The Latest on How APHA Is Protecting Public Health (as of March 9, 2026)

APHA and other leading public health organizations sue EPA over repeal of the Endangerment Finding stating climate pollution is a threat to public health and well-being

On Feb. 18, APHA, the American Lung Association and a broad coalition of health and environmental organizations sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency over its illegal determination that it is not responsible for protecting the public from climate pollution, and for its elimination of rules to cut the tailpipe pollution fueling the climate crisis and harming people’s health. EPA’s determination rescinds the 2009 Endangerment Finding, which found that climate pollution is a threat to public health and welfare. The finding supported common-sense safeguards to cut climate pollution, including from cars and trucks. In addition, the proposal would allow the agency to eliminate the clean vehicle standards, which were set to deliver the single biggest cut to carbon pollution in U.S. history and save lives. In its repeal, the Trump administration is rehashing legal arguments that the Supreme Court already considered and rejected in 2024 case Massachusetts v. EPA. 

In filing the lawsuit, APHA’s CEO, Georges C. Benjamin, MD, stated, “Ignoring the scientific evidence of the threat climate pollution poses to the health of all of us sends a very wrong message to communities across the nation and around the world. EPA has a duty to consider the well-being and safety of all, and the science is clear; climate change and air pollution threaten everyone’s health. To reverse course now, and to also repeal limits on climate pollution from vehicles, puts everyone in the country at risk of experiencing serious and preventable harm. It also weakens our nation’s ability to address the severe health impacts caused by climate change.”

Also joining APHA in the lawsuit are the Alliance of Nurses for a Healthy Environment, Environmental Defense Fund, the Natural Resources Defense Council and others. APHA and other health organizations are represented in the case by counsel at the Clean Air Task Force.

APHA urges EPA to follow the science in its review of the evidence on fluoride in drinking water

On Feb. 24, APHA submitted comments to the EPA on its proposal, “Review of Science on Fluoride in Drinking Water: Preliminary Assessment Plan and Literature Survey.” In the comments, APHA highlighted that, thanks in large part to community water fluoridation, half of all U.S. children ages 5 to 17 have never had a cavity in their permanent teeth. Fluoride is nature’s cavity fighter and is naturally occurring in all water sources. APHA encouraged EPA to consider the latest population studies and include the benefits of optimal fluoride concentrations in the assessment. 

APHA noted concern over EPA’s heavy reliance on the National Toxicology Program Monograph on Fluoride and Neurocognition. The EPA Assessment Plan states that neurodevelopmental effects are a “well-established” hazard. This wording is derived from the NTP report, which examined fluoride at levels beyond the typical U.S. recommended levels of 0.7 mg/L. APHA believes it is both erroneous and misleading to state that there are “well-established” hazards of a chemical based on a report that examines levels of the chemical that exceed the national norm. In fact, the NTP report found only an association with fluoride levels above 1.5 mg/L, which occur naturally in countries such as China and India. APHA also noted that the NTP report, on which the EPA assessment relies, failed peer review by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine on multiple occasions in 2020 and 2021. 

APHA strongly urged EPA to allow NASEM to review and provide feedback on its assessment plan and toxicity assessment before the agency releases any new policy change related to fluoride in U.S. drinking water supplies.

APHA submits comments to CMS on Medicaid and Medicare coverage for transgender care

On Feb. 17, APHA joined a national group of more than 120 deans and scholars from schools of public health in submitting comments to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services on two proposed rules that would limit coverage for transgender care under the Medicare and Medicaid programs. 

The first proposal, “Hospital Condition of Participation: Prohibiting Sex-Rejecting Procedures for Children” (CMS-3481-P; RIN 0938-AV73), would bar any hospital from participating in Medicare and Medicaid if it provides puberty-pausing medications, hormone therapy, or surgery for transgender youth under the age of 18. In their comments to CMS, APHA and the public health leaders state that the CMS proposal violates the Constitution, Medicare and Medicaid statutes, and the Administrative Procedure Act, infringing on certain powers reserved to Congress and the states. CMS is proposing this rule without sufficient evaluation of the significant negative impact that restricting access to this necessary, life-saving healthcare will have on individual health, community health and state economies. For these reasons, APHA and the public health leaders urged CMS to withdraw the proposed rule.

