Public Health Under Threat
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?
APHA's role in defending public health
APHA is fighting back. We remain steadfast in our efforts to challenge harmful policies, advocate for evidence-based approaches and defend the well-being of all Americans.
- Advocacy to protect public health
- Initiatives challenging threats to public health
- APHA speaks out in the news
APHA has been part of successful litigation and action challenging some of the biggest threats to public health. Read the latest testimony, comments and briefs and read all public letters to congress and federal agencies from APHA, including:
- Trump signs budget reconciliation bill that would slash health coverage, food benefits and roll back environmental protections.
- APHA issued a statement blasting the bill for the severe impacts it will have on public health. APHA also sent letters to all members of the House and Senate urging them to oppose the legislation.
- APHA and other health organizations sue HHS over unlawful vaccine changes.
- On July 7, APHA joined the American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Physicians, Infectious Diseases Society of America, Massachusetts Public Health Alliance, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, and a pregnant physician in filing a lawsuit in American Academy of Pediatrics v. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts to defend vaccine policy, and to put an end to the Secretary’s assault on science, public health and evidence-based medicine.
- Supreme Court rules in key public health cases.
- On July 8, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an emergency stay request from the Trump administration to stay the injunction two lower courts had approved in AFGE v. Trump that halted the unlawful reorganization of the federal government. The court’s decision permits the administration to continue with plans to restructure federal agencies using Agency Reductions in Force and Reorganization Plans, despite the absence of the required congressional authorization. The court specifically did not weigh in on the legality of the agency plans themselves. The case will continue, and counsel are considering next steps. The coalition bringing the case includes APHA, labor unions, non-profit organizations and cities and counties in California, Illinois, Maryland, Texas and Washington.
- APHA and more than 500 deans and scholars of public health submitted an amicus brief to the court in support of Medicaid recipients’ access to the important services provided by Planned Parenthood.
- APHA, other leading health organizations and leading deans and scholars of public health issued an amicus brief to the court in support of the ACA’s preventive services prior to the court’s decision.
- APHA joins letter urging protection of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.
- On July 9, APHA joined a letter to Congressional leaders urging them to protect the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Under the Affordable Care Act, insurers must provide cost-free coverage for preventive services that have been recommended by the USPSTF. This requirement has led to approximately 100 million people being able to receive preventive services like vaccinations and screenings for heart disease, cervical cancer, diabetes, and breast cancer, all without cost-sharing. After the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kennedy v. Braidwood Management, Inc., these services will continue to be covered without cost-sharing as recommended by the USPSTF. Unfortunately, many experts fear that HHS Secretary Kennedy is likely to fire members of the USPSTF and fill it with members hostile to its mission, like he did in June with the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. The letter sent to Congress stresses that loss of trust in the USPSTF would have devastating consequences for patients’ ability to access lifesaving and cost-effective care. The letter goes on to urge Congress to protect the USPSTF and its composition and processes, including limited four-year volunteer terms, staggered membership rotation, a membership consisting of primary care experts, rigorous vetting for conflicts of interest, an open member nominations process and scientific and public health input into all appointments.
- Tell EPA not to roll back critical rules to protect the public from power plant pollution.
- The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is proposing two rules that would repeal important limits on greenhouse gas emissions and other hazardous pollutants like mercury from the power sector. Tell EPA you oppose these rules and support maintaining the existing standards.