Trump administration to cut $11.4 billion in COVID funding from local health departments
Federal health officials said they are cutting $11.4 billion in COVID-19-related funds for state and local public health departments — money that was was largely used for COVID-19 testing, virus research and community health jobs.
"The COVID-19 pandemic is over, and HHS will no longer waste billions of taxpayer dollars responding to a non-existent pandemic that Americans moved on from years ago," the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said in a statement Tuesday.
The statement said the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
expects to recover the money beginning 30 days after termination notices, which began being sent out on Monday. The move was first reported by NBC News.
"This is just one in a series of many, many cuts we're seeing across health agencies across the country," Dr. Céline Gounder, CBS News medical contributor and editor-at-large for public health at KFF Health News, said on
CBS News 24/7 on Wednesday.
"This ... is money that had been going to state, local, territorial, tribal health departments across the country, and as we know, as was the case with a lot of COVID funding, it was not just supporting COVID-related programs, but many other things," she said, noting
wastewater surveillance
as one example of what's being lost with these cuts, which helps experts look for infectious diseases and other toxins in the water.
"This has direct applications to the
measles outbreak in West Texas
right now. It gives us an early warning system for where there might be
measles in other areas
, where they need to be focusing measles vaccinations, and that program is falling victim to this," Gounder said. "And state (and) local health departments really depend on that CDC money. The CDC functions as a funnel of funding to the state and local level, and in some cases, it's 90% of their budget."
Lori Freeman, CEO of the National Association of County and City Health Officials, said much of the funding was set to end soon anyway. "It's ending in the next six months," she said. "There's no reason — why rescind it now? It's just cruel and unusual behavior."
In a related move, more than two dozen COVID-related research grants funded by the National Institutes of Health
have been canceled
. Earlier this month, the Trump administration
shut down ordering from covidtest.gov
, the site where Americans could have COVID-19 tests delivered to their mailboxes for no charge.
Although the COVID federal public health emergency has ended, the virus is still killing Americans: 458 people per week on average have died from COVID over the past four weeks,
according to CDC data
.
HHS wouldn't provide many details about how the federal government expects to recover the money from what it called "impacted recipients." But HHS spokesman Andrew Nixon said in an email: "The $11.4 billion is undisbursed funds remaining."
Freeman said her understanding is that state health departments already had the COVID money.
"The funding was authorized by Congress, was appropriated by Congress, and it was out the door, basically, into the hands of the grantees" — states, she said, which decide how to distribute it locally.
Under both the first Trump administration and the Biden administration, billions of dollars was allocated for COVID response through legislation, including a
COVID relief bill
and the
American Rescue Plan Act.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
MSPs vote to introduce scaled-back social care reforms
MSPs have unanimously passed legislation which will allow people in care homes to receive visits from a named loved one even in restricted measures. The Care Reform (Scotland) Bill will also introduce changes to social care procurement and a new right to breaks for unpaid carers. The legislation was backed by 116 votes to none. Plans to introduce a national care service, which were initially part of the bill, were dropped in January after unions withdrew support and a number of health boards and care organisations expressed concerns. One of the big changes planned under the new law is a legal right to breaks for unpaid carers. This mean councils will have a duty to decide whether a carer is able to take sufficient breaks from their caring role. If they are not, then the local authority will provide support to enable this, such as providing funding for short respite breaks. This policy, given Scotland has around 700,000 unpaid carers, will cost between £196m and £315m by 2035/36, according to the Bill's financial memorandum. However, it remains a fraction of the £13.9bn that unpaid care is currently saving Scotland every year. Improvements to the way information is shared in health and social care - to make it less likely that people will have to repeat their information - as well changes to procurement rules in the sector are also planned. Beefing up the powers that watchdogs can take against failing care providers is also part of the bill. The most high-profile part of the Care Reform (Scotland) Bill is Anne's Law, which allows people in care homes to receive visits from a named loved one even in restricted measures. It is named after Anne Duke, who died aged 63 in November 2021 after being cut off from her family while battling early-onset dementia during the Covid pandemic. The original proposal for a National Care Service, inspired by the NHS, was to take social care provision and staff away from local authorities into a new national agency. That was then dropped in favour of creating a national care board to supervise service delivery and improve consistency - but this failed to win over a growing number of critics. Council body Cosla and trade unions then withdrew their support for the project, while a number of health boards and care organisations also expressed concerns. The plan, which was also subject to a series of delays, was eventually scrapped in January after £30m was spent on the process. Social Care Minister Maree Todd said at the time she was "still committed to the ambitions of the National Care Service" but added the SNP no longer had the support it needed in parliament to pass its original plans into law. How the SNP's flagship social care reforms were scaled back Why was Scotland's National Care Service scrapped?
