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:
Forming coalitions between patient groups, healthcare providers, private business, and public health organizations to amplify impact
Considering support for legal challenges to health policy changes implemented without adequate review
Carefully documenting and publicizing the real-world impacts of cuts to HIV services and other critical programs
Engaging with state officials who may have flexibility in implementing federal changes
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.
Mixed Signals: Trump's Drug Policy Undermines Its Own Goals
Last week, STAT News obtained the Trump administration's new drug policy statement, revealing a contradictory approach to the addiction crisis. The three-page "Statement of Drug Policy Priorities" combines harsh criminal penalties with support for addiction treatment, medication-based approaches, and even fentanyl test strips — harm reduction tools actively opposed during Trump's first term.
While pledging the "harshest available penalties" for those selling drugs causing overdose deaths, it also advocates increasing naloxone availability and supporting medications for opioid use disorder. This policy emerges as overdose deaths have begun declining under the Biden administration's public health approach, with fatal overdoses dropping 14.5% over the last year, though still claiming approximately 96,000 American lives annually.
The policy's implementation faces a significant obstacle: days before its release, the administration began massive layoffs across health agencies responsible for addiction response and data collection.
Understanding the New Policy Document
The Trump Administration's drug policy document sets out six key priorities: reducing overdose fatalities, securing the global drug supply chain, stopping drug flow across borders, preventing drug use before it starts, providing treatment leading to long-term recovery, and using data to inform strategy.
While the previous Trump administration actively opposed fentanyl test strips, with one official even writing a blog post cautioning against the "temptation to develop seemingly quick solutions," this new document specifically states that the administration will "encourage state and local jurisdictions to increase the availability of drug test strips and naloxone to mitigate the impact of deadly drugs on communities across the country."
The document also uses terminology like "medications for opioid use disorder" rather than "medication-assisted treatment," reflecting evolution in the addiction medicine field's preferred language. However, these statements appear alongside more forceful enforcement-focused language about bringing distributors to "justice" and pursuing "harshest available penalties" against those who sell fentanyl resulting in overdose deaths.
This policy juxtaposition reflects an ongoing tension within U.S. drug policy between public health and criminal justice approaches—a tension that has persisted through multiple administrations regardless of political party.
RFK Jr.'s Privileged Recovery Shapes Policy
Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s substance use history significantly influences his policy perspective. Kennedy has been open about his 14-year struggle with heroin beginning at age 15, crediting his recovery to faith and 12-step programs — approaches now informing his recommendations.
Kennedy's advocacy for "wellness farms" where "American kids can reconnect to America's soil" reflects his personal journey but ignores that his wealth and status provided treatment access unavailable to most Americans facing addiction. Despite his history, Kennedy has shown skepticism toward evidence-based medical treatments, suggesting government should provide "a bottom" for people who use drugs — essentially favoring coerced treatment over voluntary healthcare pathways.
Enforcement vs. Treatment: Unbalanced Priorities
The administration heavily emphasizes enforcement over treatment. During the campaign, Trump promised to crack down on fentanyl smugglers, secure the border, and execute drug dealers. This mentality appears in the policy document's focus on "harshest available penalties" and "disrupting the supply chain."
Border czar Tom Homan has even threatened military action against Mexican cartels, stating the administration will use "the full might of the United States special operations to take them out." Drug policy researcher Jonathan Caulkins called such military action "the worst idea anyone has ever had," noting illegal supply chains easily rebuild after enforcement actions.
Meanwhile, evidence suggests the Biden Administration's public health approach contributed to the recent 14.5% drop in overdose deaths through expanded access to medications like buprenorphine and naloxone—interventions with stronger evidence of effectiveness than enforcement-only approaches.
Workforce Cuts Undermine Data Commitment
The administration's commitment to data-driven policy faces immediate challenges. On April 1, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) began layoffs cutting approximately 10,000 positions—25% of the department's workforce. Among those laid off was the entire team responsible for the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, a 50-year-old survey providing crucial data on substance use patterns.
