Trump Administration Freezes Title X Funding to 16 Groups
Planned Parenthood supporters rally outside the U.S. Supreme Court on April 2, 2025, in Washington, D.C., on account of a separate matter regarding oral arguments which could decide if states can strip Planned Parenthood of Medicaid funds. Credit - Drew Angerer—Getty Images
The Trump Administration is withholding millions of dollars allocated for family planning services from more than a dozen organizations.
Enacted in 1970, the federal family planning program known as Title X makes millions of dollars available to clinics that provide health care services like birth control, cancer screenings, and STI testing for people from low-income households. On March 31, Planned Parenthood—one of the largest Title X providers—said in a press release that nine of its affiliates received notices from the federal government that their Title X funding would be withheld starting April 1.
According to Planned Parenthood, more than three-quarters of its affiliates receive Title X funding, and in 2023, there were more than 1.5 million visits to Planned Parenthood health centers that received Title X funding.
One of the nine affiliates affected is Planned Parenthood Great Northwest, Hawai'i, Alaska, Indiana, Kentucky (PPGNHAIK), which serves those four states as well as Idaho and Washington. Its CEO, Rebecca Gibron, estimates that, as a result of the freeze, about $3 million a year will now be withheld from five of the six states PPGNHAIK serves: Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Alaska, and Hawaii. Gibron says that over half of PPGNHAIK's health centers across six states serve more than 40,000 patients a year through Title X.
'In our states, we are a safety net provider providing affordable birth control, cancer screenings, STI testing, and treatment,' Gibron says. 'These patients rely on Title X for their health care, and without this program, patients may have no access to this care at all.' Planned Parenthood Action Fund President and CEO Alexis McGill Johnson said in a press release that if people aren't able to access this care, cancers could go undetected, access to birth control could be reduced, and sexually transmitted infections could increase.
A spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) told TIME in an email that the department is withholding Title X funds from 16 organizations 'pending an evaluation of possible violations of their grant terms, including based on Federal civil rights laws and the President's Executive Order 14218, 'Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Open Borders,'' which Trump signed on Feb. 19. The Executive Order declares that undocumented immigrants are prohibited 'from obtaining most taxpayer-funded benefits.'
'HHS is conducting this evaluation to ensure these entities are in full compliance with Federal law and applicable grant terms, and to ensure responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars,' the spokesperson said. They did not respond to questions about the details of the 'possible violations,' how much money was being withheld from the affected organizations, and which organizations were being impacted by the funding freeze.
On March 25, the Wall Street Journal reported that HHS was considering freezing $27.5 million out of the more than $200 million allocated for Title X's annual budget.
Gibron calls the withholding of funds "politically motivated.' She accuses the Trump Administration of wanting to 'shut down Planned Parenthood health centers to appease their anti-abortion backers,' saying that the Title X freeze is the 'latest attempt' by the Administration to defund Planned Parenthood.
'The fact is that Planned Parenthood health centers across the country serve millions of patients every year, regardless of their immigration status, political affiliation, race, or gender—everyone is welcome in a Planned Parenthood health center,' Gibron says. 'Access to fundamental reproductive and sexual health services is health care that everyone needs.'
In 2019, during the first Trump Administration, the federal government implemented a new restriction on Title X recipients, barring them from providing abortion referrals (Title X dollars don't fund abortion services). The Guttmacher Institute, which researches and supports sexual and reproductive health and rights, found that that the restriction—often referred to as the'domestic gag rule'—combined with the COVID-19 pandemic, led to the loss of 981 health care centers from the Title X program and resulted in about 2.4 million fewer patients receiving care through the federal program in 2020 compared with 2018. The Biden Administration rescinded the domestic gag rule in 2021.
Read More: South Carolina Wants to End Medicaid for Planned Parenthood
Essential Access Health, which distributes Title X funds to clinics in California and Hawaii, said in a press release shared with TIME that it also received a notice that its Title X funds were being temporarily withheld while the group responds to 'an inquiry regarding compliance with federal policy and practices related to civil rights and Executive Orders focused on DEI activities within 10 days.' The day he took office, Trump signed an Executive Order aimed at dismantling diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts.
'This unprecedented, arbitrary, and immediate pause in distribution of critical resources is harmful to patients and providers,' Essential Access Health said in a press release shared with TIME. 'Any funding delay is detrimental, and an extended delay would devastate our family planning safety net.'
