OMB Director Russell Vought (center, behind President Trump) is the lead defendant in a lawsuit brought by four state attorneys general over more than $600 million in cuts to CDC grants announced this week. Homeland Security Sec. Kristi Noem and Interior Sec. Doug Burgum are also pictured in the Oval Office in June 2025.
Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images
It was deja vu from 2025: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention this week announced more than $600 million in cuts to public health grants in California, Illinois, Colorado and Minnesota — four Democratic-led states.
Right away, attorneys general in the affected states filed their lawsuit late Wednesday in a federal district court in Illinois asking for the temporary restraining order.
And the next day, a federal judge blocked the Trump administration’s action with a temporary restraining order released late Thursday.
In an opinion accompanying the order, U.S. District Judge Manish S. Shah wrote that even though the stated reason for the cancellations was that the grants did not align with the priorities of the CDC, “recent statements plausibly suggest that the reason for the direction [to cut the funds] is hostility to what the federal government calls ‘sanctuary jurisdictions’ or ‘sanctuary cities.'”
The whole process aligns with the way the federal government has been operating since President Trump’s second inauguration last year. But the context is new. These grants were not all put in place by a previous, Democratic administration. The $600 million is included in the funding bill that passed with bipartisan support in Congress and was signed into law by Trump himself just weeks ago.
“Integral to keeping people safe”
In Santa Clara County, Calif., the official notice of grant terminations came Thursday morning. “Two large grants that we rely on for core functions in public health to keep people safe and healthy have now been canceled,” says Dr. Sarah Rudman, director of the county’s public health department. “The way these grants are applied throughout our department, they’re integrated with a huge range of activities we sometimes have to do by law and are absolutely integral to keeping people safe.”
As an example, she says, one of the grants pays for a staffer in their public health laboratory. The significance of a particular staff member cannot be overstated, as they play a crucial role in our ability to conduct tests for diseases such as Ebola, anthrax, and measles that most other laboratories are unable to test for. According to Rudman, the continuity of testing for these diseases is currently under immediate threat, although we are not halting these tests at present.
Santa Clara is just one of many local health departments affected by the cancellation of grants. The repercussions of these cuts extend to various public health initiatives, including HIV prevention in Chicago, firearm injury reduction in Denver, and access to affordable, healthy foods in Minneapolis.
The sudden and unexplained nature of federal grant cancellations has left many feeling blindsided. However, the swift intervention of a judge in temporarily halting the cuts has offered some relief. Rudman emphasizes the need for stability and predictability in funding to enable effective planning for the future.
The recent wave of grant cancellations follows a trend that began with the onset of the second Trump administration. The motivations behind these cancellations are called into question, with some speculating that they align with President Trump’s threats to withhold federal payments from certain Democratic-led jurisdictions.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has been implicated in orchestrating these funding cuts, prompting legal action from state attorneys general. The lack of transparency and consistency in these decisions has raised concerns within the public health sector.
The abrupt nature of these grant cancellations has prompted a response from Congress, with efforts made to ensure proper notification and oversight of such actions. The impact of these cuts on public health infrastructure is significant, especially considering the bipartisan support for many of the affected programs.
The three days of notice provided for the grant cancellations allowed for swift legal action from targeted states. This proactive response highlights the bipartisan concern over the potential consequences of these funding cuts on public health initiatives.
Moving forward, the outcome of the legal battle over these grant cancellations remains uncertain. California Attorney General Robert Bonta expresses confidence in a favorable resolution for the states involved, emphasizing the importance of upholding the law in such matters. Rewrite the sentence to make it more clear:
“The students were not sure if they were supposed to submit their homework online or in person.”
“The students were unsure whether they should submit their homework online or in person.”