Senior leaders at agencies critical to addiction response were let go or reassigned, including Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA)'s Office of Recovery staff, which had developed strategies to reduce overdose deaths. This dismantling of expertise contradicts the policy's stated goals of prioritizing "continuous collection and analysis of accurate, timely, and relevant data."
Medicaid Cuts Threaten Treatment Access
The most glaring contradiction is the proposed $880 billion cut to Medicaid over the next decade. Medicaid is the largest payer for addiction treatment in America, covering approximately 35% of all people treated for opioid use disorder, with over 1.82 million people receiving treatment through the program.
In New Hampshire, 82% of Medicaid enrollees with opioid use disorder receive medication-assisted treatment. Studies show Medicaid enrollees receiving buprenorphine are more likely to become employed, have shorter job searches, and earn more than those not receiving treatment.
The proposed cuts would severely undermine treatment access. Data from the Kaiser Family Foundation shows spending for Medicaid enrollees with substance use disorders is twice as high as for those without—about $1,200 versus $550 per month—making them particularly vulnerable to coverage reductions.
Leadership Without Expertise
The nomination of Sara Carter to lead the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) further illustrates the disconnect between stated priorities and implementation. Carter, a Fox News contributor with no background in drug policy, public health, or government, would coordinate the nation's response to substance use disorders.
This contrasts sharply with her predecessor, Dr. Rahul Gupta, a physician and former health commissioner with extensive public health experience. Project 2025, a policy blueprint embraced by the administration, advocates for reducing ONDCP's influence by transferring its grant programs to other departments.
Harm Reduction Under Threat
Despite its surprising shift to support fentanyl test strips—tools that can detect the presence of fentanyl in other substances and were explicitly opposed by the previous Trump Administration—the policy document notably avoids using the term "harm reduction." This telling omission reflects ongoing ideological resistance to comprehensive harm reduction strategies.
The document's limited endorsement of test strips and naloxone creates uncertainty for organizations like OnPoint NYC, which has reversed over 1,700 overdoses since 2021 through more comprehensive supervised consumption services. The first Trump administration actively opposed such services, with the Department of Justice suing to prevent a site from opening in Philadelphia.
The current policy's silence on supervised consumption, coupled with Kennedy's "tough love" approach, suggests harm reduction organizations may face increased legal challenges despite clear evidence that such services save lives without increasing drug use or crime in surrounding communities. This selective adoption of certain harm reduction tools while potentially undermining broader evidence-based approaches highlights the administration's fundamentally punitive orientation to substance use.
Same War, Different Rhetoric
The Trump administration's drug policy represents a mixed approach, pairing traditional "war on drugs" enforcement strategies with acknowledgment of some evidence-based interventions. Its support for fentanyl test strips and recognition of medications for opioid use disorder marks a meaningful evolution from the previous administration's stance, potentially saving lives if implemented properly.
However, this progress exists alongside troubling contradictions: promising data-driven strategies while firing the researchers who collect data; advocating for treatment while proposing deep Medicaid cuts that would devastate access; and endorsing overdose prevention while appointing leadership without relevant expertise. This disconnect between words and implementation capacity raises serious concerns.
Since 1971, America has spent well over a trillion dollars on enforcement-first drug policies that have filled prisons without reducing substance use disorders. The results speak for themselves: overdose deaths have continued to climb for decades, with entrenched racial disparities in enforcement and inadequate treatment resources in many communities.
The inclusion of fentanyl test strips and medication support represents a positive step, but cannot overcome fundamental structural barriers created by workforce reductions and funding cuts. After decades of evidence showing what works—and what doesn't—in addressing substance use disorders, we need policies that match rhetoric with resources. Only time will tell whether this administration can reconcile its contradictory approaches to deliver meaningful improvements in America's response to addiction.