Reproductive rights experts have condemned the Trump Administration's move to freeze Title X funds. Amy Friedrich-Karnik, director of federal policy at the Guttmacher Institute, says she wasn't shocked by the move, but that it is 'absolutely devastating.' According to Friedrich-Karnik, early estimates from Guttmacher Institute experts indicate that between 600,000 and 1.25 million people could be impacted by this funding freeze annually, based on the most recently available data on Title X from 2023.
'The impact of that program on people's access to needed reproductive health care services is so clear—how people have benefitted from that access and how it is a program that fills a very important gap for folks who can't get health care elsewhere," Friedrich-Karnik says. 'Not only are reproductive health care services like contraception, STI testing, cancer screenings at risk, [but] for many people, this is their only touchpoint with the health care system at all.'
According to data from the HHS Office of Population Affairs, about 83% of patients who received care from clinics that received Title X funding in 2023 had family incomes at or below 250% of the federal poverty level. Friedrich-Karnik says data also shows that people of color are disproportionately likely to access Title X services. She calls the freeze 'a direct attack on health equity,' adding that Title X was established 'to ensure that historically underserved communities were able to access health care and reproductive health care,' and the Trump Administration's actions are penalizing Title X recipients 'for doing exactly what the program is set up to do.'
Friedrich-Karnik says that the freeze is 'definitely an attack' on people from low-income households, 'who already have the most barriers to accessing health care services.'
Contact us at letters@time.com.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
17 minutes ago
- Forbes
Five Ways Medicaid Supports Main Streets Across America
Business district of Marquette, Michigan Gerald Bernard - In May, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a budget reconciliation bill that includes significant cuts to Medicaid. Specifically, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the legislation would lead to more than $700 billion in cuts to Medicaid, and nearly 11 million people losing coverage, including nearly 8 million people who rely on Medicaid. The bulk of these reductions would come through work requirements. A common misconception about Medicaid is that it is simply a standalone program that provides health insurance to Americans living below or near the federal poverty level. In reality, communities and small businesses rely on the stability it brings. Here are five ways Medicaid supports Main Streets across America. 1. Employee Health and Productivity Many small businesses have tight budgets and struggle to provide basic benefits, much less comprehensive health insurance to all employees. This is especially true in underserved communities, with part-time or low-wage workers being impacted the most. Medicaid provides coverage to employees who may not qualify for employer-sponsored insurance. This ensures that workers have access to preventive care, which reduces absenteeism and improves productivity. It also lowers the burden of medical debt among workers, giving them better financial stability. 2. Expanded Labor Pool Medicaid's healthcare safety net allows more people to enter or remain in the workforce. This also allows more entrepreneurs to take the risk of starting a business, knowing their families are covered. In addition, this support also increases the number of individuals they can hire in their communities. 3. Reduced Hiring and Training Costs Access to quality healthcare coverage is generally a factor every American weighs when making a career decision. However, when workers have consistent healthcare through Medicaid, they are less likely to leave jobs for health insurance elsewhere. In turn, small businesses can save money on recruiting and training new staff and focus on growth instead of turnover-related challenges. 4. Empowered Entrepreneurs For self-employed individuals or those starting a business, Medicaid provides crucial health coverage during the startup phase when income is uncertain. Perhaps more importantly, it also empowers them to pursue their dream of entrepreneurship instead of staying in a job just for the health insurance. 5. Stronger Local Economies When people don't have to spend all of their income on healthcare, they have more money to spend at local businesses. These Medicaid dollars also support healthcare providers, including rural clinics and pharmacies, that serve as small businesses themselves. In addition, Medicaid also indirectly benefits businesses by creating jobs in areas that include retail, construction, and landscaping. It is estimated that the proposed Medicaid cuts could lead to nearly 450,000 job losses in 2026 with roughly half coming in healthcare and the rest in other business sectors. The strength of the economy in many ways boils down to the health of its workforce and entrepreneurs. Medicaid supports workforce stability, entrepreneurship, economic mobility, and small business growth. In a future column, I will explore the impact of these proposed cuts on Main Streets and their communities.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
What's a Medicaid cut? Senate GOP tiptoes around $800B question