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
RFK Jr. Purging the CDC Advisory Committee Will Put Lives at Risk
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. testifying during his Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions confirmation hearing on January 30, 2025 in Washington, DC Credit - Kevin Dietsch—Getty Images When Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. began his tenure as Health and Human Services Secretary, he pledged, 'We won't take away anyone's vaccines.' However, recent policy changes under his leadership—coupled with the unprecedented dismissal of all 17 members of the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) on June 9—have proven that statement false, raising grave concerns for our nation's COVID-19 response and broader vaccine policies. These shifts not only jeopardize public health but also threaten to erode trust in our health institutions at a critical time. In May 2025, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) introduced a new COVID-19 vaccine framework, limiting access to updated vaccines for Americans aged 65 and older or those with specific risk factors. Furthermore, Secretary Kennedy announced that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) would no longer recommend COVID-19 vaccines for 'healthy' children or pregnant women—bypassing the standard ACIP review process. Compounding these changes, the abrupt removal of ACIP's entire panel of independent experts, who have guided evidence-based vaccine policy for decades, risks destabilizing a cornerstone of public health. These actions collectively restrict access to a vital tool for saving lives and undermine confidence in our health systems. Read More: What to Know About RFK Jr. Removing All Experts From CDC Vaccine Advisory Committee During my tenure as Surgeon General under the first Trump administration, we faced significant public health challenges, from addressing the opioid epidemic by increasing access to Naloxone to launching Operation Warp Speed for the COVID-19 vaccine development effort. The vaccines developed under Trump's first term have proven to be one of our most effective defenses against COVID-19; yet, the current administration's new policies limit their availability, potentially leaving millions vulnerable. The dismissal of ACIP's experts—without a clear plan for replacing them with qualified scientists—further jeopardizes trust in the institutions tasked with protecting Americans. The major flaw in the new vaccine framework is its narrow assessment of risk. Although the immediate dangers of COVID-19 have lessened, it remains a leading cause of death and hospitalization, claiming nearly 50,000 lives in the U.S. in 2024—more than breast cancer or car accidents. The fact is, 75% of Americans have risk factors, such as obesity or diabetes, that increase their vulnerability to severe COVID outcomes. However, the burden is now placed on individuals to self-identify as high risk, creating confusion and inconsistency in access. Unlike other countries with centralized systems for identifying at-risk individuals, the U.S. expects patients—many of whom lack easy access to healthcare—to navigate eligibility alone. Risk assessment should also consider individual circumstances beyond underlying health conditions. A 58-year-old bus driver or healthcare worker faces significantly greater exposure than someone working remotely. By limiting vaccines to specific groups based solely on preexisting health status, the policy overlooks these critical contextual differences. Secretary Kennedy's team argues that there is insufficient evidence to support updated COVID-19 vaccines for healthy Americans under 65, but this claim is flatly unfounded. Years of real-world data demonstrate that vaccines save lives and reduce hospitalizations across all age groups. During the 2023 to 2024 fall and winter season, 95% of those hospitalized for COVID had not received an updated vaccine. While the administration cites other countries' more restrictive vaccine policies, such comparisons ignore the unique health landscape in the U.S., which includes higher obesity rates, worse maternal health outcomes, and uneven healthcare access. The policy also neglects the issue of Long COVID, which affects millions with debilitating symptoms lasting months or years. Though older adults are at higher risk for severe acute infections, Long COVID disproportionately impacts adults aged 35 to 49—and children are also affected. Vaccination reduces the risk of developing Long COVID, an essential reason many healthy individuals choose to stay up-to-date with their vaccines. Read More: What's the Risk of Getting Long COVID in 2024? Particularly concerning is the decision to end COVID vaccine recommendations for 'healthy' pregnant women, which contradicts the FDA's own guidance. Pregnant women face heightened risks of severe COVID outcomes, including death, pre-eclampsia, and miscarriage. Vaccination during pregnancy is crucial—not just for maternal health but also for protecting infants under six months, who cannot be vaccinated and rely on maternal antibodies for protection. Decades of research confirm that vaccines, including COVID vaccines, safely transfer antibodies to newborns, lowering their risk of severe illness. The dismissal of ACIP's members amplifies these concerns. ACIP has been a trusted, science-driven body that ensures vaccines are safe and effective, saving countless lives through its transparent recommendations. Its members, rigorously vetted for expertise and conflicts of interest, provide independent guidance critical to public health. Removing them without clear evidence of misconduct risks replacing qualified scientists with less experienced voices. This