A U.S. District Court judge has temporarily blocked the Trump administration’s plan to cut over $1.5 billion in public health grants to several states, a move that comes after lawsuits were filed challenging the cuts. The grants, totaling $602 million for California, Colorado, Illinois, and Minnesota, were slated to be terminated, along with an additional $943 million from the Department of Transportation, effective February 11, 2026.
Temporary Restraining Order Issued
On , a judge in Illinois granted a temporary restraining order reinstating the $602 million in public health grants. This action halts the cuts for a period of 14 days, providing a window for further legal proceedings. A similar order is expected to be issued in Rhode Island, blocking broader cuts impacting numerous states, according to reporting from the Associated Press.
The Cuts and the Response
The cuts were initially reported by the New York Post on . An HHS spokesperson justified the decision by stating that the grants “do not reflect agency priorities.” This explanation has been met with strong opposition from the affected states, who argue the funds were already allocated and are essential for maintaining public health infrastructure.
The states filed lawsuits seeking to reinstate the funding, arguing that the administration’s actions were unwarranted and detrimental to public health. Minnesota’s Commissioner of Health, Brooke A. Cunningham, MD, PhD, MA, stated in a press release, “There is simply no need or valid justification for these targeted cuts that put Minnesotans at risk.” She further highlighted that these cuts, along with other reductions in public health funding, demonstrate a “total disregard for promoting health and wellbeing.”
Impact on Public Health Programs
The largest portion of the impacted funding comes from the Public Health Infrastructure Grant (PHIG) program, which has distributed over $5 billion to health departments across the country since 2022. While the program is slated to expire in November 2027, the immediate termination of funds for California, Colorado, Illinois, and Minnesota threatens ongoing public health initiatives.
In Minnesota, the CDC canceled $38 million in PHIG funding, which was being used for staffing, emergency preparedness, and improvements to local public health services. Colorado is facing the potential loss of $22 million in unspent PHIG funds. California and Illinois could lose over $100 million collectively. Beyond PHIG, Colorado also received notices of termination for grants supporting STI surveillance, prevention, and control, as well as HIV behavioral surveillance.
Jill Hunsaker Ryan, MPH, executive director of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, emphasized the importance of these programs, stating they support “core public health functions, including disease surveillance, testing capacity, workforce staffing and partnerships that help prevent and control HIV and other sexually transmitted infections.”
Concerns Regarding HIV Prevention
The cuts have also raised concerns about their potential impact on HIV prevention efforts. Anna K. Person, MD, FIDSA, chair of the HIV Medicine Association, called the cuts “deeply troubling,” noting that many of the affected grants support access to HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), a critical tool in preventing the spread of the virus. She stated that these programs are central to the administration’s own goals of ending the HIV epidemic.
Legal Challenges and Next Steps
The lawsuits filed by the states argue that the administration’s actions are unlawful and exceed its authority. The temporary restraining orders provide a brief reprieve, but the legal battle is expected to continue. The judge in Rhode Island, Mary McElroy, appointed by President Trump in 2019 but initially nominated by President Obama, indicated a strong likelihood of granting a broader temporary restraining order sought by 23 states and the District of Columbia. New York Attorney General Letitia James stated that her office will continue the lawsuit to ensure states can provide necessary medical services.
The situation remains fluid, and the long-term impact of these proposed cuts on public health remains to be seen. The legal challenges will likely determine whether these funds are ultimately restored and whether the administration can proceed with its plans to redirect resources away from these critical public health programs.
