THE VBP Blog
Undermining Public Health: How the Administration’s Cuts to CDC and NIH Jeopardize Healthcare
Exploring how recent and proposed reductions to key health agencies threaten disease prevention, medical research, and emergency response.
May 22, 2025 – The strength of America’s public health infrastructure depends on stable investment in the agencies responsible for disease prevention, health surveillance, and medical research. Yet since the start of 2025, the Administration has advanced several proposals and enacted budget changes that directly undercut the nation’s healthcare system. Agencies like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have already seen key programs scaled back, staff reduced, and long-term public health initiatives placed at risk.
While much of the public’s attention remains focused on immediate care needs, and the impending Medicaid cuts that the Administration is currently trying to force through, the behind-the-scenes dismantling of research and prevention infrastructure threatens to weaken the entire healthcare system. In this blog, we examine the most recent actions from the Administration that have undermined core public health agencies in 2025 and what they could mean for our collective health security.
Cuts to the CDC: Eroding Core Public Health Functions
Since the beginning of 2025, the Administration has enacted significant budget reductions at the CDC, leading to the elimination of more than a dozen critical health-tracking programs. These cuts have dismantled surveillance efforts for various public health concerns, including lead poisoning, job-related injuries, youth smoking, and environmental health hazards. The termination of these programs has raised concerns about the nation’s ability to monitor and respond to health trends effectively.
In addition to program eliminations, the CDC has experienced substantial staffing reductions. Approximately 1,300 employees were laid off in the early days of the Administration. In total, with early retirements and layoffs, CDC staffing was slashed by 3,500 to 4,000 employees. These workforce reductions have impaired the agency’s capacity to conduct disease forecasting, manage outbreak responses, and maintain essential public health functions.
The restructuring has also led to the consolidation of various CDC programs into a new entity, the Administration for a Healthy America (AHA). This move has resulted in the elimination of divisions focused on chronic disease prevention, environmental health, and injury prevention, further narrowing the scope of the CDC’s public health mission.
These developments have sparked widespread concern among public health experts, who warn that the weakening of the CDC’s infrastructure could leave the nation vulnerable to emerging health threats and undermine decades of progress in disease prevention and health promotion.
Drastic Cuts to NIH Threaten Health Outcomes
In 2025, the Administration proposed a sweeping 40% cut to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), slashing its budget from $47 billion to $27 billion as part of a broader initiative to reduce non-defense discretionary spending. While Congress has yet to fully approve the proposed reductions, the intention is clear: deprioritize long-term scientific research in favor of short-term savings—despite the profound consequences this would have for public health, innovation, and global competitiveness.
The NIH is the largest public funder of biomedical research in the world, supporting studies that touch virtually every corner of American healthcare—from cancer and Alzheimer’s disease to mental health, rare conditions, and infectious disease preparedness. The proposed budget doesn’t just shrink the agency’s funding; it restructures it entirely. Plans include consolidating NIH’s 27 research institutes into just five, a move that has sparked concern among scientists who fear the loss of critical expertise and specialized focus areas that have taken decades to build.
In addition, all $534 million in funding for the National Institute on Minority and Health Disparities will be terminated due to its DEI nature. The NIMHD plays a critical role in identifying and addressing the root causes of health disparities among racial and ethnic minorities, rural residents, and low-income communities. Eliminating its funding would mean ending research that examines how systemic barriers like poverty, racism, and geography affect health outcomes. Without this work, communities already at higher risk for chronic disease, maternal mortality, and limited healthcare access may face even greater inequities. It would also hinder the development of culturally competent interventions and reduce opportunities for diverse researchers whose perspectives are essential to innovation and equity in healthcare. This decision threatens to widen existing gaps and leave the most vulnerable populations behind.
The damage has already begun. In anticipation of funding losses, Baylor College of Medicine in Houston announced the layoff of 122 employees, warning of an $80 million budget shortfall if the cuts are enacted. NIH-supported institutions across the country are preparing for reduced grant opportunities, meaning clinical trials could be delayed or canceled, early-career scientists might leave the field, and smaller research programs—especially at rural or minority-serving institutions—could disappear entirely.
Administration’s Threat to Medical Research and Innovation
The Administration also imposed a cap on indirect cost reimbursement for NIH-funded research, lowering the allowable rate from 27–28% down to just 15%. These indirect costs are not optional—they cover facility maintenance, utilities, data systems, and the administrative infrastructure that allows science to happen. Experts warn that this policy, combined with the budget cut, could cripple the operational capacity of universities and nonprofit research labs, forcing them to scale back or shut down essential studies.
