The HIV Care System Is Breaking Before Congress Even Cuts It

In October 2025, the Emergency HIV Clinical Response Task Force surveyed 526 HIV clinicians across the United States. Seventy percent reported service disruptions affecting their patients, with the Midwest and South hit hardest at 77% and 71%. Gender-affirming care topped the list of disrupted services at 33%, followed by housing support at 26% and PrEP or PEP access at 25%. Transgender people and immigrants bore the heaviest impact, with 41% and 38% of clinicians reporting these populations were most affected.

These numbers tell an important story, but not the one many headlines suggest. The disruptions in this survey are not the result of Congressional budget cuts to HIV programs. No legislation has eliminated Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program funding or CDC prevention dollars. Instead, they stem from administrative actions, grant recissions, and bureaucratic obstruction that destabilized HIV services months before Congress debated any cuts at all.

That distinction matters. It reveals how vulnerable the HIV care infrastructure has become, and how much worse things could get if proposed eliminations of HIV programs and broader healthcare funding cuts move forward.

The Administrative Stranglehold

The current disruptions trace directly to Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought’s systematic manipulation of the federal budget process. Before joining the Trump administration, Vought outlined these tactics in Project 2025, describing how “apportioned funding” could “ensure consistency with the President’s agenda.” He has executed this strategy with surgical precision.

Rather than releasing appropriated funds to agencies like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in standard apportionments, Vought shifted to monthly releases requiring Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) review for every grant award. By August 2025, the CDC’s center for HIV and tuberculosis prevention had spent $167 million less than historical averages, the Ryan White Program underspent by $105 million, and mental health funds at the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration lagged by more than $860 million.

The money exists. Congress appropriated it. Administrative roadblocks are what prevent it from reaching clinics, health departments, and community organizations.

The human cost is visible in provider reports. When funding delays hit in July 2025, 81 HIV organizations wrote to HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. warning that “with every day of delayed FY2025 funding release, the delivery of essential HIV services is compromised.” Clinics laid off case managers, reduced clinician hours, closed sites, and scaled back hotlines. The funds eventually arrived about a month later, but the damage—to staff capacity, patient trust, and continuity of care—was done.

At St. John AIDS outreach ministry in New Orleans, program director Tamachia Davenport faced a choice: cut staff or cut supplies when CDC funds did not arrive on time. To keep staff from fleeing to more stable jobs, she stopped buying condoms the organization distributes to prevent sexually transmitted infections—despite Louisiana’s already high rates of HIV, chlamydia, and gonorrhea, and the fact that condoms cost far less than treating any of them.

One CDC official summarized the view from inside: “Everyone’s inbox is full of letters from grant recipients asking, ‘How do we proceed?’ We just say, ‘Please wait.’”

Robert Gordon, a public policy specialist at Georgetown University and former assistant finance secretary at HHS, described the strategy plainly: “This is a sophisticated strategy to cause money to lapse and then say, ‘If they can’t spend it, they don’t need it.’”

The Unlegislated Threat

While administrative actions create the current disruptions, proposed legislation in Congress represents a qualitatively different threat.

In September 2025, the House Appropriations Committee released its FY2026 funding bill eliminating all CDC HIV prevention funding—approximately $1 billion—and cutting the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program by $525 million, or 20%.

The bill does not merely trim budgets. It eliminates program components entirely. Ryan White Part F, including AIDS Education and Training Centers, the Dental Reimbursement Program, and the Minority AIDS Initiative, would disappear. The $220 million for the Ending the HIV Epidemic initiative would be eliminated. Direct grants to more than 400 HIV clinics providing care and treatment through Ryan White Parts C and D would end.

Carl Schmid, executive director of the HIV+Hepatitis Policy Institute, summed up the stakes: “This is not a bill for making America healthy again, but a disastrous bill that will reignite HIV in the United States.”

The Senate tells a different story. In July 2025, the Senate Appropriations Committee advanced a bipartisan bill that maintains flat funding for all parts of the Ryan White Program ($2.57 billion), level funding at $220 million for Ending the HIV Epidemic, and flat funding for CDC HIV prevention. The contrast could not be clearer.

Researchers at Johns Hopkins Medicine modeled what would happen if federal funding for Ryan White ended. Their study in the Annals of Internal Medicine projects 75,436 additional HIV infections through 2030, a 49% increase. As senior author, Dr. Todd Fojo noted, effective treatment is the most powerful form of HIV prevention.

