Former Health and Human Services Director Xavier Becerra criticized the Trump administration’s recently unveiled “Skinny Budget,” labeling it more of a “demolition plan” than a true budget proposal.
In this proposal, President Trump suggested cutting $33.3 billion, which amounts to a 26.2% reduction of HHS’s discretionary budget. These cuts would affect various areas, including a $3.6 billion reduction for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, an $18 billion cut to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and a $674 million decrease for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services program management.
Becerra expressed his concerns by stating, “This is not a budget proposal — it’s a demolition plan. These massive cuts to NIH funding and significant reductions in public health research threaten our nation’s capacity to tackle diseases, foster medical innovations, and provide essential care for millions of Americans,” as he mentioned on X, the social media platform.
Additionally, last month, he announced his campaign for Governor of California, drawing on his experience as HHS secretary and his history of confronting Trump during his time as California Attorney General.
The Oval Office proposed funding cuts for various programs, arguing that they supported “DEI” and “Radical Gender Ideology.”
Interestingly, the only health initiative set to receive discretionary funding in this plan is the Make America Healthy (MAHA) committee, led by HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., which would have a $500 million budget.
In the last budget finalized under the Biden administration, HHS received $127 billion in discretionary funding. Biden’s team had requested $130.7 billion for discretionary budgetary authority.
In contrast, the Trump budget proposal would allot HHS $93.8 billion in discretionary funds.
Senator Susan Collins from Maine was one of the Republicans questioning these budget cuts, particularly pointing out the impacts on the low-income housing energy assistance program overseen by HHS, noting her concerns about the implications for “supporting biomedical research.”
