 shouldn’t affect those awards in a normal year. However, the FY25 budgets for some agencies appear to be far behind schedule, and there is some uncertainty about whether additional “pocket” rescissions could be imposed on FY25 funds for some programs in the final months of FY25 before they are fully obligated. We strongly urge federal grantees to submit renewal or continuation documents as soon as they are requested to reduce this risk.

³ The FY25 appropriations level was actually $345 million, but the budget reports this amount as the reduction in new spending under the proposal.

⁴ Note that this means that the office would be defunded and staff laid off—it does not remove regulations that are currently on the books.

⁵ An asterisk (*) denotes states where the published report from the program states that they were funded in FY24 but where specific grant amounts could not be identified using the EPA NGGS system that we took this information from. In addition to the states and territories marked here, the report indicates that the Northern Mariana Islands and several Tribal nations received funding in FY24.

Amanda Reddy contributed to this report.

 

Sarah Goodwin joined NCHH as a policy analyst in June 2017. She previously served NCHH as a policy intern, helping to establish and run the Find It, Fix It, Fund It lead action drive and its work groups. She holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in Interdisciplinary Studies: Communications, Legal Institutions, Economics, and Government from American University.

 

Latest page update: August 19, 2025.