The Trump administration has declared that it will aggressively combat chronic disease in America.

Yet in its feverish purge of federal health programs, it has proposed eliminating the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion and its annual funding of $1.4 billion.

That’s one of many disconnects between what the administration says about health — notably, in the “MAHA Report” that President Donald Trump recently presented at the White House — and what it’s actually doing, scientists and public health advocates say.

Among other contradictions:

• The report says more research is needed on health-related topics such as chronic diseases and the cumulative effects of chemicals in the environment. But the Trump administration’s mass cancellation of federal research grants to scientists at universities, including Harvard, has derailed studies on those subjects.
• The report denounces industry-funded research on chemicals and health as widespread and unreliable. But the administration is seeking to cut government funding that could serve as a counterweight.
• The report calls for “fearless gold-standard science.” But the administration has sowed widespread fear in the scientific world that it is out to stifle or skew research that challenges its desired conclusions.

“There are many inconsistencies between rhetoric and action,” said Alonzo Plough, chief science officer at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, a philanthropy focused on health.

The report, a cornerstone of President Donald Trump’s “Make America Healthy Again” agenda, was issued by a commission that includes Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and other top administration officials.

News organizations found that it footnoted nonexistent sources and contained signs that it was produced with help from artificial intelligence. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt described the problems as “formatting issues,” and the administration revised the report.

Trump ordered the report to assess causes of a “childhood chronic disease crisis.” His commission is now working on a plan of action.

Spokespeople for the White House and Department of Health and Human Services did not respond to questions for this article.

Studies Derailed

The MAHA report says environmental chemicals may pose risks to children’s health. Citing the National Institutes of Health, it said there’s a “need for continued studies from the public and private sectors, especially the NIH, to better understand the cumulative load of multiple exposures and how it may impact children’s health.”

Meanwhile, the administration has cut funding for related studies.

For example, in 2020 the Environmental Protection Agency asked scientists to propose ways of researching children’s exposure to chemicals from soil and dust. It said that, for kids ages 6 months to 6 years, ingesting particulates — by putting their hands on the ground or floor then in their mouths — could be a significant means of exposure to contaminants such as herbicides, pesticides, and a group of chemicals known as PFAS.

One of the grants — for almost $1.4 million over several years — went to a team of scientists at Johns Hopkins University and the University of California-San Francisco. Researchers gained permission to collect samples from people’s homes, including dust and diapers.

But, beyond a small test run, they didn’t get to analyze the urine and stool samples because the grant was terminated this spring, said study leader Keeve Nachman, a professor of environmental health and engineering at Hopkins.

“The objectives of the award are no longer consistent with EPA funding priorities,” the agency said in a May 10 termination notice.

Another EPA solicitation from 2020 addressed many of the issues the MAHA report highlighted: cumulative exposures to chemicals and developmental problems such as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, obesity, anxiety, and depression. One of the resulting grants funded the Center for Early Life Exposures and Neurotoxicity at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. That grant was ended weeks early in May, said the center’s director, Stephanie Engel, a UNC professor of epidemiology.

In a statement, EPA press secretary Brigit Hirsch said the agency “is continuing to invest in research and labs to advance the mission of protecting human health and the environment.” Due to an agency reorganization, “the way these grants are administered will be different going forward,” said Hirsch, who did not otherwise answer questions about specific grants.

In its battle with Harvard, the Trump administration has stopped paying for research the NIH had commissioned on topics such as how autism might be related to paternal exposure to air pollution.

The loss of millions of dollars of NIH funding has also undermined data-gathering for long-term research on chronic diseases, Harvard researchers said. A series of projects with names like Nurses’ Health Study II and Nurses’ Health Study 3 have been tracking thousands of people for decades and aimed to keep tracking them as long as possible as well as enrolling new participants, even across generations.

The work has included periodically surveying participants — mainly nurses and other health professionals who enrolled to support science — and collecting biological samples such as blood, urine, stool, or toenail clippings.

