The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) faces three competing budget proposals for fiscal year (FY) 2026: the U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations’ proposal, the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Appropriations’ bill, and the Trump administration’s request, the latter two of which are more or less aligned. These proposals diverge in funding levels, staffing, program priorities, and enforcement capacity, with potential consequences for workplace safety and worker protections nationwide.

Quick Hits

• The U.S. Senate FY 2026 proposal for OSHA would maintain the agency’s fiscal year (FY) 2025 funding and staffing, supporting robust enforcement, training, and state partnerships.
• The U.S. House of Representatives’ and Trump administration’s proposals would reduce OSHA’s budget by nearly $50 million, cut 223 full-time equivalent (FTE) positions, and eliminate key training grants.
• The House and administration emphasize deregulation and “efficiency,” resulting in diminished enforcement and outreach activities.

The Senate proposal, included in Senate Bill 2587, would maintain FY 2025 funding at $632.3 million and 1,810 FTEs. It would fully fund state plan grants at $120 million and continue the Susan Harwood Training Grant Program ($12.8 million). The Senate proposal would support ongoing enforcement, compliance assistance, and training programs, and emphasize robust enforcement and outreach, with no reduction in planned inspections or enforcement initiatives.

The House proposal would reduce OSHA funding to $582.4 million and headcount to 1,587 FTEs, cut state plan grants by $4.8 million, and eliminate the Susan Harwood Training Grant Program. In addition, the House proposal would reduce funding for compliance assistance and whistleblower programs. The focus of the House proposal is deregulation and reducing regulatory burdens, which is projected to result in a lower number of planned federal inspections (targeted at 24,929, down from previous years).

The administration’s request mirrors the House proposal in funding and staffing reductions. It justifies elimination of Harwood grants as “wasteful and unnecessary,” citing alternative compliance assistance tools. The administration states that it intends to realign the agency’s workforce to meet current and future mission activities. The administration’s proposal states that the agency will maintain core enforcement and outreach functions, but at reduced levels due to lower staffing.

The Senate proposal would preserve OSHA’s current enforcement and outreach capacity, supporting state partnerships and training for vulnerable worker populations. In contrast, the House and administration proposals would result in fewer inspections, reduced technical support, and diminished training and outreach, particularly for hard-to-reach and at-risk workers. Corresponding cuts to state plan grants would likely reduce state-level enforcement activities.

The Senate’s FY 2026 OSHA budget proposal supports continuity in enforcement, training, and state partnerships, maintaining OSHA’s current capacity and mission. In contrast, the House and administration proposals prioritize cost-cutting and deregulation, significantly reducing funding, staffing, and programmatic support. These reductions would likely limit OSHA’s enforcement activities, decrease training and outreach, and weaken worker protections across the country.