The second proposal, “Medicaid Program; Prohibition on Federal Medicaid Funding for Sex-Rejecting Procedures Furnished to Children” (RIN 0938-AV73; CMS-2451-P), would prohibit federal Medicaid funds from covering gender affirming care for transgender youth under the age of 18, including puberty-pausing medications, hormone therapy and surgery, and Children’s Health Insurance Program funds from covering that care for transgender young people under the age of 19. In their comments to CMS, APHA and public health leaders state that the proposed rule exceeds CMS’s statutory authority and infringes on certain powers reserved to Congress and the states. If finalized as proposed, the rule would violate various aspects of federal Medicaid law, including the requirement to provide medically necessary care under the Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic and Treatment requirement and Medicaid’s comparability requirement. CMS is proposing this rule without sufficient evaluation of the significant negative impact that restricting access to this necessary, life-saving health care will have on individual and community health. For these reasons, APHA and the public health leaders urged CMS to withdraw the proposed rule. 

House Agriculture Committee begins Farm Bill markup process

On Mar. 3 and 4, the House Committee on Agriculture held a markup for H.R. 7567, the Farm, Food, and National Security Act of 2026, marking the beginning of this year’s process to pass a Farm Bill. The last fully-passed Farm Bill, the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, expired in 2023 but has been extended one year at a time since then. Most recently, the Farm Bill expired in September 2025 and remained expired until a continuing resolution in November extended it, again, through September 2026. These continued short-term extensions harm the farmers, nutrition programs and other stakeholders that depend on the Farm Bill by delaying much-needed updates to included programs and forcing uncertainty into continued funding. Unfortunately, the draft bill marked up by the committee fails to make some much-needed adjustments that communities need; specifically, the bill does not restore the SNAP funding cut in the so-called “One Big Beautiful Bill Act.” Cuts to the SNAP program are estimated at $186 billion over 10 years, which would have dire impacts on the 42 million people who rely on the program. Democrats in the committee introduced amendments to the bill that would reverse these harmful SNAP cuts and remove the work requirements imposed on the program, but nutrition policy experts agree that a bipartisan path forward on the current bill is unlikely. 

APHA will continue to monitor the progress of Farm Bill negotiations and advocate for strengthened funding for SNAP and other safety net nutrition programs that fight hunger and help Americans access nutritious food.

APHA endorses hate crime reporting legislation

In February, APHA endorsed H.R. 2588 / S.3724, the Improving Reporting to Prevent Hate Act. The bills, introduced by Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA) and Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI), would create a federal process at the Department of Justice to assess whether local jurisdictions are reporting credible data on hate crimes. If a lack of reporting is found from a certain area, that locality would be required to improve systems for hate crime incident reporting and conduct community education and hate crime awareness initiatives to maintain eligibility for certain federal funding allocations. Currently, hate crime reporting to the FBI is voluntary, with more than 80% of agencies reporting zero hat e crimes and thousands of jurisdictions not reporting any data at all. Standardized federal reporting would allow research into hate crime trends and a better understanding of how to prevent hate crimes in the first place. In her press release on the bill’s introduction, Sen. Hirono said, “By strengthening reporting and tracking of these incidents, we can better work to prevent these events from taking place and keep our communities safe. Violence and hatred have no place in our country, and I will continue to do everything I can to prevent hate crimes and hold those responsible for these acts accountable.”

APHA submits comments in support of federal recognition of public health degrees

On Mar. 2, APHA submitted comments to the U.S. Department of Education supporting the recognition of public health degrees as federally-recognized professional degrees. Last July, the DOE published a proposed rule regarding implementation of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Groups noted concern that the rule did not clearly include Master in Public Health (MPH) and Doctor in Public Health (DrPH) programs in the list of federally recognized professional programs. Unfortunately, this would impact factors like access to financial aid for public health students and ultimately threaten the future public health workforce. The rule also overlooks the fact that professional public health degrees are accredited by the Council on Education for Public Health, which is formally recognized by the U.S. Department of Education as the accrediting body for academic public health. The new comments urge DOE to expand the list of recognized professional degrees to include MPH and DrPH degrees, provide clear guidance on loan limit changes, and hire adequate federal staff to support implementation. The comments make clear that these changes are critical for building a robust public health workforce that can protect the nation’s health.

Watch: Making sense of the buzzwords and protecting public health

You’ve probably heard the buzzwords — "Big Beautiful Bill," "Reconciliation," "FY 2025," "FY 2026," "Rescission Package." What do these terms mean, and how could they impact public health funding in your community?

Watch: When Cutting Costs, Costs Health: What You Need to Know about Federal Policy Changes

In June and July, the U.S. Congress passed two large bills that formally upend decades of public health work in the U.S. and abroad. To pay for tax cuts, Congress - with pressure from the President - changed eligibility criteria for Medicaid, SNAP, and codified funding cuts for global health and democracy programs and public broadcasting.