When is a Medicaid cut not actually a cut? That's the $800 billion question facing Senate Republicans as they write their own version of the sweeping House-passed tax and spending bill. Administration officials and senators defending against attacks on the bill have coalesced around a message that there will be no cuts to benefits, and the only people who will lose coverage are the ones who never deserved it to begin with: namely immigrants without legal status and 'able-bodied' individuals who shouldn't be on Medicaid. 'This bill will preserve and protect the programs, the social safety net, but it will make it much more commonsense,' Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought said during a recent CNN interview. 'That's what this bill does. No one will lose coverage as a result.' Among many provisions, the House bill would require states to deny Medicaid to people who can't prove they are working, looking for work, in school or volunteering for 80 hours a month. It would prohibit states from using their own money to cover immigrants without legal status and would deny coverage to other lawfully present immigrants who are currently eligible. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the legislation will result in nearly 11 million people losing health insurance coverage over the next decade. The Medicaid provisions alone would result in 7.8 million people losing their insurance. Those coverage losses would equate to hundreds of billions of dollars in savings for the federal government. However, GOP lawmakers and administration officials insist the legislation will protect Medicaid for 'deserving' people such as the elderly and disabled, while forcing others to prove they aren't freeloading. 'It's important for us to provide a nudge to some Americans to remember that they have agency over their future,' Mehmet Oz, the administration's Medicare and Medicaid chief, told reporters on Wednesday, following a closed-door meeting with GOP senators. Later Wednesday in an interview on Fox Business, Oz elaborated. 'Go out there, do entry-level jobs, get into the workforce, prove that you matter. Get agency into your own life,' he said. Republicans are wary about being attacked over health care cuts, and they're eager to reframe the debate and try to go on offense. Voter backlash over the 2017 ObamaCare repeal effort led to widespread GOP losses and cost them control of the House in the 2018 midterms. 'Give me a break, This is just fear-mongering from Democrats,' Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) said in a post on the social platform X. 'No one's losing health care—unless you count the 1.4 million illegal immigrants getting Medicaid on your dime.' Most immigrants without legal status can't qualify for Medicaid at the federal level, but some blue states have extended health care coverage to them. The legislation would penalize those states if they continued to offer coverage by lowering their federal matching rate. In a CNBC interview Thursday, Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) said the people who lose Medicaid coverage will merely transition to employer-sponsored health care. 'It's not kicking people off Medicaid. It's transitioning from Medicaid to employer-provided health care. So yes, we've got 10 million people that are not going to be on Medicaid, but they then are going to be on employer-provided health care,' Lankford said. Yet according to the CBO, 'few of those disenrolled from Medicaid because of the policy would have access to and enroll in employment-based coverage.' A bloc of Republican senators has been raising concerns about some of the Medicaid provisions, and some have said they do not like the idea of anything that could be interpreted as a cut. But by and large, they've signaled the coverage losses aren't what's troubling. '[We need to] protect the program for the people that really deserve and need the help and need the program, you know, and that's children, disabled, seniors, on and on and on,' said Sen. Jim Justice ( 'That's what we got to do. You know, at the end of the day, we shouldn't be protecting the program for people that are abusing or people that shouldn't be eligible, or whatever.' Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) has said he worries about the bill's potential impact on rural hospitals and pledged to withhold support from any bill that cuts Medicaid benefits. But what is a benefit cut? 'If my state tells me that, because of legislative changes in the House bill, the Senate bill, we're going to have to cut benefits. That's a benefit cut,' Hawley told The Hill. Missouri has 1.3 million Medicaid beneficiaries, but Hawley said he thinks there would only be a small number impacted by the work requirements. 'I'm fine with people who are able-bodied and not working … I'm all for that. So you know what, cut benefits from illegal aliens. Yeah, I'm fine with that, but I'm concerned about people who are here legally, residents of my state, citizens of my state, who are working and would lose health care coverage,' he said. Hawley has said that President Trump reiterated his opposition against any Medicaid cuts during recent conversations about the 'big, beautiful bill,' though the president supported the House version. Health experts say the impact of the cuts will go far beyond the small slice of the population Republicans claim. Work requirements will likely add layers of red tape for people to prove they meet the threshold. 'The people losing coverage aren't people who aren't working … but they're actually people who should satisfy the work reporting or should qualify for an exemption, but they can't navigate the complex systems for either reporting one's hours for work or other activities,' said Edwin Park, a research professor at the Georgetown University McCourt School of Public Policy. The legislation includes some exemptions, like for caregiving, but it doesn't specify what would qualify or how beneficiaries would prove they qualify. There's no requirement that states exempt people automatically, Park said, so many people who would be eligible likely wouldn't be enrolled. No matter how Republicans spin it, Park said, 'these are huge Medicaid cuts. They're going to take away coverage from millions of low-income people.' 'And those cuts are going to affect everyone throughout the Medicaid program, not just the expansion group, but also kids, seniors and people with disabilities,' he added. 'And it's going to have big ripple effects throughout the health care system.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Chronic illness exposes health care gaps
