The Plan to Kill the World's Most Successful AIDS Program

The President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) stands at a critical juncture, having narrowly escaped a $400 million funding cut in July 2025 only to face a more existential threat: the Trump administration's quiet plan to fundamentally transform the world's most successful HIV/AIDS program. Leaked planning documents reveal an administration intent on dismantling PEPFAR as a public health initiative and reconstituting it as a disease surveillance and commercial enterprise platform. This transformation exemplifies the dangerous politicization of evidence-based health programs that threatens to reverse decades of progress and abandon millions of people living with HIV worldwide.

A Plan Revealed

While Congress celebrated blocking the proposed $400 million cut, leaked State Department documents obtained by The New York Times reveal a more comprehensive plan to end PEPFAR as we know it. The documents propose a 42% reduction in PEPFAR's current $4.7 billion budget and envision countries transitioning away from U.S. assistance within two to eight years. Countries closest to epidemic control—Botswana, Namibia, South Africa, and Vietnam—would see complete U.S. withdrawal within two years.

The proposed transformation fundamentally alters PEPFAR's mission. Rather than providing medicines and services to treat and prevent HIV, the program would focus on "bilateral relationships" centered on detecting disease outbreaks that could threaten the United States and creating "new markets for American drugs and technologies." The documents explicitly frame the transition as "the premier example of the U.S. commitment to prioritizing trade over aid, opportunity over dependency and investment over assistance."

The Human Cost of Disruption

The human consequences of PEPFAR's disruption are already measurable and devastating. In Mozambique, researchers found that viral suppression among children receiving HIV treatment dropped 43% between February 2024 and February 2025, directly attributed to PEPFAR disruptions. South Africa has closed 12 specialized HIV clinics and seen over 8,000 health workers in its national HIV program lose their jobs.

Enid Kyomuhendo, a sex worker in Kampala, Uganda, described her experience when her clinic closed just days after she needed her antiretroviral refill: "I got so worried. I started taking alcohol. I was thinking that anytime I am going to die. It became this life of hopelessness." After two months without medication, she developed a dark, itchy rash and now worries about drug resistance—a preventable complication that could worsen her condition.

Modeling studies project even more severe consequences. A 90-day PEPFAR funding pause could result in over 100,000 excess HIV-related deaths over a year in sub-Saharan Africa alone. More than 75,000 adults and children are estimated to have already died because of the effective shutdown that began less than six months ago.

The Politicization of Public Health

PEPFAR's current crisis reflects a broader politicization of public health programs that historically enjoyed bipartisan support. The program's 2024 reauthorization became entangled in abortion rights debates, resulting in an unprecedented one-year extension instead of the traditional five-year renewal. Representative Michael McCaul (R-Texas) captured the frustration: "I'm disappointed. Honestly, I was looking forward to marking up a five-year reauthorization, and now I'm in this abortion debate." McCaul also noted that "a lot of the Freedom Caucus guys would not want to give aid to Africa."

The evangelical community's response proves particularly revealing. Despite PEPFAR's alignment with pro-life principles and its prevention of millions of deaths, white evangelical leaders have remained largely silent about the program's dismantling. As one conservative pastor noted: "If a Democratic administration were doing this—callously, illegally, and completely unnecessarily destroying a cause prayed for, advocated for, designed by, and in many cases carried out by evangelical believers—I struggle to believe that the response would be any less immediate and strident than if they were to mandate states to permit abortion."

This selective moral outrage demonstrates how partisan loyalty can override stated principles, even when millions of lives hang in the balance.

The Innovation Paradox

The timing of PEPFAR's crisis creates a particularly cruel irony. Just as revolutionary prevention tools become available, the administration has restricted prevention programming to pregnant and breastfeeding women only, cutting off access for sex workers, men who have sex with men, and people in serodiscordant relationships.

In June 2025, the FDA approved lenacapavir, a twice-yearly injectable that proved 100% effective in preventing HIV among women and 96% effective among gay and bisexual men in clinical trials. This breakthrough represents the most significant advance in HIV prevention since pre-exposure prophylaxis became available, offering a discreet, long-acting option that could overcome adherence challenges.

Yet PEPFAR's disruption threatens access to this transformative intervention. The Global Fund and Gilead Sciences have committed to providing 2 million doses over three years, but this represents a fraction of global need. PEPFAR was expected to fund approximately half of the initial procurement, but the program's uncertain future has left this commitment in doubt.

Reform Proposals and Alternative Paths

Various stakeholders have proposed different approaches to PEPFAR's future, recognizing that some transition planning is necessary while arguing against the administration's rushed timeline. Duke University researchers have outlined reform proposals that could reduce program costs by 20% over five years while maintaining essential services and planning sustainable transitions.

The Center for Strategic and International Studies has called for a realistic five-year transition plan that would include binding bilateral compacts with clear milestones, graduated timelines based on country capacity, and maintained surge capacity for outbreak response.

However, the administration's leaked documents assume timelines that health experts consider unrealistic. Dr. Mwanza wa Mwanza, who has worked in senior roles in Zambia's HIV program for nearly a decade, noted that "three years, it's really a very short period for a heavy program like the H.I.V. program in Zambia—it's impossible."

