Trump restores Title X funding for two anti-abortion states - while wiping it out elsewhere
The Trump administration quietly restored federal family planning money to Tennessee and Oklahoma, despite court rulings that the states weren't entitled to funds because they refused to provide women information about terminating pregnancies or abortion referrals on request.
The decision by the Department of Health and Human Services to restore millions of dollars for the two states came as it simultaneously withheld nearly $66 million from clinics in the Title X program elsewhere. Title X for more than 50 years has provided sexual and reproductive health services especially to low-income, hard-to-reach people, including minors.
The Biden administration in 2023 cut off funding to Tennessee and Oklahoma, saying they violated federal rules by not offering counseling to patients about abortion. The states sued federal health officials. And courts ruled against the states.
On March 31, HHS restored $3.1 million in family planning funds for the Tennessee Department of Health and nearly $2 million for the Oklahoma State Department of Health, according to court filings. In the notices, HHS said family planning funds were sent to the two states "pursuant to a settlement agreement with the recipient."
Yet "there has been no agreement with Tennessee to settle this litigation," Department of Justice lawyers wrote in an April 23 court filing.
Zach West, an official with the Office of the Oklahoma Attorney General, separately wrote on April 17 that the state's grant notice "wrongly indicated that a settlement agreement had been reached. No agreement has yet been entertained or discussed in any substantial manner in this case."
"To our knowledge no settlement has been reached between the State of Oklahoma and HHS in the pending litigation," Erica Rankin-Riley, public information officer for the Oklahoma State Department of Health, said in an email in response to questions. She said the state's Title X clinics are not providing referrals for abortion or counseling pregnant women about terminating pregnancies.
"We are appreciative of all that has been involved in restoring Oklahoma's long-standing and successful Title X grant," Rankin-Riley said, "and look forward to continuing these important services throughout the state as we have done for over 50 years."
Spokespeople for HHS and the Tennessee Department of Health did not respond to requests for comment.
Title X was established to reduce unintended pregnancies and provide related preventive health care. As of 2023, more than 3,800 clinics across the country used federal grants to supply free or low-cost contraception, testing for sexually transmitted infections, screening for breast and cervical cancer, and pregnancy-related counseling.
Nationwide, more than 4 in 5 people who use Title X's services are women, according to HHS.
Federal law prohibits clinics from using Title X money to pay for abortions. However, HHS regulations issued in 2021 say participating clinics must offer pregnant women information about prenatal care and delivery, infant care, foster care, adoption, and pregnancy termination. That includes counseling patients about abortion and providing abortion referrals on request.
HHS under President Donald Trump has not yet revised the Biden-era regulations, which means participating clinics are still required to provide abortion counseling and abortion referrals for pregnant women who request them.
After the Supreme Court's June 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which ended the constitutional right to an abortion, Tennessee and Oklahoma enacted strict abortion bans with few exceptions. The states told their Title X clinics they could discuss or make referrals only for services that were legal in their states, effectively cutting off any talk about abortion.
"Continued funding is not in the best interest of the government," two HHS officials wrote to Tennessee officials on March 20, 2023.
Tennessee and Oklahoma subsequently sued in federal court. A three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit ruled against Tennessee, while Oklahoma asked the Supreme Court to review the case after that state lost in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit.
State officials suggested even they weren't sure why they got some of their funding back before the lawsuits were resolved. "If Oklahoma's award is not being restored pursuant to a settlement agreement, then what is the reason for the partial restoration, and is it permanent?" West wrote.
"Tennessee has not yet ascertained the formal position of HHS with respect to whether HHS intends to fully restore Tennessee's Title X funding," Whitney Hermandorfer of the Office of the Tennessee Attorney General wrote in an April 7 letter.
A report from HHS' Office of Population Affairs said 60% of roughly 2.8 million patients who received Title X services in 2023 had family incomes at or below the poverty line. Twenty-seven percent were uninsured, more than three times the national uninsured rate.
In fiscal 2024, the federal government awarded Title X grants to nearly 90 entities, a mix of state and local governments and private organizations. Those grantees distribute funds to public or private clinics.
The decision to restore some of Tennessee and Oklahoma's funding diverges sharply from the approach HHS under Trump has taken with other Title X participants.
On March 31, HHS withheld family planning funds from 16 entities, including nine Planned Parenthood affiliates.
