On Tuesday, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. faced challenging inquiries from the Senate Budget Committee while justifying the significant cuts proposed in the Trump administration’s 2026 budget.
This marked Kennedy’s third Congressional budget hearing, and lawmakers from both parties expressed worries about the potential impact these cuts, including the halting of funding subsidies, would have on state programs.
The committee included all members, with some Republicans attempting to portray the budget changes as a means to eliminate waste and abuse, while others echoed Democratic concerns about the effects on biomedical research and programs for low-income families.
Here are three key points from Kennedy’s Senate hearing.
Research Funding Concerns
Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), who chaired the hearing, raised alarms about ensuring continued support for U.S. biomedical research. She emphasized the need for efficiency within HHS so institutions can adequately fund basic scientific inquiries. “We fear our nation is falling behind in biomedical research,” Capito remarked. “This is crucial for those wanting to invest in the field.”
Democrat Sen. Tammy Baldwin voiced her worry over the proposed cuts to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), asserting that reducing this budget would weaken the U.S.’s leadership in biomedical matters.
The proposed budget seeks to cut NIH funding by $18 billion, with claims that the agency is too large and unfocused, particularly highlighting its involvement in gain-of-function research.
During his opening address, Kennedy noted that HHS intends to support “cutting-edge research” at the NIH while pulling back from risky or non-essential projects.
In a heated exchange, Kennedy dismissed claims made by Democrats about funding reductions, questioning the validity of various cited cuts. For instance, Sen. Patty Murray pointed out numerous NIH grant and trial cancellations.
“Senator, I’m skeptical about that information,” Kennedy responded. “You’ve previously suggested cuts to clinical trials in your state, but it seems that wasn’t entirely accurate.”
Similarly, he challenged Sen. Dick Durbin’s (D-Ill.) comments regarding funding for ALS research.
Low-Income Energy Program Cuts Draw Attention
Trump’s budget also proposes cutting $4 billion from the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), labeling it as unnecessary. This program assists with energy costs for households, helping them manage things like heating and cooling bills, particularly during crisis situations. In 2023, around 5 million homes benefited from this heating support.
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), chair of the Budget Committee, labeled LIHEAP as “vital” for countless families and urged Kennedy to work to preserve it.
Kennedy shared that he understands the program’s importance from both personal experience and feedback from community leaders, like Navajo President Boo Niglen. Still, he maintained that the Trump administration believes the energy policy will ultimately make the program redundant, arguing that intended savings could simply benefit the fossil fuel sector.
Expected Scrutiny of Agricultural Practices
Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.) brought forward a report indicating that the Make America Healthy Commission plans to target modern U.S. agriculture and crop protection practices, which many depend on for sustenance.
The MAHA Committee’s findings are set to be released soon, raising concerns among farming groups about potential criticisms of agricultural methods that could negatively impact many Americans.
The American Farm Bureau Federation commented, stressing the need for scientifically guided practices and cautioning against policy recommendations based on unproven theories that could have severe repercussions.
Alan Meadows from the American Soybean Association mentioned he had heard speculation that the report might carry unfavorable implications for certain agricultural products.
“We believe those claims are unfounded,” Hyde-Smith remarked during her conversation with Kennedy, pointing out that the assessment should not undermine the established safety of EPA-approved products.
Kennedy argued against the rumors surrounding the MAHA report, stating that it does not reference any troubling details for farmers.
Nonetheless, Hyde-Smith urged Kennedy to ensure that the report is backed by substantial evidence, as vague claims could misinform the public regarding the safety of current agricultural practices.
