Should the federal government cut funding to the Department of Health and Human Services, or maintain/increase it?

Background

The Department of Health and Human Services is the largest grant-making agency in the federal government, overseeing programs that range from biomedical research at the National Institutes of Health to disease prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Medicare and Medicaid administration, food and drug safety, and social services for children and families. The Trump administration's fiscal year 2026 budget proposed $93.8 billion in discretionary funding for HHS, representing a 26.2 percent reduction from the 2025 enacted level. The proposal would consolidate the department's 28 agencies into 15, create a new Administration for a Healthy America to advance the Make America Healthy Again agenda, and cut the NIH budget by roughly 40 percent. According to Trust for America's Health, over 100 public health programs and funding lines would be eliminated under the plan, including programs addressing cancer, diabetes, HIV/AIDS, and substance use prevention. Congress has final say over the budget, and both House and Senate appropriations committees have been working on their own versions of the spending bill.

Supporters of reducing HHS funding argue that higher spending has not led to better health outcomes and that the department became bloated during the pandemic era. HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. told Congress the budget would shift funding away from bureaucracy toward direct impact, noting that HHS staffing grew significantly under the prior administration and that returning to 2019 staffing levels would promote efficiency. The administration also points to investments in telehealth, artificial intelligence, and chronic disease prevention as smarter ways to spend limited dollars. Opponents counter that cutting a quarter of the department's budget would gut essential services relied upon by millions of Americans. Ranking Member Rosa DeLauro warned that HHS has closed half its regional offices and eliminated divisions responsible for critical functions like baby formula inspections. Health organizations including the Alliance for Aging Research and the HIV+Hepatitis Policy Institute have cautioned that reduced NIH funding could stall lifesaving research breakthroughs, while cuts to the CDC could weaken emergency preparedness.

The stakes of this debate extend well beyond Washington. According to Trust for America's Health, federal funding accounts for about half of state and local health department budgets, meaning federal cuts translate directly into reduced services in communities nationwide. Programs at risk include disease surveillance, rural hospital support, childhood immunization efforts, opioid treatment programs, and services for older adults. Whether Congress ultimately approves, modifies, or rejects the proposed reductions will shape the country's capacity to respond to future health emergencies, advance medical research, and deliver basic public health protections for years to come.