At least seven states - California, Hawaii, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, and Utah - now do not have any Title X-funded family planning services, according to a lawsuit filed in federal court by the ACLU and the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, which lobbies for Title X clinics.
Overall, 865 family planning clinics are unable to provide services to roughly 842,000 people, the lawsuit states.
"We know what happens when health care providers cannot use Title X funding: People across the country suffer, cancers go undetected, access to birth control is severely reduced, and the nation's STI crisis worsens," Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Action Fund, said in a statement.
Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


New York Post
24 minutes ago
- New York Post
Washington Post media critic admits failure in scrutinizing Biden coverage after ‘Where's Jackie' gaffe
Advertisement Washington Post media critic Erik Wemple reflected on his own 'failure' Monday in scrutinizing press coverage of Joe Biden and his cognitive decline, particularly after the infamous 'Where's Jackie?' gaffe. As the legacy media continues to face a reckoning over how it handled covering the former president's mental acuity before his disastrous 2024 debate performance, Wemple wrote a scathing piece calling out news organizations for not admitting any errors with the headline, 'Did legacy media fail in its Biden coverage? Not if you ask them!' In his lengthy critique, Wemple revisited an episode from a September 2022 event where Biden called for Rep. Jackie Walorski, R-Ind., who had died just weeks earlier in a car accident. Biden previously released a statement acknowledging her death after it happened and the event he attended similarly honored her memory. Advertisement 4 Erik Wemple wrote a scathing piece calling out the media's lack of self-reflection. Fox News 'Jackie, are you here? Where's Jackie?' Biden said in the viral moment. White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre defended the president at the time, insisting Walorski was simply 'top of mind.' 'It's time to turn this exercise on my own byline,' Wemple wrote Monday. 'The 'Where's Jackie' episode was my cue to start hammering mainstream outlets for not pushing on this story. Never happened — that was a failure.' Wemple noted, as Fox News Digital did at the time, that neither CNN nor MSNBC offered any coverage of the 'Where's Jackie' comment. Advertisement 4 Former President Joe Biden speaks during the White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition, and Health, at the Ronald Reagan Building, Wednesday, Sept. 28, 2022, in Washington. AP 4 Rep. Jackie Walorski, R-Ind., is seen before a House Ways and Means Committee markup in Longworth Building on July 12, 2018. CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Imag While acknowledging some in the press, like Axios' Alex Thompson and The Wall Street Journal's Annie Linskey and Siobhan Hughes for their pre-debate reporting that shed light on Biden's cognitive decline, Wemple knocked the media for broadly lacking the vigor to get to the bottom of it sooner. 'White House coverage must involve more than observing the president in action and writing up analysis pieces about his comings and goings,' Wemple wrote. Advertisement 'It needs to include a muckraking component detailing behind-the-scenes strategies, conflicts and debates over all manner of issues, particularly those relating to the president's mental acuity. An adjacent question relates to whether Biden himself was fully abreast of and in charge of day-to-day decisions.' 4 The Washington Post office in Washington, DC, US, on Thursday, June 27, 2024. Bloomberg via Getty Images 'And it's on these fronts that major media organizations fell short: Though Biden's declining faculties were clear to all, they never ignited one of those glorious mainstream-media investigative frenzies that colonizes television and radio broadcasts,' he added. Thompson's 'Original Sin' co-author, CNN anchor Jake Tapper, said there should be 'soul-searching' in the legacy media for how Biden's clearly apparent issues were covered. 'Few souls are undergoing a pat-down,' Wemple wrote.