No final FY2026 budget has been enacted. The government is operating under a continuing resolution, and the gap between House and Senate proposals is unresolved. But the threat is not hypothetical, and the clinician survey’s forward-looking data reflects it: 72% anticipate moderate or significant service disruptions in the next 6–12 months, rising to 77% for the following 12–18 months.

The Broader Ecosystem Under Siege

The clinician survey captures disruptions to direct HIV services, but not the compounding pressures from Medicaid restructuring that threaten both coverage for people living with HIV and the financial stability of AIDS service organizations.

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed July 4, 2025, reduces Medicaid expansion eligibility from 138% to 100% of the federal poverty level, affecting an estimated 200,000 people with HIV. This is not a marginal tweak: 40% of non-elderly adults with HIV rely on Medicaid, nearly three times the rate of the general population. Starting in 2027, adults ages 19–64, captured under the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion, must complete 80 hours per month of approved activities to maintain coverage, and semi-annual eligibility redeterminations will replace annual reviews, injecting churn into programs where uninterrupted access to antiretroviral therapy is a clinical requirement, not a luxury.

Program eligibility recertification as an administrative burden on patients and otherwise a deterrent to staying enrolled in a program is something Ryan White clients are exceedingly familiar with. Recall, in 2021, under a Policy Clarification Notice (PCN 21-02), historical 6-month recertification requirements were relaxed in order to facilitate keeping eligible clients in care and not losing patients to care because of paperwork burdens. Medicaid work requirements as described in HR1 are the exact opposite of this best practice.

Taken under another lens, many AIDS service organizations converted to Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) status after the Affordable Care Act to serve newly insured patients and stabilize revenue. Medicaid comprises 43% of FQHC revenue. The OBBBA cuts into this income through provider tax caps that ratchet down over time and by capping state-directed payments at 100% of Medicare rates in expansion states. At the same time, the Congressional Budget Office projects 7.8 million people will lose Medicaid coverage overall. Enhanced ACA premium tax credits expire at the end of 2025, and so far Congress has not extended them.

As Davenport of St. John AIDS outreach told KFF Health News, “A lot of us are having to rob Peter to pay Paul.” But what happens when Peter gets defunded? Maybe the “Good Christians” in the halls of Congress can tell us.

Another angle of “robbing Peter”, is state expansion of 340B by way of allowing Medicaid providers to opt for any given claim under the 340B program, rather than forcing the claim through Medicaid. In these scenarios, the provider benefits the most from 340B discounts while robbing the state’s Medicaid program of possible Medicaid Drug rebates because no single claim may receive both. One report tied this Medicaid divestment to the tune of $1.2 billion annually. A novel consideration might be stabilization of Medicaid programs and payments by way of disallowing the option of 340B claims and requiring those claims be passed through a state Medicaid program. Maximizing Medicaid’s re-investment opportunity stabilizes both state budgets and the payment ecosystem for qualified healthcare entities.

Ground Truth: What’s Happening Now

Local decisions layered on top of federal obstruction are already shutting people out of care. Institutional brain trust and community trust in those same institutions is easy to lose and hard to recover.

In Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, the public health department laid off six workers, including half its disease investigators, when HIV prevention and surveillance grants expired at the end of May with no information about future funding. The grants were restored a month later, but only half the positions were refilled. “So now we’re behind, and cases are still being reported every day that have to be investigated,” said director Raynard Washington.

In Dallas County, Texas, public health director Philip Huang waits for nearly 30% of the promised award for emergency preparedness with no timeline or clarity, making basic staffing decisions feel like a gamble.

Breanne Armbrust, executive director of Richmond’s Neighborhood Resource Center, summed up the cumulative burden on patients: “They’re already sick or in need of care and asking them to do one more thing when their acuity levels might be high is too much, and it’s unreasonable.”

The Warning We Cannot Ignore

The clinician survey documents disruptions caused by administrative obstruction at a time when HIV programs still technically have appropriated funding. It is a snapshot of a system that is already unstable.

If the House FY2026 proposal eliminating CDC prevention funding and cutting Ryan White by $525 million becomes law, these disruptions will not simply “increase,” they could scale into system failure. Each new HIV infection carries an estimated at least $501,000 in lifetime healthcare costs. The Ryan White Program in 2023 achieved a 90.6% viral suppression rate among 576,000 clients. These programs work. Dismantling them would reverse decades of progress in a matter of years.