move fuels vaccine hesitancy and skepticism about public health decisions, particularly when paired with the bypassing of ACIP's review process for the new COVID vaccine policies. These changes create uncertainty about who can access vaccines. Without clear CDC recommendations, insurance companies may impose their own coverage criteria, potentially increasing costs for a vaccine that was previously free for most Americans. Healthcare providers, lacking federal guidance and ACIP's expertise, may struggle to advise patients, leading to a confusing and inequitable system that limits choice—hardly the 'medical freedom' Secretary Kennedy claims to champion. Ultimately, these actions threaten to erode trust in public health. FDA officials argue the new framework enhances transparency, yet bypassing ACIP's review and dismissing its members undermines that aim. Extensive data demonstrate that updated vaccines lower hospitalization and death rates, yet this evidence was sidelined. Such actions breed skepticism, making it harder to unite Americans around shared health goals. The stakes are high, but a better path is possible. Restoring trust requires transparent, evidence-based policymaking that prioritizes access to life-saving tools. I urge Secretary Kennedy and the administration to reconsider this framework, reinstate ACIP's role in vaccine policy, and ensure any new appointees are qualified, independent experts. If concerns about ACIP exist, they should be addressed through reform, not dissolution. Healthcare providers and community leaders must also educate patients about vaccination benefits, particularly for vulnerable groups like pregnant women and those with high exposure. Individuals can take action by staying informed, discussing vaccination with their doctors, and advocating for clear, equitable access to vaccines. By working together—government, providers, and citizens—we can protect lives, reduce the burden of Long COVID, and rebuild confidence in our public health system. We must seize this opportunity to unite around science and ensure a healthier, safer, and prosperous future for all Americans. Contact us at letters@
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Slashing public health funding is a national security disaster in the making: Howard Dean
Federal and state government officials are axing public health funding—and justifying the cuts with appeals to fiscal this slash-and-burn approach is enormously shortsighted. Every dollar 'saved' now will cost us far more—in both dollars and lives—when the next health emergency inevitably know the toll an infectious disease outbreak can take. We just lived through one. COVID-19 killed over 1 million Americans and cost our economy trillions. Government-funded initiatives—such as federally backed research into mRNA vaccines and 'field team' deployments to local outbreaks—saved us from an even worse those very systems are being torn apart. This year alone, over $1.8 billion in NIH research funding has been terminated. The CDC's Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee, which sets safety standards for hospitals, was just eliminated. The new federal budget could cut funding for the Department of Health and Human Services by over a it's not just pandemic preparedness systems suffering from mass layoffs and budget cuts. Institutions designed to protect Americans from foodborne illnesses, antibiotic-resistant infections, and bioterrorism are being gutted as put, this is a catastrophic mistake—one that doesn't merely threaten our health and economy, but also our national officials have long warned that pandemics, bioterrorism, and emerging infections are critical threats to U.S. stability. The Defense Department reported to Congress earlier this year on how it continually works to monitor and prevent infectious disease outbreaks, given that 'a pandemic could potentially impact every component of the Department's ability to perform its mission.'The National Security Commission on Emerging Biotechnology also warned about the growing threat posed by biowarfare in a recent report. Because America's biotech industry is falling behind China's, in part due to the government's dwindling support for research, we're increasingly vulnerable to bioweapon attacks from adversaries, the report United States spends billions to prepare for military threats we hope never materialize. Our leaders need to fund disease prevention efforts with the same urgency we give to tanks and missiles. As we learned from COVID, infectious diseases can cause more death and destruction than even the most powerful conventional also showed us that pandemic preparedness pays dividends. Countries that invested more in limiting disease risks, such as Iceland and New Zealand, experienced lower mortality rates. By contrast, America suffered because we had allowed our public health infrastructure to erode for cannot afford to repeat—or worse, deepen—that mistake. Policymakers can prevent that from happening by restoring funding for public health agencies and investing in resources, such as labs, vaccines, and rapid response teams, that serve as our first and last lines of public health funding may be politically expedient, but preventing infectious disease isn't a partisan issue. Pathogens don't check party affiliation, respect national borders, or stop at state have a solemn duty—both to current citizens and to future generations of Americans—to strengthen the public health institutions that keep us safe. It's time for our leaders to act like Dean is the former chair of the Democratic National Committee and former governor of Vermont. The opinions expressed in commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune. This story was originally featured on