Researchers studying health problems such as autism, ADHD, or cancer could tap the data and samples to trace potential contributing factors, said Francine Laden, an environmental epidemiologist at Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health. The information could retrospectively reveal exposures before people were born — when they were still in utero — and exposures their parents experienced before they were conceived.

Harvard expected that some of the grants wouldn’t be renewed, but the Trump administration brought ongoing funding to an abrupt end, said Walter Willett, a professor of epidemiology and nutrition at the Chan school.

As a result, researchers are scrambling to find money to keep following more than 200,000 people who enrolled in studies beginning in the 1980s — including children of participants who are now adults themselves — and to preserve about 2 million samples, Willett said.

“So now our ability to do exactly what the administration wants to do is jeopardized,” said Jorge Chavarro, a professor of nutrition and epidemiology at the Chan school. “And there’s not an equivalent resource. It’s not like you can magically recreate these resources without having to wait 20 or 30 years to be able to answer the questions” that the Trump administration “wants answered now.”

Over the past few months, the administration has fired or pushed out almost 5,000 NIH employees, blocked almost $3 billion in grant funding from being awarded, and terminated almost 2,500 grants totaling almost $5 billion, said Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), vice chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, at a June 10 hearing on the NIH budget.

In addition, research institutions have been waiting months to receive money under grants they’ve already been awarded, Murray said.

In canceling hundreds of grants with race, gender, or sexuality dimensions, the administration engaged in blatant discrimination, a federal judge ruled on June 16.

Cutting Funding

After issuing the MAHA report, the administration published budget proposals to cut funding for the NIH by $17.0 billion, or 38%, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention by $550 million, or 12%, and the EPA by $5 billion, or 54%.

“This budget reflects the President’s vision of making Americans the healthiest in the world while achieving his goal of transforming the bureaucracy,” the HHS “Budget in Brief” document says. Elements of Trump’s proposed budget for the 2026 fiscal year clash with priorities laid out in the MAHA report.

Kennedy has cited diabetes as part of a crisis in children’s health. The $1.4 billion unit the White House has proposed to eliminate at the CDC — the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion — has housed a program to track diabetes in children, adolescents, and young adults.

“To say that you want to focus on chronic diseases” and then “to, for all practical purposes, eliminate the entity at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention which does chronic diseases,” said Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association, “obviously doesn’t make a lot of sense.”

In a May letter, Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought listed the chronic disease center as “duplicative, DEI, or simply unnecessary,” using an abbreviation for diversity, equity, and inclusion programs.

Within the NIH, the White House has proposed cutting $320 million from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, a reduction of 35%. That unit funds or conducts a wide array of research on issues such as chronic disease.

Trump’s budget proposes spending $500 million “to tackle priority activities to Make America Healthy Again,” including $260 million for his new Administration for a Healthy America to address the “chronic illness epidemic.”

Ceding Ground to Industry

The MAHA report argues that corporate influence has compromised government agencies and public health through “corporate capture.”

It alleges that most research on chronic childhood diseases is funded by the food, pharmaceutical, and chemical industries, as well as special interest organizations and professional associations. It says, for example, that a “significant portion of environmental toxicology and epidemiology studies are conducted by private corporations,” including pesticide manufacturers, and it cites “potential biases in industry-funded research.”

It’s “self-evident that cutbacks in federal funding leave the field open to the very corporate funding RFK has decried,” said Peter Lurie, president of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a watchdog group focused on food and health.

Lurie shared the report’s concern about industry-funded research but said ceding ground to industry won’t help. “Industry will tend to fund those studies that look to them like they will yield results beneficial to industry,” he said.

In search of new funding sources, Harvard’s school of public health “is now ramping up targeted outreach to potential corporate partners, with careful review to ensure the science meets the highest standards of research integrity,” Andrea Baccarelli, dean of the school’s faculty, wrote in a June 11 letter to students, faculty, and others.