The workforce crisis compounds the threat. The United States needs 1,500 additional HIV specialists to reach 90-90-90 benchmarks. The South already has only 8 providers per 1,000 people with HIV, compared with 11 nationally. Counties that have reached at least one 90-90-90 target have 13 providers per 1,000. Eliminating AIDS Education and Training Centers, as the House bill proposes, would deepen that shortage just as demand for services intensifies.

None of this is theoretical. Administrative sabotage is already cutting off care people depend on to stay healthy, alive, and connected to treatment. Layer a legislative funding strike on top of a system this fragile, and the outcome is entirely predictable: preventable infections, preventable deaths, and preventable suffering concentrated among people already pushed to the margins.

The CDC's Ideological Takeover

The systematic dismantling of scientific leadership at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) under Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. represents more than bureaucratic reshuffling. The firing of CDC Director Susan Monarez after just three weeks in office, followed by the resignation of four senior officials in protest, suggests we have reached a point of no return: the subordination of scientific evidence to predetermined ideological conclusions. This transformation threatens decades of progress in disease prevention and raises a troubling question for public health advocates: have we abandoned scientific rigor for the comfort of confirmation bias?

The numbers tell a story of institutional collapse. Since April 2025, the CDC has lost nearly 2,400 employees, representing 20% of the agency's workforce. More than 1,000 HHS workers have signed letters demanding Kennedy's resignation. When Monarez refused to "rubber-stamp unscientific, reckless directives and fire dedicated health experts," according to her legal team, she chose protecting public health over political expediency, and was terminated for that choice.

The Architecture of Predetermined Conclusions

History suggests Kennedy's approach follows a troubling pattern: conclusions first, “evidence” later. In June 2025, Kennedy fired all 17 members of the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), replacing them with vaccine skeptics and anti-vaccine activists. Among his appointments is David Geier, a discredited proponent of the long-debunked vaccine-autism connection who lost his medical license for practicing without proper credentials.

The ideological nature of Kennedy's decision-making became even clearer when STAT reported that Monarez had submitted a confidential reform plan that closely mirrored Kennedy's subsequent proposals for CDC modernization. Her July 20 memo called for upgraded infrastructure, workforce investments, enhanced disease surveillance, and stronger firewalls against political influence—priorities Kennedy later claimed as his own in his Wall Street Journal defense. Yet Kennedy fired her anyway, not for opposing reform, but for refusing his ultimatum to "approve all recommendations from the vaccine advisory committee" and "fire top CDC officials." The revelation exposes Kennedy's public rationale about "replacing leaders who resisted reform" as fundamentally dishonest.

This pattern of predetermined conclusions reached its most explicit expression during a Cabinet meeting when Kennedy promised to reveal in September "interventions that are clearly, almost certainly causing autism," with Trump speculating that "something artificial" must be the cause. Announcing conclusions before conducting research represents the antithesis of scientific inquiry and is nothing more than predetermined outcomes masquerading as hypothesis testing.

Dr. Demetre Daskalakis, former director of the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases who resigned in protest, captured the gravity of this shift: "I only see harm coming. I may be wrong, but based on what I'm seeing, based on what I've heard with the new members of the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices, or ACIP, they're really moving in an ideological direction where they want to see the undoing of vaccination."

The Human Cost of Ideological Public Health

The dismantling of CDC expertise creates cascading consequences that disproportionately impact vulnerable populations. The agency's budget has been cut nearly in half, from $9.1 billion to $4.2 billion. Chronic disease prevention funding, which provided $16-20 million per state annually, faces elimination. The agency now has 750 fewer "ready responders" available for health emergencies.

For people living with HIV and other vulnerable populations, these cuts represent a direct assault on health equity. The CDC's HIV surveillance systems, prevention programs, and outbreak response capabilities depend on the institutional knowledge and scientific expertise that Kennedy has systematically eliminated. When flu sample submissions from abroad decreased by 70% due to the administration's withdrawal from the World Health Organization, the United States lost crucial early warning systems for pandemic preparedness.

Dr. Debra Houry, the former chief medical officer who resigned, warned that "we are not ready for emerging health threats, and it's only getting worse." Rural communities and people with chronic conditions—populations already facing significant health disparities—will bear the greatest burden of this institutional collapse.

