‘A Significant Assault on Our Health’: Healthcare Policy Leaders Condemn Trump’s Budget Proposal Leave a comment

To some, President Donald Trump’s budget proposal might be adding an insult to an injury.

Last year, the federal government made significant cuts to healthcare coverage in Medicaid via the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (H.R. 1). Now, Trump is proposing even steeper cuts to the healthcare system in his fiscal year 2027 budget proposal, leading to outrage among healthcare policy experts.

“On the heels of the massive and historic cuts in H.R. 1, President Trump is doubling down on severe cuts to health care. … It’s a significant assault on our health, both keeping folks healthy and the services they get when they get sick,” said Anthony Wright, executive director of Families USA, in an interview. Families USA is a patient advocacy organization.

Overall, the budget requests $111.1 billion for the Department of Health and Human Services, a $15.8 billion or 12.5% decrease from 2026. Trump’s budget proposal includes:

• A $5 billion cut to the National Institutes of Health, as well as an elimination of the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, which leads scientific research to improve minority health
• $5 billion in cuts to Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) and Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health (OASH) programs
• $356 million cut to the Agency for Strategic Preparedness and Response, which helps hospitals prepare for pandemics
• $129 million cut to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, which is focused on improving health outcomes and patient safety

There are “modest” investments in areas like nutrition, but they are small compared to the scale of cuts in the proposal, according to Wright. For example, it suggests investing $19 million to expand access to nutrition services at health centers, as well as $57 million to strengthen national nutritional and food safety by removing unsafe chemicals in the food supply.

The reactions from several health leaders outlined below highlight concerns about the potential impact on employers, veterans, patients with infectious diseases and mental health conditions, and the future of medical research.

One executive at the Legal Action Center (LAC) said that the potential negative impact of the budget proposal is significant, especially when combined with other actions by this administration, such as the Medicaid cuts.

“The President’s proposed 2027 budget and its cuts to SAMHSA, alongside the looming cuts to Medicaid enacted by last year’s federal reconciliation bill, threaten to destabilize the national system that supports lifesaving treatment and harm reduction services proven to reduce fatal overdose, support long-term recovery, and reduce the spread of infectious disease,” said Teresa Miller, LAC’s national director of health initiatives.

Another leader from an employer advocacy organization echoed these comments, stating that the budget raises serious concerns about the future of healthcare programs.

“As a veteran, I know firsthand how critical these benefits are — and any significant cuts to federal health research and health programs would have real, lasting consequences for patients, employers and the broader workforce,” said Jenny Goins, chief of staff of the National Alliance of Healthcare Purchasers Coalition. “Employers cannot absorb additional strain on an already challenged healthcare system—these decisions must prioritize both patient care and workforce stability.”

The American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network (ACS CAN) is particularly concerned about how the proposed cuts to the NIH would harm cancer research.

“Less resources have a far-reaching impact on our nationwide biomedical research eco-system by slowing breakthroughs, reducing grants and stalling progress against rising cancer cases,” said Lisa Lacasse, president of ACS CAN.

Lacasse added that keeping National Cancer Institute funding level doesn’t match medical inflation and could delay progress in prevention, early detection and treatment.

What’s ahead

Just because the budget is proposed, doesn’t mean Congress will necessarily ratify it as proposed. 

The president’s budget proposal is a recommendation to Congress that outlines the administration’s priorities. The House and Senate will create their own budget resolutions, which they reconcile into a single framework, and pass funding bills that must be approved by both chambers. Congress then sends those bills to the president to sign or veto.

Several advocacy organizations are calling on Congress to reject Trump’s proposal. He proposed a similar one last year, which was not adopted by Congress.

“Congress demonstrated an unwavering commitment to the fight against cancer by working together across party lines to approve a budget for FY26 that invested in hope, science and saving lives,” Lacasse of ACS CAN said.

However, there is also the budget reconciliation process, which is a fast-track way for Congress to pass major budget-related changes. It can be passed on partisan lines with only 51 votes instead of the usual 60. This process has been used in the past to enact significant healthcare policy changes, including changes to Medicaid.

“I hope that a bipartisan budget that is passed does not include these cuts but I am very concerned about what a budget reconciliation package that is only passed on partisan lines would include,” Wright of Families USA said. “They made the biggest cuts in the history of Medicaid last year under budget reconciliation, passed on partisan lines. There are many in party leadership who have said that they want to make additional cuts to healthcare. I think that’s of great concern and alarm.”

Photo: TimAbramowitz, Getty Images