Protecting Evidence-Based Public Health

PEPFAR's crisis extends beyond HIV/AIDS policy to represent a fundamental test of whether evidence-based public health programs can survive political weaponization. The program's documented success—26 million lives saved, nearly 8 million babies born HIV-free, and significant contributions to global health security—should make its preservation a nonpartisan priority.

Yet the administration's approach suggests that ideological considerations and commercial interests now outweigh public health evidence in policy decisions. This precedent threatens not only HIV/AIDS programs but the entire framework of global health cooperation that has made possible advances in pandemic prevention, disease elimination, and health security.

Congress retains the power to protect PEPFAR through appropriations and oversight, but sustained advocacy will be necessary to maintain political support. We must demand that policymakers prioritize evidence over ideology and recognize that global health programs serve both humanitarian and strategic American interests.

The fight for PEPFAR represents a broader struggle for the soul of American public health policy. Whether evidence-based programs can survive political polarization will determine not only the fate of millions of people living with HIV worldwide but also America's capacity to lead effective responses to future health crises.

Leaked HHS Budget: Critical HIV Services Face Deep Cuts

A recently leaked budget document from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has revealed the Trump Administration's plans for sweeping cuts that would fundamentally reshape federal health programs. The 64-page "pre-decisional" budget proposal, first reported by The Washington Post, outlines a severe reduction in HHS discretionary spending from $121 billion to approximately $80 billion—a 33% cut. This proposal provides the first comprehensive look at the administration's vision for restructuring the nation's health infrastructure, including the creation of a new Administration for a Healthy America (AHA) while eliminating or consolidating many established agencies that form the backbone of our public health system. The proposed changes would profoundly impact HIV/AIDS programs, viral hepatitis services, substance use disorder treatment, and access to care for vulnerable populations, potentially reversing decades of progress in public health.

The Scale of Proposed Cuts

The magnitude of cuts outlined in the leaked budget document would fundamentally transform the federal health infrastructure in ways not seen in decades. The National Institutes of Health (NIH), America's premier biomedical research institution, would see its budget slashed by 42%—from $47 billion to just $27 billion. This dramatic reduction would be accompanied by a plan to reorganize NIH's 27 institutes and centers into just eight, eliminating some entirely while consolidating others into broader entities with less specialized focus.

Similarly devastating, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) faces a proposed 44% budget reduction, from $9.2 billion to approximately $5.2 billion. The document indicates the CDC would be refocused primarily on "emerging and infectious disease surveillance, outbreak investigations, preparedness and response, and maintaining the Nation's public health infrastructure."

Even more concerning, several agencies would be eliminated entirely as independent entities, including the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), the Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response (ASPR), and the Administration for Community Living (ACL). While some programs from these agencies would transfer to the proposed Administration for a Healthy America (AHA), many would be eliminated outright. As the leaked document itself states: "Many difficult decisions were necessary to reach the funding level provided in this passback."

Impact on HIV/AIDS Infrastructure

The proposed budget would effectively dismantle decades of federal HIV prevention and treatment infrastructure, threatening to reverse significant progress made toward ending the epidemic. Most alarming is the complete elimination of the CDC's Division of HIV Prevention (DHP), which has been the cornerstone of the nation's HIV prevention efforts. According to POZ, the division passes 89% of its funding directly to state and local HIV programs, with states like Alabama and Mississippi depending on it for up to 100% of their HIV prevention efforts.

The budget also eliminates the Ending the HIV Epidemic (EHE) initiative, which was launched during Trump's first administration and has produced a 21% reduction in new HIV transmissions within targeted jurisdictions. This initiative represented a rare bipartisan commitment to addressing the HIV epidemic through increased testing, prevention, and treatment resources.

The Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program, which provides essential care and treatment to over 550,000 people living with HIV who are uninsured or underinsured, would see significant cuts. The KFF analysis reveals that while core funding for grants to cities, states, and the AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP) would be maintained, the budget eliminates support for dental services, AIDS Education and Training Centers, and demonstration programs.

Additionally, the Minority AIDS Initiative, which addresses the disproportionate impact of HIV on racial and ethnic minorities, would be eliminated entirely. This comes at a time when Black and Latino communities continue to face disproportionate HIV rates and could worsen existing health disparities.

"The scale of what is being lost is staggering," POZ reports. "According to recent analysis from amfAR, a 100% reduction in DHP funding will lead to 143,486 new HIV infections by 2030, 14,676 additional AIDS related deaths, and $60.3 billion in additional lifetime health care costs."

The proposal would move remaining HIV/AIDS programs under the new Administration for a Healthy America with reduced funding and an unclear structure, raising serious questions about program coordination and effectiveness going forward.

Viral Hepatitis, STIs, and Related Programs

The leaked budget proposal takes aim at viral hepatitis, sexually transmitted infections (STIs), and tuberculosis programs by consolidating their funding into a single, smaller grant program. According to POZ, "a proposal in the new budget to turn other CDC funding for viral hepatitis, STDs, and TB into block grants masks devastating funding losses as 'flexibility to address local needs.'" In reality, this consolidation would reduce overall funding by approximately $500 million, severely limiting the capacity to prevent and respond to outbreaks of these conditions.