Bipartisan Alarm and the Need for Oversight

The crisis has prompted rare bipartisan concern from lawmakers. Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA), who provided a crucial vote for Kennedy's confirmation, called for the postponement of the September ACIP meeting, stating that "any recommendations made should be rejected as lacking legitimacy given the seriousness of the allegations and the current turmoil in CDC leadership." Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) found "no basis" for Monarez's removal.

The tension within Republican ranks became evident in a public Twitter exchange between Cassidy and Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), where Cassidy pointedly noted that "MAHA starts with preventing vaccine preventable diseases." The comment raises a fundamental question: is Secretary Kennedy aware of this starting point for his own Make America Healthy Again agenda? Paul's defense of Kennedy's vaccine skepticism highlights the fracture between evidence-based public health Republicans and those embracing anti-vaccine ideology.

Even more telling, nine former CDC directors spanning both Republican and Democratic administrations condemned Kennedy's actions as "unlike anything we had ever seen at the agency and unlike anything our country had ever experienced." When career public servants who have served under multiple administrations express such unified alarm, the threat to institutional integrity cannot be dismissed as partisan politics.

The American Medical Association issued a statement expressing deep concern about CDC's destabilization at "a challenging moment for public health," while the American Nurses Association warned that the changes "could potentially pose a direct risk to the safety and security of our nation."

The Broader Questions: Science vs. "Vibes" in Public Health Policy

The CDC crisis illuminates a broader erosion of evidence-based decision-making in public health policy. When scientific conclusions are predetermined and evidence is selectively marshaled to support ideological positions, we abandon the fundamental principles that underpin effective public health practice.

This shift toward policy by "vibes" rather than evidence gains particular momentum from social media influencer culture and the wellness industry, a $6.3 trillion global market that dwarfs pharmaceuticals' $1.65 trillion. Research from the Center for Countering Digital Hate reveals that Kennedy belongs to the "Disinformation Dozen" - 12 individuals responsible for 65% of anti-vaccine content on major platforms. These “wellness” influencers, with millions of collective followers, promote alternative health products while spreading vaccine misinformation that platforms fail to control despite documented public health harms.

The regulatory disparity amplifies this problem. While pharmaceutical drugs require 10-15 years of clinical trials costing billions, dietary supplements face no pre-market approval requirements under the 1994 Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act. This creates an ecosystem where unsubstantiated wellness claims flourish on social media while rigorously tested medical interventions face increasing skepticism from audiences primed by influencer misinformation.

The pattern extends beyond vaccines to encompass the entire architecture of public health surveillance and response. When Kennedy restricts COVID-19 vaccine access based on ideology rather than epidemiological evidence, when he eliminates chronic disease programs without data supporting their ineffectiveness, when he replaces career scientists with political appointees lacking relevant expertise, he transforms public health agencies into instruments of social engineering rather than evidence-based medicine.

One current CDC employee described this as "the beginning of the end of objective science." The consequences extend far beyond CDC headquarters in Atlanta—they reach into every community clinic serving people living with HIV, every state health department tracking disease outbreaks, every family seeking evidence-based guidance about their health decisions.

The Stakes for Health Equity and Patient Access

The response from state governments illustrates the severity of the federal abdication. California, Oregon, and Washington announced the formation of a West Coast Health Alliance to "uphold scientific integrity in public health as Trump destroys CDC's credibility." When states feel compelled to create alternative public health infrastructure, the federal system - and its leadership - have fundamentally failed.

While some states move to protect science-based public health, others are abandoning it entirely. On the same day the West Coast Health Alliance was announced, Florida declared plans to become the first state to end all vaccine mandates, including for schoolchildren. The stark contrast—three states forming an alliance to preserve scientific integrity while another dismantles evidence-based protections—illustrates how Kennedy's assault on federal public health expertise is fracturing the nation's disease prevention infrastructure.

The elimination of scientific expertise at the CDC represents a direct threat to health equity and evidence-based patient care. For advocates working to expand access to HIV prevention and treatment, for policymakers crafting evidence-based health legislation, for people relying on public health guidance to make informed decisions about their care, the stakes could not be higher.

Congress must exercise its oversight authority to protect the institutional integrity that underpins effective public health practice. This responsibility transcends partisan politics—it represents a fundamental obligation to ensure that public health decisions are grounded in scientific evidence rather than ideological predetermination. The alternative is a public health system that serves political ends rather than human health, where predetermined conclusions masquerade as scientific inquiry, and where the most vulnerable populations pay the highest price for our collective abandonment of evidence-based decision-making.