President Trump signed a continuing resolution (CR) into law last Wednesday after Congress approved the bipartisan measure, funding the federal government through December 11 and avoiding a government shutdown. The bipartisan measure also preserves Senate language temporarily blocking implementation of the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) proposed federal grants rule, which ASPPH has strongly opposed.
 
What's happening:

• The provision temporarily protects the transparent, predictable, and merit-based federal grantmaking process while preventing the OMB rule from taking effect through December 11. The proposed rule drew nearly 500,000 public comments and significant concern from higher education and other stakeholders about increased political involvement in grantmaking and uncertainty for federal grant recipients.
• The CR continues funding for key public health agencies, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), through December 11. 
• The CR also provides additional time for Congress to negotiate fiscal year (FY) 2027 appropriations, but significant uncertainty remains over when lawmakers will advance and finalize the full-year bills. Negotiations could be further complicated by differences over overall spending levels, including President Trump’s push for a $1.5 trillion defense budget. The December 11 expiration of the CR creates another deadline for Congress to either reach a broader FY 2027 funding agreement or consider another temporary extension.

Why it matters for academic public health:

• Federal grants are essential to public health research, education, workforce development, and community programs. ASPPH is encouraged that Congress preserved language protecting scientific integrity and merit-based grantmaking.
• ASPPH advocated against the proposal through its formal comment letter and member advocacy efforts, including the VoterVoice Advocacy Tool. 
• Because the rule delay is temporary, ASPPH will continue advocating for a long-term federal grantmaking process that remains transparent, predictable, and merit-based.

Federal and Pennsylvania health officials are at odds over two measles-associated deaths reported amid the state’s growing outbreak. Over the weekend, one of the two deaths was confirmed to be caused by measles. The dispute comes as 2,903 measles cases have been reported nationwide this year and raises questions about coordination and trust between federal, state, and local public health agencies.
 
What's happening:

• Following federal officials' public questioning of the reported deaths, the Lancaster County coroner's office confirmed that one of the two suspected measles deaths was caused by the virus.
• Pennsylvania reported two deaths involving unvaccinated individuals who tested positive for measles. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. questioned the reports and suggested they may have been fabricated, while state officials have stood by their findings.
• The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), under newly confirmed Director Dr. Erica Schwartz, did not include the deaths in its national tally, stating that available information does not establish whether measles caused or contributed to them. Public health experts described CDC’s public challenge of a state’s reporting as highly unusual.

Why it matters for public health:

• Pennsylvania’s outbreak continues to grow, with nearly 500 cases and 87 hospitalizations reported as of August 31. The dispute highlights the importance of consistent disease surveillance, transparent communication, and strong federal-state partnerships during outbreaks.
• The disagreement also comes as childhood vaccination rates remain below pre-pandemic levels. ASPPH continues to emphasize the importance of evidence-based vaccine recommendations and clear, trusted public health communication to prevent measles and other vaccine-preventable diseases.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved updated COVID-19 vaccines targeting the XFG variant for the 2026–27 respiratory virus season. The approvals generally cover adults 65 and older and younger people with conditions that increase their risk of severe illness.

 What’s happening:

• Updated vaccines from Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, and Novavax have been approved, with eligibility varying by product. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has not yet issued recommendations for this year’s vaccines.
• Meanwhile, the American Medical Association (AMA) and several other leading medical organizations issued separate guidance recommending COVID-19 vaccination for nearly all age and risk groups, going beyond current federal guidance.
• In another development ahead of the 2026–27 respiratory virus season, the FDA approved mFLUSIVA, Moderna’s first mRNA-based influenza vaccine, for adults ages 50 to 64, with accelerated approval for adults 65 and older.

Why it matters for public health:

• The differing recommendations could create confusion for patients and providers as updated vaccines become available this fall, particularly around eligibility, access, and insurance coverage.
• The developments highlight the growing role of medical and public health organizations in providing independent, evidence-based vaccine guidance as federal vaccination policy continues to change.

A series of high-profile food recalls and outbreaks this summer, including Cyclospora, Salmonella, and E. coli, has renewed attention on the nation’s food safety infrastructure. While the total number of recalls remains within historical ranges, several outbreaks have been unusually large, including a Cyclospora outbreak linked to iceberg lettuce that sickened more than 10,000 people, hospitalized hundreds, and caused at least two deaths.

 What’s happening:

• Recent recalls have involved products including lettuce, eggs, jalapeños, blueberries, and mangoes. 
• Experts caution that this does not necessarily mean outbreaks are more frequent overall. Instead, some have been larger and more difficult to control, placing greater strain on already stretched federal, state, and local public health systems.
• Changes to surveillance programs also remain under scrutiny. FoodNet reduced active reporting requirements for several pathogens, including Cyclospora, while administration officials have maintained that recent federal cuts have not impaired outbreak response.

Why it matters for public health:

• Public health experts have raised concerns that workforce reductions and funding cuts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and state health departments could weaken outbreak investigation, surveillance, traceback, and sustained response capacity. 
• Continued investment in surveillance, laboratory capacity, research, and the public health workforce will be critical to protecting the nation’s increasingly complex food supply.

According to recent reporting by Politico, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is undergoing a significant workforce transformation, with fewer career employees and a growing number of political appointees. The changes come as the department seeks to rebuild parts of its workforce following substantial staffing reductions across agencies including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and National Institutes of Health (NIH).

 What’s happening:

• HHS staffing declined 22% between January 2025 and May 2026, while the number of non-Senate-confirmed political appointees increased. HHS says the restructuring is intended to reduce duplication, improve coordination, and advance the administration’s health priorities.
• Hiring has not yet kept pace with departures. The department made about 3,250 new hires between January 2025 and May 2026, compared with nearly 11,800 during the same period under the previous administration.

Why it matters for academic public health:

• The loss of career staff and senior leaders has affected institutional expertise and federal capacity in areas including research administration, grantmaking, disease surveillance, regulatory science, and emergency response. HHS maintains that its restructuring will create a more effective workforce focused on departmental priorities.
• The changes may also affect the public health workforce pipeline and research funding. Academic leaders have raised serious concerns that reduced stability in federal employment could make government careers less attractive to graduates and researchers, with potential long-term implications for recruiting and retaining public health expertise.

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.