Particularly concerning is the elimination of CDC's Global Health Center and the agency's critical STD laboratory, which MedPage Today confirms was shuttered during the recent mass layoffs. These cuts would dismantle essential testing infrastructure at a time when sexually transmitted infections are at record highs nationwide. The consolidation approach significantly weakens the specialized responses needed for these distinct but interconnected public health challenges, potentially allowing localized outbreaks to develop into broader public health crises without the targeted interventions currently in place.

Mental Health and Substance Use Disorder Services

The proposed budget calls for the complete elimination of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), the federal agency dedicated to addressing mental health and substance use conditions. The impact of this elimination would be compounded by severe cuts to services: Mental Health Services would see a 25% reduction, Substance Use Treatment funding would drop by approximately 13%, and most alarmingly, Substance Use Prevention would be nearly eliminated with a staggering 92% cut.

The proposal would eliminate 17 mental health programs and 23 substance use prevention and treatment programs. Harm reduction services, which are critical in preventing overdose deaths and the transmission of infectious diseases such as hepatitis C virus (HCV), are particularly targeted for cuts. The proposed budget would also end the Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinic program, which provides 24-hour crisis services regardless of patients' ability to pay.

As STAT News reports, "We continue to face a mental health and addictions crisis, and the need for effective federal leadership is more important than ever." These cuts come at a time when more than one in four people will experience a mental health or substance use problem, and over 209,000 Americans die annually from alcohol, suicide, and drug overdoses.

Rural Health and Access to Care

Rural communities would bear a disproportionate burden from the proposed budget cuts through the elimination of numerous programs specifically designed to support rural healthcare infrastructure. As detailed in the leaked document, the budget would eliminate State Offices of Rural Health, which coordinate statewide efforts to improve healthcare delivery in rural areas. The Washington Post reports that rural hospital flexibility grants, rural residency development programs, and at-risk rural hospitals program grants would all face elimination or significant cuts.

Additionally, critical telehealth funding would be eliminated at a time when remote healthcare services have become essential lifelines for rural populations. These programs have historically enjoyed strong bipartisan support due to their critical role in maintaining healthcare access for the approximately 60 million Americans living in rural areas.

Alan Morgan, CEO of the National Rural Health Association said, "Those are essential to ensuring access to care for rural Americans and critical to keeping rural hospitals open. If that would come to fruition it would be absolute shocking news, because these programs have had such bipartisan support."

The Advisory Board notes that these cuts would exacerbate the already fragile state of rural healthcare, where over 150 rural hospitals have closed since 2010, leaving many communities without access to emergency and essential medical services.

340B Program and Healthcare Costs

Amid the sweeping cuts to safety-net programs, the leaked budget also proposes significant changes to the 340B Drug Pricing Program, which provides discounted medications to hospitals and clinics serving vulnerable populations. HFES reports that the administration is "seeking new authority to regulate 'all aspects of the 340B Program'" and would require covered entities to report on their use of 340B savings.

According to Health Exec, the proposal would require facilities to "charge no more than the actual cost of acquiring and dispensing drugs to low-income patients." While greater transparency might be beneficial, these changes—combined with cuts to other safety-net programs—could restrict access to affordable medications for people living with HIV, hepatitis, and other chronic conditions who rely on safety-net providers participating in the 340B program.

Conclusion

Unlike during Trump's first term when Congress often rejected deep cuts to health agencies, the current political landscape offers much less hope for meaningful congressional pushback. Under the GOP-controlled Congress, recent reports show Republicans largely falling in line behind Trump's initiatives, with Reuters reporting that the president is "testing the U.S. Constitution's system of checks and balances" while congressional Republicans demonstrate "staunch support." This legislative acquiescence has extended to health policy, with little effective opposition to the administration's sweeping restructuring of federal health agencies.

Further complicating advocacy efforts, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has eliminated a key avenue for public input by rescinding a 54-year-old policy that required public comment periods for rules on grants, benefits, and other health programs. This change, which came despite Kennedy's promises of "radical transparency," allows HHS to implement major policy changes without seeking feedback from affected communities, healthcare providers, or advocacy organizations.

In this environment, traditional advocacy approaches must evolve. In the absence of congressional intervention, our energy may be better spent:

1. Forming coalitions between patient groups, healthcare providers, private business, and public health organizations to amplify impact

2. Considering support for legal challenges to health policy changes implemented without adequate review

3. Carefully documenting and publicizing the real-world impacts of cuts to HIV services and other critical programs

4. Engaging with state officials who may have flexibility in implementing federal changes

5. Making use of remaining public comment opportunities when available, with a focus on evidence-based arguments

The proposed dismantling of federal HIV infrastructure represents an existential threat to decades of progress. While the political headwinds are strong, our collective advocacy efforts remain essential to protecting the health services that millions of Americans depend on.