This week kicked off with the Trump Administration announcing plans to take back $600 million in funding already approved for HIV and health programs to four Democratic-led states: California, Colorado, Illinois and Minnesota. By Wednesday, February 11, the states sued the administration, reports the Associated Press. The next day, a federal judge temporarily blocked the Trump White House from moving forward with the cuts.
Specifically, according to Reuters, District Judge Manish Shah in Chicago issued an order that prevents the White House from rescinding the funding for 14 days while the lawsuit against the cuts moves forward. The judge said it was likely a lawsuit by the four states could show that the cuts amounted to retaliation for being viewed as against Trump and his immigration policies.
The $600 million in cuts were first reported after the Department of Health and Human Services informed Congress it would withhold the money. The funding cuts were to come from grants already approved by Congress for health programs in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which is an agency within the HHS, reports the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy.
Many of the grants support efforts to prevent HIV and sexually transmitted infections (STI), including programs to promote pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), a highly effective prevention available as daily pills and long-acting injectables. Several programs target HIV prevention among minority communities that see disproportionate rates of HIV, including Black women, transgender people, Black men who have sex with men, and other gay and bisexual men. These communities have previously been targeted by the Trump administration under its efforts to end so-called DEI programs, or those that promote diversity, equity and inclusion.
When the cuts were first announced, advocates immediately condemned them. Anna K. Person, MD, chair of the HIV Medicine Association, said the reports of slashed funding to HIV surveillance and prevention were “deeply troubling.” She added, “Many of the grants under scrutiny aim to expand access to HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis or PrEP — one of the most effective tools we have to prevent HIV and a strategy the Administration itself has identified as central to ending the HIV epidemic.”
The Save HIV Funding campaign—a partnership of several leading AIDS groups included PrEP4All, AVAC and the HIV Medicine Association—also spoke out against the White House. In a press release, the Save HIV Funding campaign wrote:
The grant cancellations also would undermine essential STI programs at a moment when the U.S. has seen a 750% increase in congenital syphilis cases since 2012 — a dangerous condition that can result in lifelong complications and death for newborns.
While the decision to target Minnesota, Illinois, Colorado and California — four Democrat-led states — appears rooted in partisan politics, infectious disease outbreaks do not respect state lines. Recent measles outbreaks in multiple states underscore how quickly public health threats spread regardless of jurisdictional boundaries and political ideologies. We strongly support the decision by the four state attorneys general to file suit in an effort to halt the cancellation of HIV, STI, and other public health grants, and we urge the Administration to immediately reverse a decision that will worsen health outcomes in red and blue states alike. The Save HIV Funding Campaign also rejects the Administration’s attempt to frame prevention grants that focus on key populations as ineffective.
“It’s common sense for any public health initiative to tailor its response to the communities most in need of testing and preventive services,” writes Jeremiah Johnson, executive director of PrEP4All and cofounder of Save HIV Funding Campaign. “There is a long history of funding targeted programs because they work — CDC-funded initiatives consistently and disproportionately benefit communities that would otherwise be left out of the national HIV and STD response. This approach is neither radical nor biased. American companies do this every day; they conduct population-specific focus groups and targeted marketing research to ensure their messaging reaches the audiences they intend to serve. Public health should be no different.”
