On March 24, 2025, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) terminated $11 billion in funding used to strengthen public health programs. These funds were originally appropriated by Congress during the COVID-19 pandemic to address pandemic-specific issues, including access to COVID tests and vaccines, in addition to broader public health issues, such as investments in data moderation, epidemiology, infection control and mitigation, public health workforce development, and substance abuse prevention.1
To explain their rationale behind the funding cut, HHS said, “The COVID-19 pandemic is over, and HHS will no longer waste billions of taxpayer dollars responding to a non-existent pandemic that Americans moved on from years ago.” The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) sent similar mass termination notices, stating that because the pandemic has ended, “the grants and cooperative agreements are no longer necessary as their limited purpose has run out.” All notices sent to state health departments set the termination date of the award as the date of the notice.2
On April 1, 2025, 23 states and Washington, D.C., filed a lawsuit against HHS. They used the same justification as similar lawsuits, such as those against freezing funds tied to the Inflation Reduction Act and the general funding freeze from January of this year. The plaintiffs assert the public health terminations “exceed [the federal government’s] statutory and regulatory authority and are unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).” They also allege the terminations violate the APA because they are “arbitrary and capricious” for:
- Assuming that all appropriations in COVID-19-related laws were solely intended to be used during the duration of the pandemic,
- Terminating all programs rather than assessing each grant and cooperative agreement before making the decision to terminate the program, and
- Failing to consider the consequences to constituent health if services are terminated.3
This lawsuit differs from similar lawsuits in that it includes the logic that while the COVID-19 pandemic was a component to these public health funds, a second, potentially larger, component is that these appropriations “sought to address challenges facing American society in COVID-19’s wake, including gaps in the public health system.”4
The plaintiff states filed a request for an emergency temporary restraining order, a legal tool used to prevent the implementation and enforcement of a decision while the court decides the legality of the decision.
The team at Forvis Mazars will continue to monitor legislative updates related to this executive order. For more information or questions, please reach out to one of our professionals.