Four States Sue Administration Over Loss of Public Health Funds

The states, all led by Democrats, claim the cuts were intended as retribution and will harm efforts to control H.I.V. and other sexually transmitted infections.

Four states led by Democrats sued the Trump administration on Wednesday, aiming to halt deep cuts in federal public health funds that had already been allocated.

Some of the grants were intended to help specific populations, often communities of color or gay and bisexual men. The Trump administration has made it a priority to root out federal funding for work that it believes is “woke” — focused on diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.

On Monday, the Department of Health and Human Services informed Congress that it was planning to pull back roughly $600 million in funding to the four states: California, Colorado, Illinois and Minnesota.

The lawsuit claims the move was illegal and would “irreparably harm the states and are based on political animus.” The attorneys general of the four states filed a motion for a temporary restraining order to block the cuts from taking effect.

“President Trump is resorting to a familiar playbook,” Rob Bonta, the attorney general of California, said in a statement.

“He is using federal funding to compel states and jurisdictions to follow his agenda,” Mr. Bonta said. “Those efforts have all previously failed, and we expect that to happen once again.”

An H.H.S. spokesman said the grants had been terminated “because they do not reflect agency priorities.”

The grants were intended to help states hire workers, modernize data systems and manage disease outbreaks.

On Wednesday, the administration outlined more planned cuts, this time totaling about $183 million in unspent funds. The new list included block grants administered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for prevention of H.I.V. and other sexually transmitted infections.

Those grants were allocated to public health departments in the four states and to some cities within them, including Los Angeles and Chicago.

The grants “fund a core public health function that serves every single person in the state, city- or county-funded,” said Elizabeth Finley, interim director of National Coalition of S.T.D. Directors, an organization of state officials focused on sexually transmitted diseases.

“Every person benefits from the surveillance work that tracks infections and helps people understand their risk,” she said. “Every person is equally served by the availability of information or outbreak prevention services.”

In September, the Trump administration revised the C.D.C.’s priorities, saying the agency would no longer focus its efforts on specific communities. That approach “has not translated into measurable improved health for minority populations, and in many cases has undermined core American values,” the agency now says.

The administration may reinvest the funds into programs for H.I.V. and sexually transmitted infections, but this time without a focus on specific groups, said an administration official who was not authorized to speak publicly about the move.

To be effective, public health officials must focus their efforts on groups most affected by the diseases, said Jeremiah Johnson, executive director of the advocacy group Prep4All.

American companies understand that they need to tailor their messages using focus groups and marketing campaigns aimed at specific audiences, he noted, adding, “This isn’t any different from that.”

Related Content