27 minutes ago
In their own words: Trump, Newsom trade insults and barbs over National Guard in Los Angeles
The swiftly evolving situation in the Los Angeles area over protests surrounding immigration enforcement actions has also cued up a public spat between President Donald Trump and Gov. Gavin Newsom, the California governor who has been one of the Republican president's most vocal Democratic critics. After Trump on Sunday called up 2,000 National Guard troops to respond, Newsom said he would sue the administration, a promise on which the state followed through a day later. Trump cited a legal provision that allows him to mobilize federal service members when there is 'a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States." The president also agreed with one of his top advisers that maybe the governor should be arrested. Here's a look at back-and-forth between Trump and Newsom in their own words: 'You have violent people, and we're not gonna let them get away with it.' — Trump, Sunday, in remarks to reporters in Morristown, New Jersey. ___ Newsom's ire has been elevated over Trump's decision to, without his support, call up the California National Guard for deployment into his state. In a letter Sunday, Newsom called on Trump to rescind the Guard deployment, calling it a 'serious breach of state sovereignty.' The governor, who was in Los Angeles meeting with local law enforcement and other officials, also told protesters they were playing into Trump's plans and would face arrest for violence or property destruction. 'Trump wants chaos and he's instigated violence,' he said. 'Stay peaceful. Stay focused. Don't give him the excuse he's looking for.' In an interview with MSNBC, Newsom said Sunday he had spoken with Trump 'late Friday night,' after the protests had begun, but said deploying the National Guard 'never came up.' "We talked for almost 20 minutes, and he — barely, this issue never came up. I mean, I kept trying to talk about LA, he wanted to talk about all these other issues," Newsom said. 'We had a very decent conversation.' 'He never once brought up the National Guard,' Newsom said of Trump, calling him 'a stone-cold liar.' Saying, 'I did call him the other night,' Trump told reporters Sunday that he told Newsom in that call: ''Look you've got to take care of this. Otherwise I'm sending in the troops.' ... That's what we did.' On Monday, Trump posted on social media that Los Angeles would have been 'completely obliterated' without his intervention and referred to Newsom as 'Newscum,' a pejorative moniker he has used to refer to the governor. 'We are suing Donald Trump. This is a manufactured crisis. He is creating fear and terror to take over a state militia and violate the U.S. constitution.' — Newsom, Monday, X post. ___ As Newsom promised, California officials sued the Trump administration on Monday, with the state's attorney general, Rob Bonta, arguing that the deployment of troops 'trampled' on the state's sovereignty and pushing for a restraining order. The initial deployment of 300 National Guard troops was expected to quickly expand to the full 2,000 that were authorized by Trump. Late Monday, Trump authorized an additional 2,000 National Guard troops. Ahead of that move, Newsom accused the president of inflaming tensions, breaching state sovereignty and wasting resources, while warning protesters not to 'take Trump's bait.' Teasing the suit, Newsom told MSNBC that he saw the deployment as 'an illegal act, an immoral act, an unconstitutional act.' Asked Monday about the lawsuit, Trump said it was 'interesting' and argued 'that place would be burning down' without the federal government's intervention. 'I'm very happy I got involved," Trump added. "I think Gavin in his own way is very happy I got involved.' 'I think it's great. Gavin likes the publicity, but I think it would be a great thing." — Trump, Monday, in remarks to reporters. ___ Tom Homan, the Trump administration's border czar, previously warned that anyone, including public officials, would be arrested if they obstructed federal immigration enforcement. Newsom's initial response to Homan, during the MSNBC interview and in subsequent posts on his own social media: 'Come and get me, tough guy.' On Monday Trump seemed to agree with his border chief, telling reporters, 'I would do it if I were Tom.' 'I think it's great. Gavin likes the publicity, but I think it would be a great thing,' Trump added. "He's done a terrible job. Look — I like Gavin, he's a nice guy, but he's grossly incompetent, everybody knows." Homan later said there was 'no discussion' about actually arresting Newsom, but reiterated that 'no one's above the law.' wrote Monday on X that they represented 'a day I hoped I would never see in America' and said Trump's call for his arrest marked 'an unmistakable step toward authoritarianism.'


Newsweek
27 minutes ago
- Newsweek
MAGA Supporters Counter Anti-ICE Protests: 'Go Back to Mexico'
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Several Donald Trump supporters in Tampa, Florida, have started counter-protests to anti-ICE, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, demonstrations. Video footage posted on X, formerly Twitter, shows a man holding a red "MAGA country" flag chanting "we want ICE" and telling a woman holding a Mexican flag: "If you love Mexico, go back to Mexico." In another clip, a group of men can be seen holding a Trump-Vance banner, before move for a truck coming through. Hundreds gathered outside Tampa's City Hall to protest on Monday, after a weekend of violent clashes between anti-ICE demonstrators and law enforcement. Police intervened during some heated moments between anti-ICE protesters and counter-protesters but there was no violence, according to Tampa broadcaster FOX13. This is a developing story - more to follow.