Recent developments at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) have sparked widespread concern among health experts, policymakers, and philanthropic organizations. Administration actions have resulted in staff purges, significant budget cuts across various health sectors, and the dismantling of key public health programs.
In a recent report, it was highlighted that the damage includes layoffs and restructuring efforts affecting crucial research on diseases like Alzheimer’s, cancer, and HIV/AIDS, alongside reductions in health data collection, tobacco control, gun safety, sexual assault prevention, and opioid response initiatives. Additionally, state and local health departments, which form the backbone of the nation’s public health infrastructure, face severe funding cuts.
Notably, programs supporting vulnerable populations such as seniors through Meals on Wheels and early childhood education initiatives like Head Start are also under threat. The entire staff at the office responsible for providing heating assistance to low-income Americans was dismissed, and a prolonged women’s health study was abruptly canceled.
Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., in interviews, admitted a lack of awareness regarding some of these cuts—a concerning lapse for the leader of the agency responsible for public health. Meanwhile, he has shown support for vaccine skeptics with questionable credentials while dismissing internal experts, leading to criticism from former officials such as Peter Marks, a vaccine regulatory authority, who alleged that Kennedy’s leadership promotes misinformation.
Philanthropic leaders have responded with various strategies. Cara James, CEO of Grantmakers in Health, emphasized the importance of diversifying funding sources, supporting nonprofits, and mobilizing communication efforts to shed light on the crisis. Several foundations, including the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, have publicly condemned the dismantling efforts. Richard Besser, its president, described the situation as “the cruelest and most systematic dismantling” of the U.S. healthcare system he has witnessed.
Other organizations like the California Wellness Foundation have pointed out that the repercussions extend beyond federal borders, jeopardizing community-based services that serve vulnerable populations. Richard Tate, its CEO, noted that immediate impacts are visible but warned of long-term devastation. He urged foundations to increase support for community organizations and raise public awareness about the moral failure of withdrawing essential health funding.
Despite these efforts, critics argue that philanthropy’s response remains slow and somewhat fragmented. Gregg Gonsalves of Yale has called for a more proactive approach, criticizing the silence of many large funders and contrasting this with the strategic funding practices of conservative foundations supporting policies contrary to public health interests.
As the crisis unfolds, the role of philanthropy appears to be more critical than ever. The sector’s ability to act swiftly and effectively could determine the future resilience of America’s public health system. As Richard Tate summarized, “It’s about moving from serving small interests to supporting collective well-being.”
Comments are closed