ASPPH submitted written testimony to the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies outlining priorities for Fiscal Year (FY) 2027 public health funding. Building on prior advocacy, ASPPH calls for sustained and robust federal investment to support academic public health institutions and their critical role in advancing research, prevention, and workforce development nationwide.

 What’s happening:

• The testimony urges Congress to fully fund key federal public health agencies, including at least $51.3 billion for the National Institutes of Health (NIH), $11.5 billion for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and $10.5 billion for the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA). It also highlights the importance of sustained support for programs and policies such as the CDC’s Prevention Research Centers (PRC), HRSA’s Public Health Training Centers (PHTC), and limiting caps on indirect costs at NIH, among other priorities.
• In addition, ASPPH emphasizes the need for continued investment in public health workforce development, healthcare delivery research, global health initiatives, and disease elimination efforts, including a proposed national initiative to eliminate hepatitis C.

Why this matters for academic public health:

• Federal investment in public health directly enables academic institutions to lead cutting-edge research, train the next generation of the workforce, and translate scientific discoveries into effective community-based interventions. 
• Academic public health programs rely heavily on federal funding streams through NIH, CDC, and HRSA to maintain research pipelines, support faculty and students, and operate programs that address pressing public health challenges.
• The House plans to mark up the FY 27 Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies bill in early June, with the subcommittee markup on June 5 and the full committee markup on June 9.

Last Thursday, the Trump administration announced a new slate of leadership for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), including the nomination of former Deputy Surgeon General Erica Schwartz as CDC Director. The announcement follows a series of leadership changes at the agency and comes at a time of broader shifts in federal public health policy and governance. The new appointments signal a continued reshaping of CDC leadership and direction.

 What’s happening:

• President Trump nominated Dr. Erica Schwartz, who previously served as Deputy Surgeon General, to lead CDC, citing her experience in national preparedness and coordination during the COVID-19 response.
• Additional senior leadership appointments include healthcare executive Sean Slovenski, Texas health commissioner Jen Shuford, and senior Food and Drug Administration (FDA) official Sara Brenner.
• The announcement follows multiple leadership transitions at CDC over the past year, including the removal of the previous director and a period of interim leadership.

Why it matters for academic public health:

• Leadership changes at CDC can influence national public health priorities, funding decisions, and partnerships that directly impact academic public health institutions.
• Stability and direction at CDC are critical for coordinating research, workforce development, and public health practice efforts that schools and programs rely on to train the next generation of public health professionals.

Last Thursday, Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. testified before Congress, defending his policy agenda and the Trump administration’s proposed FY27 budget. The hearing highlighted sharp partisan divides over vaccine policy, public health priorities, and significant proposed reductions to HHS funding. Lawmakers raised concerns about both the administration’s policy direction and its implications for public health programs and research.

 What’s happening:

• Secretary Kennedy defended the administration’s health agenda, emphasizing efforts to address chronic disease and promote changes to nutrition and public health policy.
• Democratic lawmakers questioned Kennedy on vaccine policy decisions, rising cases of vaccine-preventable diseases, and the rollback of public health messaging campaigns. Republican lawmakers questioned the Secretary's intentions to prioritize prevention, reduce costs, and combat fraud.
• The hearing also focused on the administration’s proposed FY27 budget, which includes approximately $16 billion in cuts to HHS, as well as potential restructuring efforts such as the proposed Administration for a Healthy America (AHA).

Why it matters for academic public health:

• Proposed funding reductions and agency restructuring could impact research funding, workforce programs, and public health infrastructure that academic institutions rely on for training and innovation.
• Ongoing debates over vaccine policy and public health messaging may affect trust in public health institutions and complicate efforts to advance evidence-based practice and population health outcomes.
• Secretary Kennedy will testify in multiple Senate committee meetings this week. The full schedule can be viewed here.

A bipartisan group of members of Congress sent a letter to House appropriators urging at least $11.581 billion in Fiscal Year (FY) 2027 funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), reinforcing the agency’s critical role in protecting the nation’s health. The request comes as policymakers debate the future of federal public health funding, with competing visions for CDC investment and structure. Notably, the congressional funding request aligns with ASPPH’s FY27 recommendation of $11.581 billion for CDC.

 What’s happening:

• Lawmakers called on the House Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee to provide no less than $11.581 billion for CDC programs in FY27, emphasizing the need for stable and sustained investment.
• The letter highlights CDC’s wide-ranging responsibilities, including infectious disease response, chronic disease prevention, environmental health, injury and violence prevention, and strengthening public health infrastructure and workforce capacity.
• This funding request differs significantly from the President’s FY27 budget proposal, which would reduce CDC funding, consolidate programs across agencies into a new Administration for a Healthy America (AHA), and eliminate select public health programs.

Why it matters for academic public health:

• The alignment between congressional leaders and ASPPH on a $11.581 billion funding level underscores a shared recognition of the need to strengthen the nation’s public health infrastructure and workforce pipeline.
• Proposed restructuring under AHA and program eliminations could disrupt CDC-supported training, research, and community-based initiatives that academic public health institutions rely on to educate and prepare the workforce.

Senate Democrats introduced legislation to overturn a Trump administration rule modifying the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program, setting up a potential congressional vote on the policy. The effort reflects growing concern about how the rule could affect eligibility for public service workers across sectors. The resolution is being advanced under the Congressional Review Act, allowing for expedited consideration.

 What’s happening:

• Senators Tim Kaine (D-VA), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), and Cory Booker (D-NJ) introduced a Congressional Review Act resolution to repeal the Department of Education’s (ED) rule changing PSLF eligibility criteria.
• The rule restricts eligibility for organizations deemed to have a “substantial illegal purpose,” a definition critics argue is overly broad and could exclude certain nonprofit and service organizations.
• The resolution has 24 co-sponsors and would require 30 signatures to advance to the Senate floor, with a companion effort underway in the House.

Why it matters for academic public health:

• Changes to PSLF eligibility could impact graduates working in public health, nonprofit, and community-based organizations that rely on loan forgiveness to support workforce recruitment and retention.
• In parallel, ASPPH recently led a letter with other partner organizations raising concerns about the ED’s Accreditation, Innovation, and Modernization (AIM) rulemaking process, specifically the lack of voting representation for health professions accreditors. The letter emphasizes that excluding these voices risks weakening policies that shape education quality and workforce preparedness.

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.