Trump administration restores funds for HIV prevention following outcry
The Trump administration has lifted a freeze on federal funds for HIV prevention and surveillance programs, officials said, following an outcry from HIV prevention organizations, health experts and Democrats in Congress.
The Los Angeles County Department of Public Health received notice from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Thursday that it had been awarded nearly $20 million for HIV prevention for the 12-month period that began June 1 — an increase of $338,019 from the previous year.
'Let's be clear — the Trump administration's move to freeze HIV prevention funding was reckless, illegal and put lives at risk,' said Rep. Laura Friedman (D-Glendale) in a statement. 'I'm relieved the CDC finally did the right thing — but this never should have happened.'
The CDC didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.
Friedman and other advocates for HIV prevention funding sent a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. last month, warning that proposed cuts to these programs would reverse years of progress combating the disease and cause spikes in new cases — especially in California and among the LGBTQ+ community.
The letter cited estimates from the Foundation for AIDS Research, known as amfAR, suggesting the cuts could lead to 143,000 additional HIV infections nationwide and 127,000 additional deaths from AIDS-related causes within five years.
Los Angeles County, which stood to lose nearly $20 million in annual federal HIV prevention funding, was looking at terminating contracts with 39 providers. Experts said the dissolution of that network could result in as many as 650 new cases per year — pushing the total number of new infections per year in the county to roughly 2,000.
'Public Health is grateful for the support and advocacy from the Board of Supervisors, the Los Angeles County Congressional delegation, and all of our community based providers in pushing CDC to restore this Congressionally approved funding,' a spokeswoman for the county's health department said.
'Looking forward, it is important to note that the President's FY26 budget proposes to eliminate this funding entirely, and we urge our federal partners to support this critical lifesaving funding,' she said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
18 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Live updates: Supreme Court to rule on birthright citizenship
The U.S. Supreme Court will issue decisions on the final six cases left on its docket for the summer, including those that are emergency appeals relating to U.S. President Donald Trump's agenda. Cases on the court's emergency docket are handled swiftly, and decisions often come without explanations of the justices' reasoning. Decisions released today will be related to appeals on birthright citizenship, an online age-verfication law in Texas, the Education Department's firing of nearly 1,400 workers and DOGE-related government job cuts. Update: Date: 2025-06-27 13:23:15 Title: The justices will take the bench at 10 a.m. Content: Once they're seated, they'll get right to the opinions. The opinions are announced in reverse order of seniority so that the junior justices go first. It's likely that the birthright citizenship case will be announced last by Chief Justice John Roberts.
19 minutes ago
Trump admin live updates: White House sticks to megabill deadline despite Senate GOP's Medicaid setback
President Donald Trump is back in Washington after his trip overseas for a NATO summit, where allies committed to an increase in defense spending long pushed for by Trump. On Thursday morning, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine provided more information about U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear sites, with Hegseth pushing back against a preliminary U.S. intelligence report that said Tehran's nuclear program may have only been set back months. Meanwhile, the Senate is making changes to the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" as Republicans try to meet Trump's Fourth of July deadline for passage.
Politico
22 minutes ago
- Politico
It's the final opinion day this term— but there's plenty of Supreme Court action to come
The biggest mystery of the day: Will we even get a decision in arguably the most high-profile case the justices heard this year? There's already uncertainty about what the justices will actually decide in a case tied to President Donald Trump's effort to end automatic birthright citizenship — but we also don't know for sure whether the court will even issue a formal opinion or opinions on the matter. That's because the case did not come up through the court's usual process for cases argued before the justices: the merits docket. The case, Trump v. CASA, is actually a trio of emergency applications the Trump administration submitted to the justices in March seeking to sharply cut back nationwide injunctions judges issued against Trump's executive order purporting to end the right to birthright citizenship in the U.S. In a twist, the Justice Department did not ask the court for a quick decision on the legality of Trump's anti-birthright order. (Several lower courts have ruled it blatantly unconstitutional because it conflicts with the text of the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause.) Instead, the administration is attempting to use the dispute as a way to get the Supreme Court to declare that judges can't issue broad orders that protect people with no connection to a pending lawsuit. In an unusual move, the justices agreed to hear arguments on the emergency applications and did so last month. The oral arguments revealed no obvious consensus on the court about how to proceed or whether the case is a good vehicle to address broader concerns about the scope of nationwide injunctions. There were even some indications that the justices might want to dig into the birthright citizenship issue, which was not the focus of the legal briefs. Because the case is up as an emergency matter, the court could forgo an opinion and simply deny the applications — at any time — in a terse order with little or no explanation of its reasoning. It could also decide it wants to get full briefing and argument on the substance of the birthright citizenship issue this fall and punt on the injunctions issue until then, leaving Trump's birthright policy on hold.
