Trump’s Health Budget Reversal: Bipartisan Bill Counters 2025 Cuts

The recent bipartisan budget agreement signed into law by President Trump represents a significant reversal of course from the proposed health spending cuts initially outlined by his administration and, more recently, spearheaded by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. While the administration signaled drastic changes to public health funding in 2026, including potential dismantling of key agencies and substantial research cuts, the enacted budget largely restores funding to levels seen in prior years, prompting both relief and lingering skepticism among public health officials and grant recipients.

A Rejection of Proposed Cuts

The shift is stark. President Trump’s initial 2026 budget proposal envisioned halving funding for biomedical research and eliminating entire centers within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The mental health agency faced potential dismantlement. However, the final budget law, as explained by NPR’s Selena Simmons-Duffin, closely resembles previous health budgets, increasing funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and fully funding centers that had been targeted for cuts. This outcome is widely viewed as a bipartisan rebuke of the administration’s proposed changes, and a deliberate attempt to limit the executive branch’s ability to unilaterally alter public health funding.

Senator Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), a key architect of the budget as ranking member of the appropriations subcommittee overseeing HHS, described the goal as “reining in an agency that has gone rogue” regarding personnel and funding allocation. The budget achieves this through detailed, legally binding instructions, mandating the funding of specific centers, full staffing levels, prompt disbursement of funds, and prior congressional notification before any agency reorganization. This contrasts sharply with the previous year’s continuing resolution, which offered the administration greater flexibility.

Guardrails and Lingering Concerns

Despite the restored funding, questions remain about whether the new budget will effectively curb the administration’s ambitions. As Selena Simmons-Duffin reports, the Trump administration demonstrated a willingness to disregard congressional instructions in 2025, particularly regarding program funding and staffing. Secretary Kennedy has also been notably absent from congressional testimony, even while pursuing controversial policies like revising the childhood vaccine schedule.

Richard Frank, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and former HHS agency head under President Obama, emphasizes that the budget’s success hinges on Congress actively holding the executive branch accountable and asserting its power of the purse. He suggests that without consistent oversight, the administration may find ways to circumvent the new funding restrictions.

Impact on Health Agencies

The practical implications of the budget for health agencies are still unfolding. HHS has yet to publicly respond to questions about Secretary Kennedy’s reaction to the new funding allocations. Staff within these agencies remain cautious, fearing that the administration will seek alternative methods to modify or undermine programs it disfavors. Kennedy’s history of suing HHS as an anti-vaccine activist and his past disparagement of agency staff raise concerns about his willingness to embrace a restoration of the agency to its previous state.

Recent actions by the administration underscore these concerns. In February 2026, the administration announced cuts of over $600 million in CDC grants to four Democratic-led states – California, Illinois, Colorado, and Minnesota – citing a lack of alignment with CDC priorities. A federal judge quickly issued a temporary restraining order blocking these cuts, suggesting that the true motivation may have been disagreement with the states’ policies on “sanctuary jurisdictions.”

Similarly, the administration terminated $600 million in CDC grants supporting HIV and STD prevention and surveillance programs in the same four states, claiming the grants did not “reflect agency priorities.” ABC News reported that a Department of Health and Human Services spokesperson justified the cuts, while an Office of Management and Budget spokesman cited a “history of fraud and mismanagement” in the affected states.

Broader HHS Policy Actions

These funding disputes are part of a broader pattern of policy changes implemented by the Trump administration through HHS since the start of his second term in January 2025. According to a timeline compiled by the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF), initial executive orders revoked many Biden administration programs and instituted new federal guidance related to “gender ideology,” “diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI),” and “merit-based opportunities.” These orders have implications for public health data collection and presentation.

What Comes Next: Congressional Oversight

The effectiveness of the new budget will depend heavily on sustained congressional oversight. The detailed funding instructions embedded in the law provide a stronger framework for accountability than previous appropriations. However, Congress must be prepared to actively monitor HHS’s implementation of the budget and to utilize its oversight powers – including hearings, investigations, and the potential for rescissions – to ensure compliance. The coming year will be a critical test of whether Congress can effectively rein in an administration determined to reshape public health policy according to its own vision.