Congress Resists RFK Jr.'s $16B HHS Budget Cuts for FY 2027

Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has spent the past week defending his proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2027 before lawmakers on Capitol Hill. However, the overwhelming response from Congress has been one of strong opposition.

The proposed budget calls for a 12.5% reduction in HHS spending compared to FY 2026 levels, equating to a cut of $15.8 billion. The most significant programmatic reduction targets the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which would face a $5 billion decrease in funding, bringing its total budget to approximately $41 billion. This reduction would also shrink the number of NIH institutes and centers from 27 to 22.

Other major proposals include the elimination of the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), saving $4 billion, and the consolidation of multiple health offices into a new entity called the Administration for a Healthy America (AHA), projected to save an additional $5 billion.

Kennedy defended the reorganization efforts during a Senate Health, Labor, and Pensions Committee hearing on Wednesday. He stated that upon taking office, HHS was plagued by inefficiencies, including:

• Nine separate offices for women's health
• Eight separate offices for minority health
• 27 separate HIV programs
• 59 behavioral health programs
• 40 separate opioid programs
• 42 maternal health programs
• 41 chief information officers
• 100 communications offices
• 40 procurement departments
• Dozens of IT departments

Kennedy argued that these departments were not coordinating effectively, creating a "target-rich environment" for reorganization to improve efficiency.

Lawmakers Criticize Proposed Cuts

Despite Kennedy's rationale, several lawmakers have publicly criticized the proposed budget reductions. Sen. Patty Murray (D–Wash.) warned that cutting NIH funding would result in "delayed cures…cancelled studies…[and] no hope for patients who are fighting for their lives."

Rep. Richard Neal (D–Mass.) told Kennedy last week that "the cuts that are being proposed to these initiatives are not helpful to the American family."

Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D–Conn.), ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee, firmly stated, "We are not going to do that," in response to the proposed spending cuts.

Debate Over Federal Health Spending

The opposition to Kennedy's proposed cuts reflects a longstanding debate over the role of federal spending in public health. Critics argue that reduced funding will lead to worse health outcomes, while supporters of the cuts contend that many HHS programs lack evidence of effectiveness.

"Every time someone advocates a government activity…they say this is going to save lives. Almost never do they provide evidence establishing that."
— Michael Cannon, Director of Health Policy Studies at the Cato Institute

Cannon further argued that "very little that HHS does…is morally defensible, constitutional, and net beneficial to society."

Historically, federally funded research has not always been the primary driver of medical advancements. Before World War II, the federal government financed only about one-fifth of the nation's research and development. During that time, the private sector led successful initiatives, including the development of a yellow fever vaccine.

Today, the private sector continues to play a significant role in research and development, contributing to breakthroughs in stem cell research and treatments for diseases such as pancreatic cancer. However, HHS has expanded its involvement in public health over time, coinciding with a rise in the national debt.