“It’s just simple math that if you devastate governmental funding by tens of billions of dollars, then the percentage of industry funding dollars will go up,” said Plough, who is also a clinical professor at the University of Washington School of Public Health.

“So therefore, what they claim to fear more,” he said, will “become even more influential.”

The MAHA report says “the U.S. government is committed to fostering radical transparency and gold-standard science.”

But many scientists and other scholars see the Trump administration waging a war on science that conflicts with its agenda.

In March, members of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine accused the administration of “destroying” scientific independence, “engaging in censorship,” and “pressuring researchers to alter or abandon their work on ideological grounds.”

In May, NIH employees wrote that the administration was politicizing research — for example, by halting or censoring work on health disparities, health impacts of climate change, gender identity, and immunizations.

Recent comments by Kennedy pose another threat to transparency, researchers and health advocates say.

Kennedy said on a podcast that he would probably create in-house government journals and stop NIH scientists from publishing their research in The Lancet, The New England Journal of Medicine, The Journal of the American Medical Association, and others.

Creating new government outlets for research would be a plus, said Dariush Mozaffarian, director of the Food is Medicine Institute at the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University.

But confining government scientists to government journals, he said, “would be a disaster” and “would basically amount to censorship.”

“That’s just not a good idea for science,” Mozaffarian said.

We’d like to speak with current and former personnel from the Department of Health and Human Services or its component agencies who believe the public should understand the impact of what’s happening within the federal health bureaucracy. Please message KFF Health News on Signal at (415) 519-8778 or get in touch here.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The tax and spending legislation the House voted to send to President Donald Trump’s desk on Thursday, enacting much of his domestic agenda, cuts federal health spending by about $1 trillion over a decade in ways that will jeopardize the physical and financial health of tens of millions of Americans.

The bill, passed in both the House and the Senate without a single Democratic vote, is expected to reverse many of the health coverage gains of the Biden and Obama administrations. Their policies made it easier for millions of people to access health care and reduced the U.S. uninsured rate to record lows, though Republicans say the trade-off was far higher costs borne by taxpayers and increased fraud.

Under the legislation Trump’s expected to sign on Friday, Independence Day, reductions in federal support for Medicaid and Affordable Care Act marketplaces will cause nearly 12 million more people to be without insurance by 2034, the Congressional Budget Office estimates. That in turn is expected to undermine the finances of hospitals, nursing homes, and community health centers — which will have to absorb more of the cost of treating uninsured people. Some may reduce services and employees or close altogether.

Here are five ways the GOP’s plans may affect health care access.

Need Medicaid? Then Get a Job

The deepest cuts to health care spending come from a proposed Medicaid work requirement, which is expected to end coverage for millions of enrollees who do not meet new employment or reporting standards.

In 40 states and Washington, D.C., all of which have expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, some Medicaid enrollees will have to regularly file paperwork proving that they are working, volunteering, or attending school at least 80 hours a month, or that they qualify for an exemption, such as caring for a young child. The new requirement will start as early as January 2027.

The bill’s requirement doesn’t apply to people in the 10 largely GOP-led states that have not expanded Medicaid to nondisabled adults.

Health researchers say the policy will have little impact on employment. Most working-age Medicaid enrollees who don’t receive disability benefits already work or are looking for work, or are unable to do so because they have a disability, attend school, or care for a family member, according to KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.

State experiments with work requirements have been plagued with administrative issues, such as eligible enrollees’ losing coverage over paperwork problems, and budget overruns. Georgia’s work requirement, which officially launched in July 2023, has cost more than $90 million, with only $26 million of that spent on health benefits, according to the Georgia Budget & Policy Institute, a nonpartisan research organization.

“The hidden costs are astronomical,” said Chima Ndumele, a professor at the Yale School of Public Health.

Less Cash Means Less Care in Rural Communities

Belt-tightening that targets states could translate into fewer health services, medical professionals, and even hospitals, especially in rural communities.