Even targeted research efforts haven’t been spared. The Administration abruptly canceled a $9 million NIH-funded clinical trial at the University of California, San Francisco that was exploring the impact of guaranteed income on the health and financial stability of low-income Black young adults. NIH officials cited a broader pivot away from diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI)-related work, sending a chilling message to researchers focused on health disparities and structural inequality.
The NIH’s global health efforts are also under threat. Cuts to programs like the Fogarty International Center—dedicated to pandemic preparedness and cross-border disease research—jeopardize the international collaboration necessary to prevent future crises. Reducing investment in this work undermines the very systems that help the U.S. prepare for and respond to emerging threats.
Medical innovation does not happen overnight. It is built through decades of consistent funding, careful inquiry, and community-rooted research. By walking away from that commitment, the Administration risks setting back progress in disease treatment, widening health disparities, and stalling scientific discovery at a time when the country can least afford it.
Withdrawing from the World Health Organization: A Step Backward for Global Health Coordination
The attacks to healthcare don’t just stop at home. In January 2025, the Administration reinitiated efforts to withdraw the United States from the World Health Organization (WHO), signing an Executive Order stating such on Inauguration Day. The decision echoes a similar attempt during the first term that was later reversed, but this time, the Administration appears committed to a full withdrawal. The U.S. is the largest single contributor to the WHO, providing approximately 18% of the organization’s total funding. Walking away not only creates a significant financial gap for global health programs, but it also isolates the U.S. from key health surveillance and emergency response networks.
The WHO plays a central role in coordinating responses to disease outbreaks, managing international vaccination programs, and providing health guidance that influences care standards across the world. Withdrawing from this network comes with serious consequences and risks slowing access to critical data and reducing the country’s ability to track and respond to emerging global threats. Public health experts warn that this decision will make the U.S. less prepared for pandemics, hinder cross-border collaboration, and undermine decades of diplomatic health partnerships.
As with many of the Administration’s recent health policy shifts, this move reflects a troubling trend of stepping away from science, global cooperation, and evidence-based systems that protect lives at home and abroad.
Advocate’s Perspective
The actions of the current Administration point to a broader pattern where public health, scientific research, and international collaboration are being deprioritized at a time when we need them most. These actions come with long-term consequences and will have devastating impacts on health equity, research innovation, and our ability to respond to future crises. Weakening the CDC, slashing NIH funding, eliminating disparities research, and stepping away from the World Health Organization are not just bureaucratic shifts—they are choices that put lives at risk, especially in marginalized communities that already experience the worst health outcomes. We cannot afford to lose decades of hard-won progress, and we remain committed to protecting what matters most: access to science-driven, equitable, and inclusive healthcare for all.
Onward!
The newests offering from XtraGlobex:
Dual-Eligible Headquarters
Dual-eligible programs serve a critical role in the healthcare system, providing integrated care for individuals who qualify for both Medicare and Medicaid. CMS plans to align dual-eligible options by 2030, and we are committed to helping you stay ahead of the changes.
The CarePayments Podcast
A quick-hitting informative discussion about healthcare payment models and how they affect MCOs, Providers, Payers, and Care Recipients with your host Fady Sahhar of XtraGlobex.
Listen to The CarePayments Pod
Share This Blog!
Get even more insights on Linkedin & Twitter
About the Author
Fady Sahhar brings over 30 years of senior management experience working with major multinational companies including Sara Lee, Mobil Oil, Tenneco Packaging, Pactiv, Progressive Insurance, Transitions Optical, PPG Industries and Essilor (France).
His corporate responsibilities included new product development, strategic planning, marketing management, and global sales. He has developed a number of global communications networks, launched products in over 45 countries, and managed a number of branded patented products.
About the Co-Author
Mandy Sahhar provides experience in digital marketing, event management, and business development. Her background has allowed her to get in on the ground floor of marketing efforts including website design, content marketing, and trade show planning. Through her modern approach, she focuses on bringing businesses into the new digital age of marketing through unique approaches and focused content creation. With a passion for communications, she can bring a fresh perspective to an ever-changing industry. Mandy has an MBA with a marketing concentration from Canisius College.