Listen to the article
Four Democratic-led states sued the Trump administration Wednesday to prevent the termination of approximately $600 million in public health grants, claiming the funding cuts represent political retaliation for opposing the president’s immigration policies.
California, Colorado, Illinois, and Minnesota filed the joint lawsuit in federal court in Illinois, arguing that the Department of Health and Human Services’ planned cuts violate the Constitution by imposing retroactive conditions on already allocated funding. According to Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, some grants could be terminated as early as Thursday, with others following in the coming weeks.
“President Trump is resorting to a familiar playbook. He is using federal funding to compel states and jurisdictions to follow his agenda,” said California Attorney General Rob Bonta, whose state faces the largest share of the cuts. “Those efforts have all previously failed, and we expect that to happen once again.”
The health department notified Congress on Monday of its intention to withhold the funds, citing that many of the targeted grants are “inconsistent with agency priorities.” The move comes after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention revised its priorities in September, describing health equity as an “ideologically-laden” concept that “has undermined core American values.”
Several of the largest planned cuts target HIV and sexually transmitted infection prevention programs in Chicago and Los Angeles, particularly those focused on adolescents, ethnic minorities, and gay men. The administration is also targeting a $7.2 million grant for the Chicago-based American Medical Association, specifically noting the organization’s support for gender-affirming care for minors, which a Trump executive order opposes.
Additionally, grants that help states track disease outbreaks and collect public health data utilized by the CDC are on the chopping block. Bonta warned that these cuts will “irreparably harm” public health infrastructure in California.
Illinois Governor JB Pritzker condemned the funding cuts as “a slap in the face” to public health leaders who have stepped up while the Trump administration “takes a sledgehammer to public health infrastructure.”
The administration’s move extends beyond health funding. Similar plans to withdraw hundreds of millions in transportation funding from the same four states have been announced, intensifying concerns about targeted financial pressure on Democratic-led states.
This isn’t the first time the Trump administration has attempted to restrict federal funds to states opposing its policies. Just last week, a federal judge temporarily blocked the administration from cutting off billions in child care subsidies and other social service programs for lower-income people in the same four states plus New York. Courts have similarly intervened in previous attempts to withhold federal funding.
Public health experts warn that the timing of these cuts could be particularly damaging, coming as states continue to rebuild public health systems that were strained during the COVID-19 pandemic. Many of the targeted programs serve vulnerable communities that already face significant health disparities and barriers to care.
The lawsuit highlights growing tensions between the federal government and Democratic-led states as the Trump administration moves to reshape federal funding priorities in its final weeks. State officials argue that the cuts represent an unconstitutional attempt to force compliance with the administration’s policy agenda through financial leverage.
Health department officials did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the lawsuit, but the legal battle is expected to escalate quickly given the imminent termination dates for some grants.
As the case proceeds through the courts, health departments in the affected states are scrambling to develop contingency plans to maintain critical public health services that depend on federal funding, particularly those serving LGBTQ+ communities and communities of color that were specifically highlighted in the administration’s funding cuts.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
9 Comments
It’s concerning to see the federal government potentially withholding critical health funding from states over political disagreements. This seems like a misuse of federal authority that could harm vulnerable populations. I hope the courts rule quickly to protect this vital funding.
This lawsuit highlights the ongoing tensions between the states and the federal administration over policy differences. While I understand the desire for policy alignment, using funding as a political weapon sets a worrying precedent.
You raise a good point. Withholding funds to coerce states into compliance is an abuse of federal power and could have far-reaching consequences for public health programs.
Withholding federal health grants due to political disagreements seems unethical. States should have the freedom to implement policies without fear of funding cuts. I hope the courts rule against this attempt to strong-arm states into compliance.
Agreed. Tying federal funding to political alignment is a dangerous precedent that undermines the balance of power between states and the federal government.
This lawsuit highlights the ongoing tensions between states and the federal government over policy differences. While I understand the administration’s desire for policy alignment, withholding critical health funding is a concerning abuse of federal authority that could harm vulnerable populations.
The withholding of federal health grants due to political disagreements is concerning. States should be able to implement policies without fear of funding retaliation. I hope the courts rule swiftly to protect this vital funding and prevent the federal government from abusing its power.
Agreed. Using federal funding as a political tool to force state compliance is unethical and could have serious consequences for public health programs and the communities they serve.
This is a complex issue with valid arguments on both sides. While I understand the administration’s desire for policy alignment, using funding as a political weapon is problematic and could set a dangerous precedent. Ultimately, the courts will need to weigh the legal merits of this case.