The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)’s FY 2025 operating plan and released all remaining funds, following the FY 2024 appropriations structure. This decision ends months of uncertainty caused by the continuing resolution and potential rescissions. With funding now unlocked, the CDC will move quickly to award the remaining FY 2025 funds, ensuring critical support for Prevention Research Centers (PRCs), Injury Control Research Centers (ICRCs), and other key public health initiatives. PRCs, based at academic public health institutions, play a vital role in conducting applied research, developing community-based interventions, and addressing health disparities nationwide. The funding comes at a pivotal moment for the agency, following the permanent layoff of 600 CDC employees as part of broader staffing reductions announced last week, which have heightened concerns about the agency’s long-term capacity to support critical public health programs.

Key Funding Areas:

• Chronic Disease & Injury Prevention: Funding will support PRCs, tobacco control, nutrition, school health, diabetes, oral health, social determinants of health, firearm injury prevention research, youth violence prevention, adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), core injury grants to states, and ICRCs.

Advocacy’s Impact:

• Congressional outreach played a critical role in unlocking these funds. If your school contacted Members of Congress to help move this forward, consider sending them a thank-you note, as this success underscores that advocacy works. With the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education (Labor-HHS-Ed) appropriations bill expected to be marked up in the House subcommittee after Congress returns from recess in September, now more than ever is the time to continue advocating for academic public health to ensure sustained funding and support for critical programs in FY 2026. 

The Supreme Court voted 5-4 to allow the Trump administration to block more than 1,700 National Institutes of Health (NIH) health research grants it claims promote diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) or “gender ideology extremism.” The ruling lets the administration withhold nearly $783 million in funding while legal challenges continue, impacting research on HIV/AIDS, Alzheimer’s, heart disease, substance abuse, and mental health.

Key Details of the Ruling:

• The decision overturned a lower court order requiring the NIH to restore funding. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the liberal justices in dissent, while Justice Amy Coney Barrett sided with conservatives to allow the halt but indicated grantees should pursue claims in the US Court of Federal Claims.

• Nearly $783 million in federal funding remains frozen, affecting studies focused on health disparities and impacts on minority and LGBTQ+ populations. Legal experts warn the ruling could delay or derail critical public health research while litigation continues.

The U.S. Department of Education’s implementation of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBB) could have significant, long-term impacts on the public health workforce. As drafted, core public health degrees (MPH, DrPH, and equivalents) are not clearly recognized as “professional degrees.” Without this recognition, students may lose access to federal financial aid, threatening both their education and the future pipeline of trained professionals.

ASPPH’s Advocacy:

• ASPPH formally submitted comments urging the Department to explicitly include MPH, DrPH, and equivalent degrees in the definition of “professional degree programs” to protect students’ access to critical financial aid. We have asked our member institutions to submit their own comments by today’s deadline.
• ASPPH also called for improvements, including clearer loan limit guidance, updated Pell Grant packaging rules, and inclusion of public health experts on rulemaking committees to ensure equitable policy implementation.

• Without policy changes, students pursuing public health degrees could face financial barriers that may limit the development of a diverse and well-prepared workforce.
• Ensuring recognition of these degrees and supporting students’ financial access is vital to sustaining a strong, equitable public health pipeline prepared to meet future challenges.

ASPPH is proud to support the recently introduced Plastic Health Research Act, a bipartisan effort led by Representative Haley Stevens (D-MI). ASPPH collaborated closely with her office to ensure academic public health is central to the bill, which could open new opportunities for ASPPH members to receive environmental health research funding through the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

ASPPH’s Role and Support:

• ASPPH worked directly with Rep. Haley Stevens’ office to secure a prominent role for academic public health in the legislation, positioning members to benefit from expanded research funding opportunities.
• In the bill’s announcement, ASPPH President and CEO Dr. Laura Magaña highlighted the Act as a meaningful step forward in advancing science-based strategies to protect public health in a challenging political climate.

• Aligned with our Climate and Health Task Force, this initiative strengthens science-based strategies to protect communities. The Act would direct the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to establish coordinated research programs, including a grant program for public, nonprofit, or academic institutions and new Centers of Excellence for Plastic Exposure Health Research at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). These initiatives will improve scientific methods, provide high-quality data, and guide evidence-based public health protections.
• At ASPPH, our Climate Change and Health Initiative has shown that environmental exposures significantly influence public health outcomes. This Act will provide the scientific foundation needed to assess these risks and develop evidence-based strategies to protect our communities. We applaud this forward-thinking initiative.

Medical groups and scientists have pushed back on the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. over two major policy decisions: his criticism of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) for recommending COVID-19 vaccines for young children and his move to defund $500 million in mRNA vaccine research. Both issues highlight broader debates over public trust, vaccine policy, and future innovation, all of which impact public health.

Dispute Over Pediatric Vaccine Recommendations:

• The AAP recommends COVID-19 vaccines for children 6 to 23 months, citing continued risks of severe illness and hospitalization. This diverges from the CDC’s May guidance, which dropped universal vaccination for healthy children.
• Kennedy accused the AAP of being influenced by pharmaceutical donations, while the AAP defended its stance, emphasizing that its recommendations are based on science and focused on protecting children’s health.

• Kennedy rescinded $500 million in federal funding for mRNA vaccine research, citing widespread public skepticism of the technology. National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Jay Bhattacharya supported the decision, arguing that low booster uptake shows public trust has eroded.
• Critics warn the funding cuts could slow vaccine innovation and weaken US leadership in future pandemic preparedness. Bhattacharya, however, said the administration is prioritizing alternative vaccine platforms that face fewer barriers to public acceptance.

While we encourage your sharing of our Policy & Advocacy newsletter by forwarding it, those interested in receiving it can also sign up via this form.