RX pharmacy prescription bottle of pills on a pile of $100 dollar bills and a USA outline Living with a chronic illness is not simply physical pain or fatigue; it is a constant negotiation with a health care system that commodifies care. Every doctor's appointment, prescription, and therapy session is a reminder of the overwhelming and taxing obstacles that must be navigated to stay alive. These costs are not merely financial; they also impact time spent with family, peace of mind, and dignity. This battle is not only against illness, but also against a system that fails to recognize people first. We are human beings worthy of compassion and care, not merely a line in a profit ledger. Yet, in today's political climate, legislative proposals threaten access to essential programs for Medicare and Medicaid, posing even greater risk to vulnerable individuals. This is the grim reality for millions of Americans, and it begs an urgent question: When will our health care system start putting humanity over revenue? I am living with Lupus, an autoimmune disease that causes fatigue, joint pain, and organ failure. I have faced unpredictable flare-ups since my diagnosis in 2002. These flare-ups require weekly doctor visits, medications, and sometimes hospitalizations. Even with insurance, out-of-pocket costs can run into the thousands annually, forcing me to make difficult choices: Should I pay for my medications or my mortgage? Should I miss a doctor's appointment to afford groceries? These are not theoretical questions but real decisions that millions of people with chronic illnesses face daily. Medical debt, or personal debt incurred from unpaid medical bills, is a leading cause of bankruptcy in the United States. As many as 40% of U.S. adults, or about 100 million people, are currently in debt because of medical or dental bills. Families with multiple disabilities face compounding expenses in the management of those disabilities, including specialized medical care, therapy, adaptive equipment, and educational support. My family was faced with this challenge as I struggled to manage my and my disabled child's health. This encumbrance is especially heavy for parents relying on Social Security benefits. The emotional toll of balancing these responsibilities often leads to heightened stress and financial insecurity, keeping families trapped in poverty. My geographical location presents an additional barrier to receiving quality, timely, and equitable health care. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that rural residents are often sicker and die younger than individuals in urban communities. This is due to numerous factors, including access. I live in a rural area where health care access is significantly limited. Patients in rural areas often travel long distances to seek specialized care, face poorly resourced local facilities, and experience delayed care. According to the Bowen Center, Indiana has had multiple hospital closures, with 52 rural hospitals remaining as of 2024, and 25% of open hospitals have experienced service reductions. These systemic issues are further compounded by our health care system. Pharmaceutical companies continue to raise the cost of life-saving medications with little to no regulation. Insurance companies often refuse to cover newer, more effective treatments, forcing patients to navigate bureaucratic red tape or accept suboptimal alternatives. CONTACT US Public assistance programs, while helpful, are often insufficient, placing a financial burden on patients. Although Indiana has instituted various measures to solve the overwhelming health care costs, the emotional toll of these financial challenges cannot be overstated. So, what is to be done? First, lawmakers must address the underlying drivers of high health care spending. This involves enacting tougher rules on drug prices, mandating transparency from health providers regarding pricing, and expanding Medicare and Medicaid coverage for people with chronic diseases and disabilities – not creating more barriers. Second, insurers should streamline their procedures so patients have access to necessary treatments without constant denials and delays. Patients and providers will benefit from streamlined processes that remove administrative layers, allowing providers to focus on delivering quality health care. Additionally, rural health care access should be addressed. Removing telehealth restrictions and incentivizing the physician workforce in rural communities would go a long way in addressing the need for health care access in these deserts. Chronic illnesses deeply impact all of our communities. They do not discriminate based on income, and neither should our health care policies. As we move forward, it is crucial that we not only address the physical needs of those living with chronic illnesses, but also alleviate the economic burdens that prevent them from living productive and dignified lives. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