The GOP’s plan curtails a practice, known as provider taxes, that nearly every state has used for decades to increase Medicaid payments to hospitals, nursing homes, and other providers and to private managed-care companies.

States often use the federal money generated through the taxes to pay the institutions more than Medicaid would otherwise pay. Medicaid generally pays lower fees for care than Medicare, the program for people over 65 and some with disabilities, and private insurance. But thanks to provider taxes, some hospitals are paid more under Medicaid than Medicare, according to the Commonwealth Fund, a health research nonprofit.

Hospitals and nursing homes say they use these extra Medicaid dollars to expand or add new services and improve care for all patients.

Rural hospitals typically operate on thin profit margins and rely on payments from Medicaid taxes to sustain them. Researchers from the Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research who examined the original House version of the bill concluded it would push more than 300 rural hospitals — many of them in Kentucky, Louisiana, California, and Oklahoma — toward service reductions or closure.

Republicans in the Senate tacked a $50 billion fund onto the legislation to cushion the blow to rural hospitals. The money will be distributed starting in 2027 and continue for five years.

Harder To Get, and Keep, ACA Coverage

For those with Obamacare plans, the new legislation will make it harder to enroll and to retain their coverage.

ACA marketplace policyholders will be required to update their income, immigration status, and other information each year, rather than be allowed to automatically reenroll — something more than 10 million people did this year. They’ll also have less time to enroll; the bill shortens the annual open enrollment period by about a month.

People applying for coverage outside that period — for instance because they lose a job or other insurance or need to add a newborn or spouse to an existing policy — will have to wait for all their documents to be processed before receiving government subsidies to help pay their monthly premiums. Today, they get up to 90 days of premium help during the application process, which can take weeks.

Republican lawmakers and some conservative policy think tanks, including the Paragon Health Institute, say the changes are needed to reduce fraudulent enrollments, while opponents say they represent Trump’s best effort to undo Obamacare.

The legislation also does not call for an extension of more generous premium subsidies put in place during the covid pandemic. If Congress doesn’t act, those enhanced subsidies will expire at year’s end, resulting in premiums rising by an average of 75% next year, according to KFF.

On Medicaid? Pay More To See Doctors

Many Medicaid enrollees can expect to pay more out-of-pocket for appointments.

Trump’s legislation requires states that have expanded Medicaid to charge enrollees up to $35 for some services if their incomes are between the federal poverty level (this year, $15,650 for an individual) and 138% of that amount ($21,597).

Medicaid enrollees often don’t pay anything when seeking medical services because studies have shown charging even small copayments prompts low-income people to forgo needed care. In recent years, some states have added charges under $10 for certain services.

The policy won’t apply to people seeking primary care, mental health care, or substance abuse treatment. The bill allows states to enact even higher cost sharing for enrollees who seek emergency room care for nonemergencies. But if Medicaid patients fail to pay, hospitals and other providers could be left to foot the bill.

Cuts for Lawfully Present Immigrants

The GOP plan could cause at least hundreds of thousands of immigrants who are lawfully present — including asylum-seekers, victims of trafficking, and refugees — to lose their ACA marketplace coverage by cutting off the subsidies that make premiums affordable. The restriction won’t apply to green-card holders.

Because the immigrants who will lose subsidies under the legislation tend to be younger than the overall U.S. population, their exit would leave an older, sicker, and costlier population of marketplace enrollees, further pushing up marketplace premiums, according to marketplace directors in California, Maryland, and Massachusetts and health analysts.

Taking health care access away from immigrants living in the country legally “will do irreparable harm to individuals we have promised to protect and impose unnecessary costs on local systems already under strain,” John Slocum, executive director of Refugee Council USA, an advocacy group, said in a statement.

The bill reflects the Trump administration’s restrictive approach to immigration. But because it ran afoul of Senate rules, the legislation doesn’t include a proposal that would have reduced federal Medicaid payments to states such as California that use their own money to cover immigrants without legal status.

KFF Health News chief Washington correspondent Julie Rovner contributed reporting.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).