Lead
On Feb. 9, 2026, documents reviewed by The New York Times show the Trump administration plans to rescind roughly $600 million in public-health grants to programs in California, Colorado, Illinois and Minnesota. The funds, administered through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and appropriated by Congress, support state and local health departments and partner organizations for activities that range from outbreak response to targeted prevention work. The decision affects a mix of unspent infrastructure dollars and active grants, with many awards aimed at HIV and sexually transmitted infection prevention. The administration says the grants are being cut because they do not match agency priorities.
Key Takeaways
- Approximately $600 million in CDC-administered grants are slated for rescission across four Democratic-led states: California, Colorado, Illinois and Minnesota.
- Nearly two-thirds of the total sum is reported to be unspent funds allocated to state and local public health departments in California.
- About two dozen of the affected grants target HIV and other sexually transmitted infection prevention and surveillance programs.
- Notable partner cuts include $7.2 million to the American Medical Association in Illinois and $5.2 million to Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago for HIV prevention work.
- Some rescissions will be finalized within days and others over coming weeks, per the documents shared with congressional committees.
- The HHS/CDC rationale cites a mismatch with agency priorities; critics warn cuts could weaken response amid active outbreaks.
Background
The grants in question are part of the array of funding streams the CDC channels to states and local partners for public-health infrastructure, workforce, data modernization and disease-control programs. Congress previously appropriated these funds for specific fiscal-year uses; many awards remain tied to measurable activities such as hiring staff, modernizing data systems and running prevention programs. Over recent years, the CDC has refined and publicized its program priorities; a recent update emphasized shifting away from some programs focused on conditions that disproportionately affect particular populations.
Large infrastructure grants previously drew scrutiny across administrations for how priorities were set and measured, and the HHS review of a separate $5 billion infrastructure pool earlier this year underscored that tension; that pause was lifted within 24 hours. The affected states — California, Colorado, Illinois and Minnesota — are governed by Democratic executives and have large public-health networks that rely on federal awards to sustain local programs. Partner organizations receiving smaller awards include hospitals, academic centers and community-focused nonprofits that deliver targeted services.
Main Event
Documents shared with congressional committees on Feb. 9 list roughly $600 million of CDC-administered grants identified for termination because HHS determined they are “inconsistent with agency priorities.” The rescissions cover both funds that remain unspent and active grants to state and local health departments, with implementation staggered: some cuts will be finalized within days, others over the coming weeks. Federal officials informed affected states and partner organizations as the review moved forward.
Among named partner reductions are $7.2 million to the American Medical Association in Illinois supporting gender-affirming services for minors, $5.2 million to Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago to expand HIV prevention therapy among Black women, $876,000 to the Prevention Research Center at UCSF for reducing social isolation among older LGBTQ adults, and $371,000 to Colorado Health Network to engage Latino and African American men who have sex with men. State- and local-level award totals were not fully itemized in the documents released to committees.
HHS officials framed the terminations as alignment decisions. A department spokesman said the grants were being ended for failing to reflect agency priorities. State health officials and local partners responded with concern about immediate program disruptions and the administrative burden of losing appropriated funds mid-cycle, especially for ongoing outbreak response and prevention initiatives.
Analysis & Implications
Practically, rescinding appropriated funds creates operational gaps for health departments that budget around expected federal awards. For programs that depend on multi-year commitments, abrupt termination can force layoffs, interrupt testing and surveillance, and slow data modernization projects. In California, where a large share of the funds remain unspent, state officials will need to reconcile federal rescissions with local spending plans, potentially reallocating state resources or delaying projects.
The cuts also carry political implications. The four affected states are led by Democrats, and the selective targeting of grants tied to certain populations has raised accusations that policy choices are being driven by partisan or ideological priorities rather than epidemiologic need. The administration argues priority-setting is a routine feature of program management, but the optics of rescinding congressionally appropriated awards invite congressional scrutiny and possible legal challenges.
Public-health preparedness may be affected during an active season of vaccine-preventable and other infectious-disease threats. Experts warn that trimming infrastructure and prevention budgets can reduce surge capacity and surveillance sensitivity, increasing the risk of delayed detection. The rescissions could also alter relationships between federal agencies and community-based partners who depend on predictable funding streams to serve medically underserved groups.
Comparison & Data
| Recipient | Purpose (short) | Amount |
|---|---|---|
| American Medical Association (IL) | Supports gender-affirming services for minors | $7.2 million |
| Lurie Children’s Hospital (Chicago) | Increase HIV prevention therapy among Black women | $5.2 million |
| UCSF Prevention Research Center | Reduce social isolation among older LGBTQ adults | $876,000 |
| Colorado Health Network Inc. | Engage Latino and African American MSM | $371,000 |
| Subtotal (listed partners) | $13.647 million | |
| Total identified rescissions | ~$600 million |
The table lists partner-specific reductions disclosed in the documents; those items account for a small fraction of the roughly $600 million total, which includes large state and local public-health awards. Compared with the overall pool of CDC grants to states (which runs into the billions annually), the rescinded $600 million is significant for affected jurisdictions and programs but represents a fraction of nationwide public-health spending. The concentration of unspent funds in California means the state faces a larger budgetary adjustment than other jurisdictions.
Reactions & Quotes
HHS and agency officials offered brief public explanations while state and public-health leaders pushed back on the timing and rationale of the cuts.
“These grants are being terminated because they do not reflect agency priorities.”
HHS spokesman (official statement)
HHS framed the move as a reprioritization; the statement accompanied the documents delivered to congressional committees and agency guidance changes on program focus. The department points to a review of prior funding decisions and a desire to align awards with current stated objectives.
“It is concerning that H.H.S. is cutting public health funding to local communities that cover core functions in the middle of a measles outbreak and other health threats.”
Dr. Deb Houry (former CDC chief medical officer)
Dr. Houry, who resigned from the CDC in August, warned that the rescissions plus prior staffing reductions at the federal level could reduce preparedness. Public-health leaders cited the timing — during active outbreaks and ongoing surveillance needs — as especially problematic.
“This focus has not translated into measurable improved health for minority populations, and in many cases has undermined core American values.”
CDC website language describing revised priorities (agency)
The CDC’s public guidance, revised in September, emphasizes a shift away from programs that target diseases predominantly affecting particular groups. That language has been cited by administration officials to justify the review and termination of specified awards.
Unconfirmed
- Whether additional states beyond California, Colorado, Illinois and Minnesota will face similar rescissions in the coming months is not yet confirmed.
- The documents do not fully itemize the state-by-state dollar breakdown for all rescinded awards; total per-state figures beyond the examples given have not been publicly verified.
- Motivations beyond the stated agency-priority rationale—such as political targeting of specific programs—are asserted by some critics but have not been established by independent evidence.
Bottom Line
The planned rescission of roughly $600 million in CDC-administered grants to four states represents a material reallocation of federally appropriated public-health resources, with immediate operational implications for local health departments and community partners. While the administration says the terminations align awards with current priorities, the cuts include programs focused on HIV prevention and services for marginalized groups, prompting concern from public-health leaders about capacity during ongoing outbreaks.
In the coming weeks, affected states and organizations will face decisions about reallocating resources, pursuing administrative remedies or seeking congressional intervention. Policymakers and public-health officials should monitor program continuity indicators—staffing, testing and surveillance metrics—to assess the practical effects of the rescissions and to identify where shortfalls could produce measurable public-health harms.
Sources
- The New York Times (news report)
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (federal agency)
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (federal health agency)
- Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago (hospital partner)